Don't let the ignorant fool you, the vert F body chassis is wildly different in the 4th gen than the HT/T-top one. GM did this before, even though the bean counters must have raised Hell. In 1977 GM downsized the B body line. Basically, cribbed the 60's A body but had wildly different frames for each of the models and divisions.
Base model Caprices got a 0.100" thick steel frame. Exact same frame for a Buick Roadmaster that was actually not the same, it was 0.110" thick. A thicker frame for just one model? Sounds like the 4th gen F body vert!
Really. The cop car Caprice, eventually the Impala SS and all the wagons got a 0.125" one. Bizarre? No, like the 4th gen vert, GM being never consistent GM. Sometimes the Fairy Godmother department intervenes, sometimes it doesn't.
The Cadillac (technically a D body but a distinction without a difference) got a 0.135" frame.
Wagons for towing got the 0.125" BOXED!
Try to buy a frame from GM today and none of the above is available except the cop car one, if any one can be found.
My point (the lame always want to know what my point is) is that most don't know about the different chassis' used by GM for same year F bodies nor the different frames of same year B bodies. Very arcane, but true. I've been asked why NO ONE ever wrote about all this before (same question 20 years ago on the ImpalaSSforums site. They beat you to it, maybe by as much as 25 years). I don't ever object to ignorance, after all, it is the human condition at birth. It's being insulted when I share the truth that pisses me off. As anyone should be pissed off by any version of that.

 

It's irrelevant. My mom had a 95 V6 vert. Hardly a high performance car. The car flexed so much the paint on the door sill wore down to bare metal in spots.

 

He's been evangelizing the convertible as being superior to hard top and T-Top cars in a couple of threads now with no actual evidence to back up the statement. Even if it was true, (when it isn't for any other muscle car in existence) it doesn't matter because the F-body is about as rigid as an open cardboard box and is an outdated design that requires a great deal of aftermarket parts to compete with stock cars like the 6th generation Camaro, Challenger and S550 Mustangs.

 

Yea that guy has KingTal0n vibes

 

Fact: the 3rd gen had no structural integrity, the 4th gen HT/T-Top was designed to be much more rigid, the 4th vert at the factory received many welded in frame connectors, floor reinforcement and K- frame braces no other F bodies ever did. The side-by-side photos I've posted in the thread "Does anyone even know that the 4th gen convertible even exists" clearly show how reinforced the vert is. Claims that I've shown "no actual evidence to back up the statement" is pure ****. The kind of lie the desperate use to discredit facts. He feels the need to disparage these facts, which is pathetic. Anyone who just looks at any photos off the net of the underside of both 4th gens will immediately see the truth. 91Z28 quoted: "He's been evangelizing the convertible as being superior to hard top and T-Top cars in a couple of threads now with no actual evidence to back up the statement." You quote an outright lie, as my previously posted photos prove. That's misleading to all here. I deliberately chose photos from the net so no one could suspect I was using my own cars. If you owned a 91 F, I understand how you might not know how improved all the 4th gens were, especially the convertibles.
wannafbody: You wrote of my other example of arcane GM knowledge being unknown to most: "it's irrelevant". Your mom's 95 v6 vert was a 3rd gen piece of overcooked pasta. True but irrelevant to my facts about the 4th gen vert. The B body example of 20+ years ago is not irrelevant because then as now ALMOST nobody knew the truth. It, and I, were well known on the site and that I had won one of the East Coast Impala Race series with my "lightest of all B frames" 96 Caprice. When I offered to bet $10,000 with anyone that I was right about the differences in the frames of B bodies, nobody put their money where their mouth was. Today I can tell you care about the truth (unlike some). The truth is the 4th gen vert is wildly more rigid than any f body built from 67-02. Fact. The photos prove it. Anyone who won't avail themselves of looking is not an honorable person. People can have integrity just like unibodies, and just as rarely.

 

It's concerning and, FWIW, we've also taken note of such. Hoping for a more positive outcome this time though.

This statement is confusing. A 1995 F-body is, in fact, a 4th gen - not 3rd. Are you stating that the improvements to the convertible 4th gen chassis only applied to the later 4th gens? I'm not sure if the above is just a mistake or if you're implying that early 4th gen 'verts did not receive the same reinforcements as the later 4th gens.

 

As I've written previously: 1998 was the triphammer year for GM doing the right thing. ALL verts from 67-97, 30 years of consistency, were saddled with a very weak chassis. (Including the 95) They all handled worse than their HT/T-Top cousins. For the start of the LS era, GM's Fairy Godmother Department insisted on a change. The 98 - 02 LS era. Possibly because of the added power of the LS.
Also previously written: "Please look at the photos." Although I did not post 93-97 vert photos, I did clearly state you would NOT find the OEM additional bracing on them that the 98-02 did have.
Another history lesson: In 1911 the US military adopted IQ tests for all inductees, no one with an IQ of less than 85 was allowed in by Congressional action. One of the first IQ tests was just two,very similar photographs, side by side. Inductee was given a short time to identify all the differences. At first it was observed that the more difference that could be identified, the higher the IQ. Then it was found that something emotional could effect the test. If for some reason (like religious) the subject did not want to see some differences, they wouldn't. Did not mean they were low IQ.
Is it possible here that some (unconsciously) don't want to see the differences in my two posted photos? Doesn't mean low IQ, but an emotional resistance to seeing the truth.

 

[QUOTE=RPM WS6;20516867]
It's concerning and, FWIW, we've also taken note of such. Hoping for a more positive outcome this time though.

"No one so blind as those who will not see"
RPM WS6 I challenge you personally, to look at the photos I've posted and then post what you see. Post how you can see the extensive OEM welded in additions only to the 98-02 vert and acknowledge they are all missing from the 98 HT photo. Please also access your own photos, publish any that are not the same as the ones I've posted. 98-02's only, though if you can find a 95 Vert photo for wannafbody I'd appreciate it. Post your own side by side comparisons of your photos. If you don't, you reveal your unwillingness for you and all here to see the truth you can post. THAT would be concerning.

 

You seem to have issues with reading comprehension and issues utilizing the quote system which makes your posts much harder to decipher. Lets address these things one by one. First off, I never said the convertible wasn't reinforced. It is clear that they are reinforced. Reinforcement of the floor pan of unibody convertibles is common practice as the designers are compensating for the loss of the roof structure. I showed video evidence of how the loss of a roof support of any kind causes problems. Reinforcing the underside of a unibody vehicle only alleviates this issue to a point. The 98-02 convertible F-bodies have a type of bracing not unlike the subframe connectors many of us install on hard top and T-Top cars. However, I disagree with your assertion that these make up entirely for the loss of a roof and make the convertible chassis stronger than that of a hard top car. You brought up the K-member braces which are bolted in and relatively thin. They are also in an area where I doubt they do a whole lot of good. If they did, we'd be making the same modifications to stock K-members on hard top and T-Top cars.

The fourth generation F-body convertible chassis is no doubt superior to that of F-body cars that came before it. No one is disputing that. However, you make a bold claim that the fourth generation convertible is the strongest and most rigid chassis, which makes the convertible car handle better than hard top and T-Top cars. This is what I disagree with. The fact that this is NOT the case with any other car design on the planet is pretty good evidence that your statement is false. I further noted that the fourth generation F-body was NOT designed from the ground up to be a convertible and like most convertibles, is a modification of a hard top design. You are deleting a significant structural component with contact points on the upper side of the unibody structure. It takes a great deal of reinforcement to compensate for this loss.

Next, you make an appeal to authority which is the equivalent of saying XYZ statement is true because: "Some authority says so, therefore it must be true." When I asked if he was a structural engineer, you pointed out the fact that he has raced F-body cars as if this qualifies him to change the oil on a car, much less understand how structural engineering works. He sells products for these cars which include subframe connectors. Sub-frame connectors were not something he invented, nor are his entirely unique designs. You assert that he must be trust worthy on the topic because he has nothing to gain by agreeing with you. You also never provided evidence he said what you claim he said. I'm not saying he didn't, but I'd further ask if he was an automotive engineer or a structural engineer who has worked in the automotive industry in a design capacity. I can find no evidence that he has. If he has and I'm wrong, so be it.

I simply find the assertion suspicious when your statement about the fourth generation F-body convertibles is not true for ANY other car design on the planet. It is a well known fact that convertibles have more chassis flex and handle worse than their hard top counterparts. As I pointed out, cars engineered to be convertibles first can reach parity with their hard top counterparts because their design does not rely on a roof for structural rigidity. This type of design philosophy is extremely rare in the automotive world and outside of possibly the Corvette, is usually limited to exotic cars costing 10x what a low mileage F-body cost and 7 or 8 times what these cars cost when brand new. When I made this comment, you replied by citing the Pontiac marketing brochure as evidence. These are made by marketing agencies and are NOT technical white papers or engineering documents that provide technical details or evidence to prove your case.

The statement literally says: "This drop top was designed from the ground up to be a convertible." You obviously have issues with reading comprehension because this statement does not imply that all fourth generation F-bodies were designed as convertibles first as you claim. It means that the convertible was designed to be a convertible. This is how marketing agencies convince people into thinking something that is favorable to their product without expressly telling a lie. They can lead you to make the wrong conclusion but cannot lie to you without risking being sued for false advertising. Using simple logic, I pointed out that if the F-body was designed as a convertible first, they would all be the same as the structure would not require a roof for its rigidity and that there was no convertible in 1993 when the chassis was designed. You've now stated that only the 98-02 F-bodies had the chassis reinforcement. This means that those modifications weren't part of the original design or they'd have been present in a 1993 convertible model which doesn't exist.

 

Your statements are similar to those of a televangelist from the 1980's. You spout rhetoric trying to prove your point but provide no evidence that your claims have any basis in fact. Furthermore, anything that proves you wrong is automatically a lie and you resort to calling people liars. This is attacking the character of the person making the argument and not the argument itself. One is acceptable behavior, the other is not.

You go on to say that even if you add sub-frame connectors that a hard top car would never be as rigid as the convertible which is incorrect. Looking at the reinforcement found on the convertible, I doubt that the pseudo sub-frame connectors do nearly as much to reduce flex as three point subframe connectors do. Even if they did, lacking a roof is something significant that shouldn't be ignored. No, a centerline support on fourth generation T-Top and Hard Top cars will not reduce chassis twisting, but it will reduce the tendency for the structure to try and fold in half at the centerline like a taco under acceleration. The video I provided in the last thread shows what the simple T-Top bar would prevent.

I've already addressed the bulk of this statement. However, I'll go onto say that your photos do not prove anything. They only prove that a convertible has a reinforced chassis, not that it is ultimately more rigid than a hard top or T-Top car. You provide no technical data and can't even articulate how much stronger the chassis is in your estimation. You use adjectives like "wildly" and "vastly" without quantifying them.

I disagree.

I found plenty of photos showing the chassis reinforcement. Again, no one disputed that it was present or that fourth generation cars were more rigid than third generation cars.

Well, there is a lot to unpack with the above paragraph and I'm not sure that I can make sense of it, but here we go.

In the other thread, you simply used blanket terminology to describe all fourth generation F-bodies. Only in this thread have you narrowed the focus down to 98-02 cars. The statement about 1995 cars being as rigid as a wet noodle still remains true.

The B-Body is irrelevant because it has body on frame construction. You use evidence that GM had different thicknesses of frames as evidence that the convertible F-body is stronger than the hard top. This is irrelevant because its not a direct comparison. However, since you like to bring up other vehicles, you should acknowledge the fact that no other car design has a convertible chassis that is stronger than its hard top counterpart. Therefore, why would the F-body? Bracing is used on other convertible designs in modern convertibles. If you Google, "What are the downsides of convertibles" you will get a general answer stating that they are less rigid. Do you know why? Because the lack of a roof weakens the overall structure. The bracing your talking about mitigates this problem but doesn't entirely eliminate it.

This fact has been well known for decades.

People not wanting to bet you $10,000 that you were wrong doesn't prove you are right about anything. All it proves is that no one cared enough to take your little bet. Most people aren't going to gamble $10,000 on anything.

Again, no one has ever said this to the best of my knowledge. No one has provided evidence to support your claim. How much deviation difference is there in the unibody between the convertible and the hard top in testing? You can't provide any data. Frame/unibody rigidity tests do exist. How much deflection is there when you park a convertible and a hard top on an uneven surface? You can't provide any data on these questions because you are making an assertion with no data to back up your claim.

No, the photos only prove that the chassis is reinforced on the convertible. That does not prove that the chassis is more rigid than that of a hard top or T-Top car.

There is no doubt that GM built a better convertible F-Body chassis in the fourth generation. It still doesn't mean that the convertible has a stronger chassis than the hard top does.

​​​​​​​There is no 1993 convertible Camaro or Firebird. Again, this only goes to prove you wrong about the 4th generation F-body being designed as a convertible first. The 98-02 cars were given added bracing for sure. How much this helps is where the debate is.

​​​​​​​This is interesting because your statement is entirely inaccurate. The military began using IQ tests in 1917, not 1911. It used two tests. The Alpha and Beta test to determine IQ. The Alpha was a written test and the beta test was made up of pictures for use with recruits that didn't speak English. Unlike you, I can provide sources. Here. Its also ironic that you bring up the concept of emotional resistance to the truth.

​​​​​​​Again, no one disputes the fact the convertibles have a reinforced chassis. The dispute is over how effective they are without a roof. It's been common knowledge for decades that if you want a stronger chassis, you do NOT buy a convertible.

 

Every thread and post needs a point - and technical discussion, with technical information. (Not supposition, guesses, or conspiracy.) That's the whole purpose of this. Members aren't being lame if they want you to make a point - they just don't want you to waste their time. If you want to ramble on with out a point, we have the Racers Lounge section, which may be a better home for this kind of discussion. https://ls1tech.com/forums/racer-s-l...e-posting.html

 

I'm contradicted when I write that the photos prove my point.
Members are being lame when they refuse to acknowledge what those photos obviously show.

 

The photos prove nothing other than they are visually different. Prove your idiotic argument with data. It can be measured quite easily. Surely with your infinite intelligence and wisdom you should be able to figure it out.

Can someone get this clown out of here?

 

Unnecessary, because (as pointed out above) pictorial evidence of a difference (which, by the way, nobody is disputing) does not prove or disprove an overall superiority of the convertible chassis.

Spamfritter's comprehensive posts above are an excellent point-by-point outline of the various problems with your assertion. There's really nothing more to add beyond what he's already posted.

Absolutely, agreed on all points. I've already asked LSX Thunder to adjust his posting style after an exercise we had in the Wheels and Tires section, and I'm hoping to see an improvement (though hope is beginning to wane... )

 

But it should suggest one. Just the L shaped frame brace, did GM believe it did nothing? Same for all the other additions? Could you explain why GM did all that welding? I know.

 

Just saying....

 

Pictorial evidence of these additions doesn't prove that such wholly overcomes the disadvantage of being a convertible in the first place. The obvious suggestion is that the additional bracing was necessary to achieve a minimum amount of comparable rigidity for the convertible. But is it actually superior overall? Pictures won't/can't indicate such.

But all of this has already been covered (quite well) by Spamfritter's comprehensive posts above.

 

"You think that Jane, if it pleases you."
A very famous 200+ year old quote that often gets used for such occasions as this.

 

Get rid of this guy already.

 

The last resort of the impotent.
Such fun.