Full-Frame Chassis for Unibody Cars - Page 2 - Lateral-g Forums

TravisB · #11 11-09-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver69Camaro

For a more in-depth version of what kind of work will need to be done, feel free to call one of our sales guys. They know these products like none other, and have personal experience with this stuff....no pressure, you don't need to buy anything to make them talk.

I tried to talk to one of the sales guys one time about a bubble top project and he was helpful until I told him that I wanted it to call me back left him 2 or 3 messages and no return call, I finally got a hold of Craig over at pt.com but we had already found another guy to build one......If I ever deal with morrison again I guess I will have to do it in person! I do think the Frame is a nice piece and would have loved to have had one.

Silver69Camaro · #12 11-09-2005, 12:27 PM

I apoligize for that, I'm sure next time will be a better experience.

MarkM66 · #13 11-09-2005, 02:52 PM

Not sure I see a reason for a full frame in a Camaro/Nova.

My first thought was increased ground clearance if you dropped the body into the frame, but you'd still have the exhaust down there. Unless you moved the entire floor up with the frame. But that wouldnt work to well for head clearances.

I can also see that having a full frame would make it easier to install a rear suspension of choice.

Other then that, what advantages would a full frame have?

TravisB · #14 11-09-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver69Camaro

I apoligize for that, I'm sure next time will be a better experience.

I know that is is not your fault..lol Craig has assured me that it would not happen again...

Silver69Camaro · #15 11-09-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkM66

Not sure I see a reason for a full frame in a Camaro/Nova.

My first thought was increased ground clearance if you dropped the body into the frame, but you'd still have the exhaust down there. Unless you moved the entire floor up with the frame. But that wouldnt work to well for head clearances.

I can also see that having a full frame would make it easier to install a rear suspension of choice.

Other then that, what advantages would a full frame have?

Mark,
Unibodys are extremely flexible, and that is generally frowned upon. Even with subframe connectors, the chassis is still overly flexible for high-end performance. The springs should be doing the work, not the chassis. A properly designed full-frame will greatly increase strength and solve that issue.

And yes, you do gain several inches of ground clearance. In our design, the exhaust is routed THROUGH the frame, not under it. You can get an unbelievably low stance with this design, and still have it be practical on the street.

Also, head clearance to the roof is generally not an issue. On a Camaro for example, the pan in which the seat bolts to is already raised above the floor pan, so you really don't lose much (if at all) clearance. Combine that with a variety of seat brackets available, or modify your own, the problem is easily solved.

race-rodz · #16 11-09-2005, 11:14 PM

well in the 3-link thread i talked about what a P.I.T.A. it is trying to find a structurally solid starting point in an early mustang. a rigid frame would be ideal, BUT.... (always a "but") this would be great for a "new" project.... not really ideal for somebody(like myself) trying to make a semi finished car better. its not that i mind the fab work accociated with the full frame install..... its the part where everything that works in the car now needs to be redone....like all the interior, the allready done bodywork (cut the floor out of a car and bolt it down to a rigid frame and tell me its still almost ready for paint...i think not)

like i said...i think its great for a new project. if the suspension "works" and you can fit decent wheel/tire combo under it...then i think it would sell(i personally wouldnt buy one... for the reasons stated above unless of coarse you wanted to whip one out for a 65 mustang to park in your booth at sema next year

)

race-rodz · #17 11-09-2005, 11:20 PM

keep in mind...along with the floor and firewall....its also wheel houses/tubs, inner fenders, mod the core support, and findig the best place(s) for the body mounts and a structure not originally intended to be bolted down at spots A,B,C etc. one could "unibody" the car into the rigid chassis, but that would take almost as much "engineering" to successfully pull off.

62fairlane · #18 11-09-2005, 11:40 PM

I think on some cars you could "unibody" it in pretty easy. on my fairlane (I think classics mustangs are this way too) the inside of the rockers are nice flat and vertical. But I have the added bonus over them of subframe mounted trans x-member BEEFY torque boxes (talking like .090" plate) and a reall beefy front clip.

I could see this full frame really cutting into rear footwell area and the work for body mounts would prob be more than doing a unibody install. plus with a unibody install I think you would have a REAL stiff structure that would be lighter than a frame/body setup (IE no mounts to flex, no extra metal for mounts) if you had a chassis tailored for the specific car/body that could just be rolled under a gutted shell and once lined up welded in place would be easier. heck even have a couple cheap locating brackets to bolt it in place for welding.

I think the more you add to a unibody to strengthen it the better. could those outer frame rails be made not as wide so when tucked up next to and welded to a stock rocker it forms a beefy component? plus it seems with most of the hardtop cars you are just gonna be plauged with flex anyways.

Silver69Camaro · #19 11-10-2005, 09:20 AM

62Fairlane,
The purpose of this frame, and what most builders currently do, is weld the body to the frame...no bolt-ons. Some builders even go further to use 10ga. floorpans to make it one super stiff structure. This is not intended to be bolted on, but it can be done I'm sure. However, with the shell welded to the frame, the front fenders & core support can all be bolted on as stock.

Race-rodz,
Believe it or not, we have indeed sold our display models at shows! We never intend to do that, but hey, it saves them shipping.

The suspension used in these chassis works very well, and you can put any size tire you want in there. The same suspension used in Art Morrison's GT55 (designed by Katz) can be had in this chassis...or C5 Vette components (front only). Both make a very, very nimble and well handling car. Like I said, 1.0+g is easily done.

ProdigyCustoms · #20 11-10-2005, 12:06 PM

I think it is a great idea, look at Prodigy. The only problem I see, and I was looking for Craig to discuss this, is putting the body on top of the frame as you present design would require, will make it a 4 wheel drive stance. And there is no real way, with your present design, to channel the body. I think channeling the body is the single best move one can make, lowering the center of gravity 4 inches, and allowing the car to be dropped 3 to 4 inches, while keeping the suspension out of droop.

We would love to work with you guys adapting your chassis into a Camaro, while being able to channel the body. It would require some changes at the toe boards, but as witnessed in Prodigy and the Motion car, is very doable.