AME GMax Chassis on '69 Camaro?

[Mike69Cam]

I am building a '69 Camaro PT car. My builder is recommending an Art Morrison Gmax chassis for the ultimate ride, handling and rigidity. Alot of fabrication to the floor on a unibody car and more time to build...I read a lot on this forum about subframe connectors, front clips, rear quadralink.

I have driven a '56 Chevy that he built and it was like driving a new car! Very smooth and tight.

I'd like to hear opinions from you builders on the benefits of building a full "chassis car" vs. quadralink/subframe connectors.

[fletcherscustoms]

The morrison chassis is indeed a very nice work of art, but from a builders stand point I can get just as good of ride and handling with out all the fabrication required for the full chassis. With companies like DSE, Morrison, Speedtech(my fav) and Jakes offering replacement subframes using C6 components, coupled with a DSE quadralink, or torque arm rear setup and then connect it all together with a good quality set of weld in subframe connectors and you have the just as good if not better then the full chassis route, without the extra 200 hours or so of fab work. If you have any other questions or want some more input shoot me a email [email protected]

[6spdcamaro]

Because of the way the body is channeled on to the chassis, you begin to have problems with the pedals, engine clearence, and headroom. But exhaust isn't as much of an issue because there are holes in the chassis for it.

[Mike69Cam]

Thanks for the feedback. The extra hours of fab work definitely increase the cost.

Any opinions on the resale market for a full chassis car? They seem pretty unique...do they bring more $$ due to the rarity?

[fletcherscustoms]

I dunno, I don't know of a whole lot of high end full frame camaro's thats sold recently. I know a full DSE equipped car with all teh other high end goodies will bring in the 100K's all day long

[Ron in SoCal]

Originally Posted by Mike69Cam

I am building a '69 Camaro PT car. My builder is recommending an Art Morrison Gmax chassis for the ultimate ride, handling and rigidity. Alot of fabrication to the floor on a unibody car and more time to build...I read a lot on this forum about subframe connectors, front clips, rear quadralink.

I have driven a '56 Chevy that he built and it was like driving a new car! Very smooth and tight.

I'd like to hear opinions from you builders on the benefits of building a full "chassis car" vs. quadralink/subframe connectors.

I'm doing the AME/SubFR Connectors/DSE Quad on my 69. All the parts are well engineered and really make me excited to see the finished product. Not cheap, but less expensive than fabbing in a full frame car as mentioned above.

Three other things to consider that I never thought of when jumping in: Headers - so far only AME's are guaranteed to fit and I was planning on SWorks, and Motor mounts - AME has the solution, Inner fender clearance - I believe I'll need to trim just a bit to make sure the 275's don't rub under load. I'm sure I'll run into other considerations, but so far I'm pretty happy with everything.

P.S. Use full height solid body bushings!

[Silver69Camaro]

Quite a bit of misinformation here.

Chad, right off the bat our Max-G chassis will set a car at least 4" lower than any other setup out there. That's a difference in CG height that makes a serious difference in handling. Having a center of gravity that low allows a 1.0+ lateral-G car ride like a 0.9 lateral-G car. There is no bolt-on setup out that that gives the advantages the Max-G does, not even close.

Pedals and seats tend not to be a problem in F-bodies because the floors don't actually sit that low, and headroom is more than decent to start with. Stock seat brackets are rediculously tall, and the mouting pad is only 3/4" below the rocker...you can keep the same amount of headroom with our chassis. We have some customers who are 6'3" and are more than comfortable with this setup.

Engine clearance typically isn't much of an issue because modern style engines are short to start with. Carb'd motors could be a problem, but we do have some chassis equipped with tall deck BBCs.

Lastly, history has shown us that resale value is significantly higher if equipped with our chassis, which is flattering for us to know that people hold our products with high regard. I'm not going to lie and say installing a Max-G chassis is cakewalk, but it may not be as bad as you think. If you have a Max-G install under your belt, it definetely seperates you from the bolt-on crowd.

[fletcherscustoms]

I agree 100%, I will be calling this week for a full frame for a 70 Challenger. I was not knocking your stuff in anyway, just giving some options. There are so many options these days it basically comes down to your skill level or the depth of your pocket book

[Silver69Camaro]

Originally Posted by flash911

I believe I'll need to trim just a bit to make sure the 275's don't rub under load. I'm sure I'll run into other considerations, but so far I'm pretty happy with everything.

P.S. Use full height solid body bushings!

Hi Flash - just saw your post. You shouldn't have a problem with 275's with either short or tall body bushings; personally I'm running short bushings and a 5" ride height and 275/35R18 on 10" rims.

[Silver69Camaro]

Originally Posted by fletcherscustoms

I agree 100%, I will be calling this week for a full frame for a 70 Challenger. I was not knocking your stuff in anyway, just giving some options. There are so many options these days it basically comes down to your skill level or the depth of your pocket book

No offense taken at all. I just don't want people to think of the Max-G setup has a overglorified bolt-on clip. BUT, people (and builders) need to be aware of the fab work involed upfront - we don't want to see our chassis rusting in the corner of some shop because they didn't realize how much work was needed.