Quick Question: Subframe connectors- WHY didn't they do this from the factory?

[moper]

It's about materials costs. If you had a $2 stamping (cost) and needed it on 500,000 cars that' a $1M hit for those. Not to mention production steps, and replacement peices made for repairs.

 

[grassy]

Rumble,

You are probably right...but for some reason, I expected better. No idea why.

Grassy

 

[69 Cuda 440]

Grassy,

Ron Root, a factory-backed Drag Racer who routinely ran in Modified/Production.

This 'D/MP' Dart weighed in approximately +125 lbs. heavier than a typical factory line Dart.

 

[grassy]

It's about materials costs. If you had a $2 stamping (cost) and needed it on 500,000 cars that' a $1M hit for those. Not to mention production steps, and replacement peices made for repairs.

I buy that to a point ...that has been the rational for many class action law suits against the car companies..

I go back to a comparison I have used earlier...the "actual" cost to produce a Pinto and a Lincoln Continental mark 4 was minimal...but the profit margin was very different..

 

[grassy]

Grassy,

Ron Root, a factory-backed Drag Racer who routinely ran in Modified/Production.

This 'D/MP' Dart weighed in approximately +125 lbs. heavier than a typical factory line Dart.

As a kid I didn't watch much drag racing..I was into circuit (no oval) racing and rallying..

 

[KosmicKuda]

And yet my 67 383 has torque boxes front and rear. Mine is a 4spd, wonder if this is the difference.

When I get home from a Mopar show my knees are usually dirty from looking at the bottoms of cars. I've been unofficially trying to come up with the rules when torque boxes were applied. Automatics generally are less brutal on drivetrains. (at least when these cars were built) Convertibles generally got extra reinforcements also, not just Chrysler but Ford and GM too.

My 69 'cuda340 has front AND rear torque boxes. And I'll throw into the mix that the axle ratio may have influenced the rules. This one has factory 3.91 gears and a 4 speed. The driveshaft is HD and the front sway bar is 15/16", not the typical 7/8". For some reason this car was built with extra heavy duty parts.

I do a lot of reading about the Chrysler tradition and have always been impressed that the Chrysler engineers pretty much did the right thing. (we had forged cranks in our lowly base 318's for instance) GM on the other hand always counted their pennies. I have bought and read probably 6-8 books on the Chrysler heritage, WPC himself, the 3 Musketeers of Chrysler, We were the Ramchargers, etc. trying to learn why they did these things. In my opinion, if the engineers thought these cars should have had sub-frame connectors, they would have put them on. Screw the cost. They were really the first to apply computers to analyze data and today's FEA programs can show all kinds of suspension and frame weaknesses. I'll take our unibodies over full-framed GM and Ford cars. 67-69 Camaros with bolt-on sub-frames? Really? You think that's stronger and less flexible than our junk?

 

[67Dart273]

No. Just because something is made in mass, it doesn't dictate that it is made shittly... why do you think today , with their cheap, mass produced cars did the jap cars blow the doors off the american cars late 70s and beyond...and the big three haven't caught up ? And Chrysler, of all companies was bought by fiat .. Fiat ?? ..fix it again tony.. ?

Your argument does not hold water. Why? because your argument was mass produced, and the result was, well, shittly LOL

You have to go back in time and put this in perspective. The US makers were making money. They didn't HAVE to step up quality.

Then came the imports, the 'Japs'. LABOR WAS CHEAP "over there". I can assure you that the first Japanese cars were NOT particularly well designed, nor were they particularly good quality. NOT.

But the Japanese wanted to make money, and they wanted to overcome the bias towards their cars "left over" from some VERY bad feelings off WWII, some of which exist in survivors today. I YOU were a WWII vet who suffered as a POW or other torture, would YOU buy a "Jap" car?

so the Islanders stepped it up. They improved quality. They looked at, copied, and improved on designs all over the world.

You can't just say that these were good quality. They EVOLVED that way.

 

[YY1]

Uh, the whole point of unitized body construction is NOT TO HAVE A FRAME.

I find it incredibly fascinating that the engineers were able to use laminated sheet metal and carefully designed and placed torque boxes to support the twisting force of 440's and Hemi's.

Mopar was way ahead of the curve on this, and after their example, almost 99% of all cars adopted uni-body construction.

Chrysler still had the superior design, well into the 70's.
Have you ever looked at a camaro or nova front subframe?
YIKES!

 

[ir3333]

quick answer
...they were not necessary for the intended use of those cars.

 

[barbee6043]

back in the day, Gm cars had rep for better bodies than Ford or Mopar and i would have to agree. Mopar rep for better drive train than the rest and that was true i feel.
unibody? faster, cheaper way to build a car.
ever since i quit worrying about what someone slse thinks, i have started welding in tubing for subframe connector.cause the floors have rusted till metal is thinner, and it could have used the connector from day one anyway,, but like the man says, they never inteded these cars to last 40 years and never expected us guys to love the darn things!!???

by the w ay, ever looked at a 440 4 speed B body from the rear??? twiisted !!!!!

 

[daliant]

Blame it on Nash, they started this unibody crap back in the 40's. Anyway you can shave materials and assembly time off of a mass produced product profits will increase.
These cars were designed to run skinny little bias ply tires so the body didn't have to be that stiff, and were certainly not designed to last 30 plus years.

 

[mvh]

I wouldn't say they "handled like ****". All the torsion bar Mopars handled better from the factory than their competitors. Contemporary road tests bore this out. Not like a modern performance car, no. But don't judge them based on clapped-out examples with 200K on the ball joints and bushings.

hate to say this...i agree with you...but if you have taken one of these cars apart you can tell they (the workers) didn't give a ****.. just look at the neatness of the welds..the quality of fit...no, these cars were just slapped to together.. especially when you compare them to other cars of that era.. and they handled like **** as well...

But we love our car anyway...

 

[YY1]

Agree 100%.

If anyone's ever driven a car from the other two manufacturers of the same age and in the same condition, I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion.

All my non-iso t bar Mopars have handled like great big go-carts.
Easy to control body roll, and easy to point the front end with the gas pedal.
Never get the same effect with a coil spring car.

 

[66fs]

...
I also had a '71 MG that I rebuilt The welds were beautiful...who ever worked on that car had pride..

We can go on..stripes being put on the cars ..the left side being different than the right..whomever installed the floor panels on my car couldn't be bothered to get it right because they left a triangular hole...who do I blame for this ? The accounts receivable clerk ?

Not sure if you lived through that era but it is probably the biggest reason that the jap cars got a hold in North America...

There is nothing wrong with most Chrysler A bodies in quality and fit, let alone performance and handling. Formula S Barracudas, 340 Darts, and Dusters all handled well and still do today with fresh components. Sorry that you evidently have a poor example. You have to remember that they were designed as economy cars. The unibody is a complex and perfectly acceptable chassis, giving acceptable rigidity and a smooth ride. Unfortunately some of us push the envelope in power and handling.

As for the MG, what a piece of junk, Lucas Prince of Darkness springs to mind. My best friend, Steve, bought one for his wife and was continually working on it. Never would the drive train last 100K. As for Jap cars, why did Datsun have to change their name to Nissan? My brother's Datsun pickup had the door and a fender fall off while he was driving it. If you think the early Jap cars were so good, find one if you can, and try driving half way across the country. From what I remember, Chevrolets "design it to last for 30K since that is all are buyers keep them anyway" attitude probably had more to do with the Japs getting their foot in the door. The Japs were known for undercutting products and forcing their competitors into bankruptcy, then taking over the market. Not that the US Auto business didn't deserve competition. I've never had anything but American Vehicles and my Mopars have all gone 250k or higher. My 96 ACR Neon is probably the best, 250K with nothing but oil and tire changes, except for replacing the original German head gasket with a USA made MLS Head gasket. Still starts and runs like new. It will pull better than 1G on the track, run up to 130MPH and get 35 mpg at 70 MPH.

 

[grassy]

You have to go back in time and put this in perspective. The US makers were making money. They didn't HAVE to step up quality.

I still won't buy a german car but you have missed the point..

They didn't HAVE to step up quality.

My god, that speaks volumes... and I cannot add to that. That was the US automakers death knell..

oh, my dad was a wwii decorated war vet (my mom also served) ..he was a hard core GM buyer. He eventually moved to Japanese cars in the late '80s because he was tired of all the maintenance issues..

And for most of us, our classic mopar is a toy...and we have time to deal with the issues that pop up. The duster represents a pretty good time of my life and an era where cars looked like cars and were distinctive enough to tell the makers apart...

 

[grassy]

66,

Rust was an issue with all cars of that era...remember the rusting fords on the dealers lots ? My dad's fiends caddy was only 6 months older before it started rusting. I remember one GM vehicle that actually broke in 2 on a regular basis....

Why did Datsun go to Nissan ? Because American buys thought Datsun was too "Japanese" and Nissan sounded better. Why did the Demon change it'd name to Dart Sport ..because of the bible belt in the 'states.. I should mention that Nissan is bring back the Datsun name with a small front engine rwd car..

I gather you didn't read the thread here on Neons.. You must have the best Neon on the planet.

Where do I get my opinions other than by experiencing them ? Other than car mags ? From a book called lemonade.

"Phil Edmonston Born in 1944, a native of Washington, D.C., trilingual (English, French and Spanish) and a graduate of Canal Zone College and Bowie State College (Maryland).

He is married and has a son, Michel. He spent three years as a US Army infantry medic (1961-64) attached to the 508th Airborne Division in Panama
One of the few Americans ever elected to the Canadian Parliament (C.D. Howe was the other American).

Phil is founder and past president for almost 20 years of the non-profit Automobile Protection Association (1968-1987), a former elected member of Consumers Union (Publisher of Consumer Reports) Board of Directors, and a colleague of Ralph Nader.
Mr. Edmonston is the author of 125 best-sellers dealing with consumer rights and the automobile industry."

 

[66fs]

Rust was an issue with all cars but Datsun was so bad they literally had to change their name. Major body parts literally falling off in the road?? I guess most people have forgotten how bad they were by now. I grew up in the sixties and have always loved cars. All cars, not just Mopars. I kept my eyes and ears open. Never a fan of Nader nor Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports seemed to count a burnt out bulb the same as a blown motor... I don't let anybody else make up my mind for me. We drove our cars every where, every day, rain, shine, or snow. My brother had a Mustang and my best friend had a Camaro. I used to run from the east coast to South Dakota and Nebraska every year I could, to see family. 2 days steady cruising at 70 and above in a 64 Barracuda, never a problem, many years with 3 kids by myself. I drove a Toyota from NY to Iowa for an uncle and was almost crippled after 2 hours the seats were so bad. From my experience GM was the least reliable of American cars, Chevrolet the worst. As for Neons, If you want a good forum, go to www.neons.org. It is sites like neons.org that made me want to help others with my experience on A body Mopars. I've had 3 Neons and all were great. I have retired my 96 till I retire, and bought a 98 as a daily driver. My daughter had one and loved it, till it was totaled. I suggest you stop reading and finding fault, start fixing up and upgrading whatever you want and enjoy it.

 

[moper]

quick answer
...they were not necessary for the intended use of those cars.

This would be my reason #2...

 

[grassy]

66,

Yeah, it doesn't sound like you do much reading..

... no matter..that is why more than one car is made so we all don't have to drive the same thing...

 

[jos51700]

Blame it on Nash, they started this unibody crap back in the 40's.

Some would say the Airflow came out before the Nash...

And I don't have the best Neon on the planet but I know that if you replace timing belts and water pumps with quality parts when you're supposed to, they're great cars.

Now that I say that, mine will crap out.

 

[66plyValiant]

It couldn't possibly have cost much money to extend the unibody reinforcement a couple feet. Is there a reason that they opted not to? It seems insane.

Is there anyone out there (other than those restoring a car to factory specs) who thinks that welding in subframe connectors is a bad idea?

couldn't of been too bad of an issue; everyone at that point except chrysler were making full frame cars, now everyone is making unibody without any frame connectors

seems everyone followed chrysler because as "crappy" of a design people think it is; its more rigid, holds up better in a crash and the occupants have better chances

 

[69 Cuda 440]

Yes, the Uni-Body construction is inherently weak.

But, incorporated with 'stressed tested' sheet metal and multiple welds for the
front under-structure adds 'stiffness'.

 

[grassy]

Hey, I like uni bodies...drove one that was built in '59 and it was toted to be well ahead of the future..had syncro in first as well I think being a uni body that it also makes the sills of the car non structural..have to ask an engineer about that..

 

[grimreaper]

I think the engineers of the time sat around drinking coffee saying, "Just think, in 40 some years some guy will be laying under this thing with molten metal falling all around him wondering why we thought it was cool to have a car handle and ride so it feels like a boat!"

 

[66fs]

Hey, I like uni bodies...drove one that was built in '59 and it was toted to be well ahead of the future..had syncro in first as well I think being a uni body that it also makes the sills of the car non structural..have to ask an engineer about that..

Just the opposite. The rocker panels are a major structural part as well as the roof structure.