Midwest chassis
05-06-2012, 07:26 PM
#22
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dickson TN
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only reason I didn't put the arms of the lift on the sfcs was to get picsof them. I would have absolutely no problem using them as a Jack point or resting them.onstands.
Car feels more solid and tighter for sure. I've noticed that when I launch, the car has less "body roll " and launches alot more level then before.
Car feels more solid and tighter for sure. I've noticed that when I launch, the car has less "body roll " and launches alot more level then before.
05-06-2012, 09:17 PM
#24
I know it'd be overkill and a waste of money but with some very minor grinding, it looks like the other guy's boxed and tubular versions (UMI for example) would fit along side of these...
Either way, thanks for the pics - many of us have been waiting for pics of these for a while
Either way, thanks for the pics - many of us have been waiting for pics of these for a while
05-07-2012, 10:59 AM
#26
I know it'd be overkill and a waste of money but with some very minor grinding, it looks like the other guy's boxed and tubular versions (UMI for example) would fit along side of these...
Either way, thanks for the pics - many of us have been waiting for pics of these for a while
Either way, thanks for the pics - many of us have been waiting for pics of these for a while
There are a whole lot of cars running autox/road course and drag racers in the 7 second range without SFC being tied to the LCA mount. That's the hole issue here. Any sfc that is bolted/welded to the lca mount and runs alongside the rocker panel(strongest part of a uni-body car) is doing nothing for the chassis. If you look at the construction of the rear frame/lca mount area of the 82-02 f-body car the lca mount area is nowhere near the actual "subframe", so why would you attach a component to that part that isn't doing what it is intended to(or sold to you as).
05-07-2012, 11:12 AM
#27
Just want to say thanks to Midwest chassis for getting me in to install there subframe connectors on my car even though there pretty much slammed all the time by the way it looks. Eric and crew are some great guys for sure. All there products I was able to check out while I was there was absolutely awesome and quality was superior. Can't wait to get some more parts from you guys.
Talking with Eric about there fab 9' rears and all the extra time they take to include all the little things that make life alot easier for the costumer when installing there products was great. Anyone contemplating trying there products I wouldn't hesitate. Thanks guys!
EDIT FOR PICS:
Talking with Eric about there fab 9' rears and all the extra time they take to include all the little things that make life alot easier for the costumer when installing there products was great. Anyone contemplating trying there products I wouldn't hesitate. Thanks guys!
EDIT FOR PICS:
Thanks for the business and the pics!
05-16-2012, 08:13 PM
#31
Just not true from my experience (UMI 2-pt) -- I instantly notice my 'vert hooked better, was more predictable and cornered more as one car in turns.
Could your approach be better -- perhaps, but saying the UMI design does nothing is disingenuous from what I have felt.
Could your approach be better -- perhaps, but saying the UMI design does nothing is disingenuous from what I have felt.
There are a whole lot of cars running autox/road course and drag racers in the 7 second range without SFC being tied to the LCA mount. That's the hole issue here. Any sfc that is bolted/welded to the lca mount and runs alongside the rocker panel(strongest part of a uni-body car) is doing nothing for the chassis. If you look at the construction of the rear frame/lca mount area of the 82-02 f-body car the lca mount area is nowhere near the actual "subframe", so why would you attach a component to that part that isn't doing what it is intended to(or sold to you as).
05-24-2012, 10:27 AM
#33
