So it sounds like those that disagree are saying I need frame connectors for my ‘66 Valiant 273 four door to drive it on the street; I do have radials on it.
You dont have to. A stock 273 more door valiant sedan you wont notice any difference if all you did was radials. Also a more door has a stiffer body than a hardtop since it has posts for the rear door hinges.So it sounds like those that disagree are saying I need frame connectors for my ‘66 Valiant 273 four door to drive it on the street; I do have radials on it.
i don't think frame connectors were left off to save money.If the engineers felt they were a benefit a simple change in the die could have added 2 more folds in the floor.I'm betting the stock stamping matched the strength of the unibody ahead and behind it.
As for twist, adding torque boxes would provide a gusset type re-inforcement and there is nothing so strong as a triangle, but adding frame connectors seems to be adding 2 more 2x4's to a stud wall which it seems wouldn't help much.
...i just tryin' to look at things logically.
I see your point in continuing the frame front to rear with similar size square tubing and this should almost act as a full frame under the unibody.
Certainly a benefit to a vehicle driven and launched hard.It would seem that the x member forward would need beefing up accordingly?
The smaller 3 sided or 2"x 2" tubing not so much.
i don't think frame connectors were left off to save money.If the engineers felt they were a benefit a simple change in the die could have added 2 more folds in the floor.I'm betting the stock stamping matched the strength of the unibody ahead and behind it.
As for twist, adding torque boxes would provide a gusset type re-inforcement and there is nothing so strong as a triangle, but adding frame connectors seems to be adding 2 more 2x4's to a stud wall which it seems wouldn't help much.
...i just tryin' to look at things logically.
If your thinking of the US car tool ones. They get seam welded to the underside of the floor pan boxing them in making them very strong. I didnt have $200 for em, plus I installed a shortened 74 dart floorplan in my 67 barracuda to replace floor rot and repair a previous owners hack butchery. Was not sure all the bumps in the US car tool ones would line up since my floor pan wasnt a 67 barracuda pan.I see your point in continuing the frame front to rear with similar size square tubing and this should almost act as a full frame under the unibody.
Certainly a benefit to a vehicle driven and launched hard.It would seem that the x member forward would need beefing up accordingly?
The smaller 3 sided or 2"x 2" tubing not so much.
Back in the 80's, 90;s I restored more than a few 440 B and E bodies 4 speed cars, usually 3:55 geared. All had been run hard, I remember especially the B body ones have some pretty good body flx, not so much with the E bodies.I've seen a Road Runner that was so twisted up that there's a buckle in the roof and the doors don't shut. This was a violent 4 speed car with no cage and no frame connectors. It was undrivable and basically scrap at that point. The guy ended up getting a different body and transferring all his parts over, and he definitely put connectors and a 6 point rollbar in the replacement.
If ANY car has a good amount of power, put frame connectors in - my .02.
I copied their 1/8" plate torque boxes with some minor changes for my application. I like some of their stuff, but think their lower road support stiffener is cheesy compared to what I built.In some cases, yes. Have you looked on the US Car Tool site? Look at their complete chassis stiffening kits and you'll see what all comes in it. It's pretty impressive. Very good stuff for a high horse power car.
Is that kind of stiffening a benefit on overpowered street driven cars that just break the tires loose, unlike a purpose built drag car with slicks that hooks on launch and stresses everything to the 9's?
As for handling, I've seen cars just add stiff t bars, springs and shocks driven on 21570's that will understeer right off the road when pushed if your not careful.Drastically increasing the chassis stiffness on these cars requires some thought and maybe further modifications to keep it safe.
. Also a more door has a stiffer body than a hardtop since it has posts for the rear door hinges.
Also a more door has a stiffer body than a hardtop since it has posts for the rear door hinges.
Of all the Uncle Tony videos, this one is the only one that I disagree with.
I seriously doubt that any engineer would purposely design their cars to flex. These cars were built to last a few years and be replaced. The tires of the day were narrow and slippery compared to what is available today so the chassis did not flex much then anyway.
I'd bet that very few people ever thought these cars would be collected and restored 50-60 years later. They were people movers, not investments.
Even fewer would have ever imagined that tire science would improve so much.
I have heard his theory shared before and I can see his point, I just don't agree with it.
Chrysler built these cars to meet the standards of the day and to compete against GM and Ford. ALL companies have the capability to make a car that is virtually indestructible but the costs to do so would be astronomical. They could have made the chassis as stiff as new cars are today but to what point? The market tolerated what they were sold, not many people demanded better.
In every case that I have seen, subframe connectors increased stiffness and cut down on squeaks and rattles. In my '70 Charger, it took road bumps and imperfections much better than without the connectors. The car soaks up bad roads and feels solid. It may even ride better because the car isn't skipping or rebounding from bad roads.
View attachment 1715363117 View attachment 1715363118 View attachment 1715363119
So what happens to all the spot welds in the flexing areas? hmmmm Those flexing areas would have the same "work hardening" problems as well, would they not?
No full frame.... think bean counters and cost. That is another reason they were not full frame. Use the other structures that are required to carry load instead of a full frame. Lighter body means less material.
I've seen NON HP cars have door closing and alignment issues, no broken windshields either. Jack up the right front and see how long it takes to lift the left front... no twisting there. These cars are flex monsters.
Everything is a trade off. Show me a lo-po car that has the spot welds torn out of it from a set of connectors. Connectors make everything a bit more solid.