Torque Boxes vs. Frame Connectors

[1967 'cuda]

On another thread someone suggested I consider adding torque boxes or subframe connectors to my car. It made me start to think about whether or not a person needed both or if the subframe connectors would negate the need for the torque boxes. Is one superior to the other. I assume that Chrysler did not tie the frame rails together because of the unibody mind set. - It would have probably sent the message to people that the unibody was weaker than a full frame.

Do the torque boxes actually reduce the amount of twist to the body or do they just strengthen the areas where the leaf springs attach?

 

[/6 Matt]

I would venture to say that torque boxes do strengthen the whole chassis since convertible cars had them.

As to which one is better or if its worth it to do both?

I'll be watching....:happy1:

 

[TrailBeast]

I would think both, since subframe connectors strengthen the front to rear relationship of the car, and torque boxes strengthen the body points where the forward thrust comes from the spring brackets.

 

[Abodybomber]

On another thread someone suggested I consider adding torque boxes or subframe connectors to my car. It made me start to think about whether or not a person needed both or if the subframe connectors would negate the need for the torque boxes. Is one superior to the other. I assume that Chrysler did not tie the frame rails together because of the unibody mind set. - It would have probably sent the message to people that the unibody was weaker than a full frame.

Do the torque boxes actually reduce the amount of twist to the body or do they just strengthen the areas where the leaf springs attach?

Frame connectors? Welded in,please... Some simple box tubing notched, works nicely......

 

[1967 'cuda]

I would venture to say that torque boxes do strengthen the whole chassis since convertible cars had them.

As to which one is better or if its worth it to do both?

I'll be watching....:happy1:

I never knew that convertibles had the torque boxes. Hmmm... - that's got me thinking.

 

[1967 'cuda]

I would think both, since subframe connectors strengthen the front to rear relationship of the car, and torque boxes strengthen the body points where the forward thrust comes from the spring brackets.

But if the purpose of the torque boxes is to strengthen the points stressed by the suspension's forward push, wouldn't the frame connectors solve that issue too?

 

[2 Darts]

I've seen torque boxes on ragtops, wagons, 340, and big block a-bodies. There are two pairs. The first pair, that has already been mentioned, is just forward of the leaf spring attachment. The second pair mounts between the forward portion of the "frame" and the rocker panel.

The only advantage I can see to the torque box is less weight. I don't know which is more effective at doing the job of making the unibody more resistant to twisting forces.

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/body/mopp_0501_installing_chassis_torque_boxes/

 

[TrailBeast]

But if the purpose of the torque boxes is to strengthen the points stressed by the suspension's forward push, wouldn't the frame connectors solve that issue too?

I think the front leaf brackets are outside of the frame on the body.

Chk this out, and notice that the forward pressure is also transfered to the body.
Unless the Barracuda leaf mounting is different.

So in this case the boxes would transfer more of the forces to frame, or subframe connectors.

 

[1967 'cuda]

Frame connectors? Welded in,please... Some simple box tubing notched, works nicely......

I have seen some frame connectors that simply attach to the front and back frames. And then I've seen others that are tied to the floor along the way. I've thought that the first style would still allow the frame to twist. (I've owned a number of B-bodies that showed quarter panel damage from that twisting effect)

View attachment 7.JPG

View attachment 6.jpg

Before starting this thread, I did not realize that there was a forward 'thrust' that the torque boxes were designed to combat. Every day I find out that there is so much more out there that I hadn't fully understood.

 

[1967 'cuda]

I've seen torque boxes on ragtops, wagons, 340, and big block a-bodies. There are two pairs. The first pair, that has already been mentioned, is just forward of the leaf spring attachment. The second pair mounts between the forward portion of the "frame" and the rocker panel.

The only advantage I can see to the torque box is less weight. I don't know which is more effective at doing the job of making the unibody more resistant to twisting forces.

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/body/mopp_0501_installing_chassis_torque_boxes/

Thanks, 2Darts. That's a pretty good link to the article on torque box installation.

 

[Abodybomber]

I have seen some frame connectors that simply attach to the front and back frames. And then I've seen others that are tied to the floor along the way. I've thought that the first style would still allow the frame to twist. (I've owned a number of B-bodies that showed quarter panel damage from that twisting effect)

View attachment 1714707396

View attachment 1714707397

Before starting this thread, I did not realize that there was a forward 'thrust' that the torq boxes were designed to combat. Every day I find out that there is so much more out there that I hadn't fully understood.

You got it handled.It's not a drag car.

 

[1967 'cuda]

I think the front leaf brackets are outside of the frame on the body.

Chk this out, and notice that the forward pressure is also transfered to the body.
Unless the Barracuda leaf mounting is different.

So in this case the boxes would transfer more of the forces to frame, or subframe connectors.

So subframe connectors to prevent twist and the back torque boxes (or a similar form of frame gusseting) to keep the stress from the rear from transferring to the frame/body. Maybe the factory front boxes had more of an anti-twist purpose. All I'd ever heard was that the torque boxes were meant to strengthen the chassis. - Never anything more specific.

 

[TrailBeast]

Thanks, 2Darts. That's a pretty good link to the article on torque box installation.

Yea it is.
Out of all the manufactured for sale frame connectors I have seen, the ones that weld to the floor have to be pretty much the best for strength.
I have also seen home made ones that protrude up into the cabin and are welded to the floor along thier length.
I am sure they are just as strong if not more so, but a lot of frikin work.

All those 1 inch tube bolt in style are pretend in my own opinion.
I'm sure they help, but not near what you can do home made.
My own are .085 wall 2x3 tubes laying flat up against the floor but not welded to the floor.

You will also notice that mine don't just butt up to the cross member section, but are also welded under it tying into the frontrunning section.

There have been a lot of ugrades since these pics, so forgive the crappy exhaust.

 

[1967 'cuda]

Yea it is.
Out of all the manufactured for sale frame connectors I have seen, the ones that weld to the floor have to be pretty much the best for strength.
I have also seen home made ones that protrude up into the cabin and are welded to the floor along thier length.
I am sure they are just as strong if not more so, but a lot of frikin work.

All those 1 inch tube bolt in style are pretend in my own opinion.
I'm sure they help, but not near what you can do home made.
My own are .085 wall 2x3 tubes laying flat up against the floor but not welded to the floor.

You will also notice that mine don't just butt up to the cross member section, but are also welded under it tying into the frontrunning section.

There have been a lot of ugrades since these pics, so forgive the crappy exhaust.

Lately I have been seeing some connectors that have brackets midway between front and back that bolt to the floor. My first thought was that they would allow less flex than the ones that only attached front and rear.

View attachment 8.JPG

- And that the installation would be easier than those that are welded the entire span. But, after thinking about it for a while, I began to question whether or not those brackets that bolted through the floor really helped. Wouldn't the floor flex pretty easily at one attachment point. Trailbeast, your tubular connectors looks pretty stout. Could you feel any difference after adding them?

 

[TrailBeast]

So subframe connectors to prevent twist and the back torque boxes (or a similar form of frame gusseting) to keep the stress from the rear from transferring to the frame/body. Maybe the factory front boxes had more of an anti-twist purpose. All I'd ever heard was that the torque boxes were meant to strengthen the chassis. - Never anything more specific.

Sorry, just saw this had been posted before I did.

Torque boxes are to transfer the pressure applied to the body over a larger area (and give stiffining to otherwise 90 degree angles.)
In my oppinion they don't do anything really for body twist.

Subframe connectors don't fully eliminate body twist, but cut down on it.
They do however transfer the forward thrust through the car without the sheetmetal body having to withstand it all. (the body flexes a lot less with them)
It's interesting how much less odd noises you hear inside the car after they are installed.
The strange little creaking or groaning noises from the interior parts and panels are virtually gone.

 

[draginmopars]

Don't make the mistake we did
More engine than car lol

after a lot of set backs
we finally got the 449 small block finished

found out the rest of the car needed more attention
stock wheel well 26 x 6 slick

went to a tracks last night of racing (season end 2013)

never could get any traction
shook the tires so hard
the passengers window mount , the window fell down inside the door frame. lol

was good to find out
-6an lines from reg to carb to small
needed more tire

1st attempt of the night
[ame="http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii313/draginmopars/white%20dart%202/MAH04388.mp4"]

[/ame]

so this winter
installed frame ties
moved the springs in
move the axle forward 2"
change to 25" front segment springs
10" wheels with et 275 pro

also installing a roll cage thru the floor
into the frame connectors

 

[1967 'cuda]

Sorry, just saw this had been posted before I did.

Torque boxes are to transfer the pressure applied to the body over a larger area (and give stiffining to otherwise 90 degree angles.)
In my oppinion they don't do anything really for body twist.

Subframe connectors don't fully eliminate body twist, but cut down on it.
They do however transfer the forward thrust through the car without the sheetmetal body having to withstand it all. (the body flexes a lot less with them)
It's interesting how much less odd noises you hear inside the car after they are installed.
The strange little creaking or groaning noises from the interior parts and panels are virtually gone.

Well I'm sold on the idea of installing the frame connectors. After freshly assembling everything on the Barracuda, it's pretty rattle free right now. (those dang polyurethane bushings do tend to squeak a bit)

 

[TrailBeast]

(those dang polyurethane bushings do tend to squeak a bit)

Mine don't.
The lower control arm poly's used to, but I figured out a solution for that crap.

 

[1967 'cuda]

after a lot of set backs
we finally got the 449 small block finished

found out the rest of the car needed more attention
stock wheel well 26 x 6 slick

went to a tracks last night of racing (season end 2013)

never could get any traction
shook the tires so hard
the passengers window mount , the window fell down inside the door frame. lol

was good to find out
-6an lines from reg to carb to small
needed more tire

1st attemp of the night

so this winter
installed frame ties
moved the springs in
move the axle forward 2"
change to 25" front segment springs
10" wheels with et 275 pro

also installing a roll cage thru the floor
into the frame connectors

So what do you think was the root cause of the tire shake? Were the leaf spring bushings worn out? Was there an excessive amount of frame flex? I've never had trouble with a Mopar having a wheel shake (or hopping) problem. I'd always heard that the design of a shorter leaf section in front of the axle prevents it.

 

[1967 'cuda]

Mine don't.
The lower control arm poly's used to, but I figured out a solution for that crap.

So what was your solution? I used a butt load of that waxy grease that came with the kit and mine still made noise.

 

[draginmopars]

So what do you think was the root cause of the tire shake? Were the leaf spring bushings worn out? Was there an excessive amount of frame flex? I've never had trouble with a Mopar having a wheel shake (or hopping) problem. I'd always heard that the design of a shorter leaf section in front of the axle prevents it.

worn out leafs
body twist
not enough tire for power output

yes, the short spring hits the tire harder

I was trying to find the pics I took
the sheet metal was moving/ separated where the inner fender panel meets the fire wall

after the 3rd pass/window fell
and was hard to open drivers door
then had to lift up to get door closed

circled area
I didn't notice it until the car was on the rotisserie

its warped/ pulling apart on both sides
car has never been wrecked that I know of

So this winter, we took the car ALL apart to fix those issues
I hope

 

[TrailBeast]

So what was your solution? I used a butt load of that waxy grease that came with the kit and mine still made noise.

Yea I fell for that bit of BS too for awhile (till I got sick of the squeaks)
I found out that where they were actually squeaking was where the bushing contacts the K member and right there where the shoulder of the pivot pin is againts the K member, so I made a tool to get oil in there.

I took a 4 foot long section of 1/2 square tubing and flattened the end with a hammer.
Then used a four inch grinder to taper the flattened end to a point.
I then tap the flattened end in between the K member and the bushing so it opens a small gap between them and drip a few drops of 90wt oil on the tubing and let it run down ito the opening for 5 or 10 min.
The length of the tubing makes it really easy.
Next time I drive it, the squeaks are gone, and I have to redo it about every couple of months.

 

[/6 Matt]

So heres a question been burning on me for awhile. I have a fire breathing 98 rwhp slant and a rollercoaster suspension including /6 t bars and no sway bars riding on 14" tires.

Outside of body flex symptoms (IE 1/4 panel roof joint filler cracking) would I even see any kind of difference while driving if I was to install subframe connectors and front and rear torque boxes?

 

[Bad Sport]

Well I'm sold on the idea of installing the frame connectors. After freshly assembling everything on the Barracuda, it's pretty rattle free right now. (those dang polyurethane bushings do tend to squeak a bit)

With the amount of torque that mill that Mike is building, that's a very wise choice, unless you don't like your doors to close properly.

 

[TrailBeast]

So heres a question been burning on me for awhile. I have a fire breathing 98 rwhp slant and a rollercoaster suspension including /6 t bars and no sway bars riding on 14" tires.

Outside of body flex symptoms (IE 1/4 panel roof joint filler cracking) would I even see any kind of difference while driving if I was to install subframe connectors and front and rear torque boxes?

Matt,
You wouldn't probably notice much difference going in a straight line down the road, but EVERYWHERE else you would.
For example, the first time you turned into or out of a raised driveway or parking lot you would think it was a completely different car.

Makes a big difference in how the car corners also.
Just WAY more stable feeling.