Subframe connectors- Some questions...

SilverBullet00 · May 19, 2008

So I am thinking that a set of subframe connectors would be a good idea. I am going to go with the Maximum Motorsport's XL connectors- but I have a couple of questions....

Is it worth it to get the powder coated ones, since they have to grind some of it off? Of should I get the bare steel ones and paint them myself? What is the best thing to paint them with?

Also, how much should the install cost? When I installed them on my other mustang (I had the steeda zinc plated ones) a buddy of mine had a welder and a drive on lift, so he did it for a case of beer. He has since moved, so now I have to pay a shop to do it...

Flghtmstr1 · May 19, 2008

I'd get the powdercoated ones (in fact, I did ). Even though you have to grind some of it off, it's better to have most of the connector powdercoated than none at all. Besides, there isn't much of a price difference, and you won't have to paint the whole connector. Just spray the welds with some rustoleum and you'll be good to go.

Superhereaux · May 19, 2008

I paid $100 to have mine welded in but they were standard lengh (and powder coated)

They said they charge $150 for full lengh

deftsound · May 19, 2008

just get the powdercoated ones the price difference is very minimal and it will save you the trouble

steve_stang2003 · May 19, 2008

SilverBullet00 said:
So I am thinking that a set of subframe connectors would be a good idea. I am going to go with the Maximum Motorsport's XL connectors- but I have a couple of questions....

Is it worth it to get the powder coated ones, since they have to grind some of it off? Of should I get the bare steel ones and paint them myself? What is the best thing to paint them with?

Also, how much should the install cost? When I installed them on my other mustang (I had the steeda zinc plated ones) a buddy of mine had a welder and a drive on lift, so he did it for a case of beer. He has since moved, so now I have to pay a shop to do it...

I just had the full length MM put on my 2003 GT Vert.

I got the powdercoated ones and sprayed the welds with paint.

Cost was $165 to install and the guy had a drive on lift and did an excellent job.
He also had to remove the stock bolt on subframes that come on verts.

What a difference BTW!

darkside03gt · May 19, 2008

wow you guys are paying that much to have your subs welded in? I took mine to a exaust shop and had them welded in for $75.

SilverBullet00 · May 20, 2008

I was thinking it would be 75-100.. 165??! DAMN, it should take less than two hours to do, thats over $80 an hour.. I will have to call around town..

bullitt784 · May 20, 2008

sounds pricey. last set of sfc's i had welded in were about $60

Greenscobie86 · May 20, 2008

:OT:

Sorry to threadjack fellas.

What are the benefits of subframe connectors?
Is this something that can actually be felt from the driver's seat everyday or only at the track(hard launches, etc...)?
Finally where do they get welded into exactly, I've seen pictures of them but was never able to visualize where they go.

Thank you, and sorry to be such a noob.

SilverBullet00 · May 20, 2008

On my old car....

They will make the car feel more solid and help protect against twisting...

TripleBlk · May 20, 2008

Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about subframe connectors, yet :

!) If they were so wonderful , why didn't Ford install them stock ? (cheaper for them by the huge numbers they built)

2) Any instrumentation on the performance improvement (handling , acceleration) ? Or is it all seat of the pants ?

3) Could this be a yearning for "ye olde Chevyesque full frame" of yesteryear ? (body on frame, held together by many creaky bolts, as in the last century)

After all, if the whole unit body is properly welded (roof, floor pan, pillars), then the "whole unit" resists twisting , as designed.

CobraRed_96_GT · May 20, 2008

TripleBlk said:
Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about subframe connectors, yet :

!) If they were so wonderful , why didn't Ford install them stock ? (cheaper for them by the huge numbers they built)

2) Any instrumentation on the performance improvement (handling , acceleration) ? Or is it all seat of the pants ?

3) Could this be a yearning for "ye olde Chevyesque full frame" of yesteryear ? (body on frame, held together by many creaky bolts, as in the last century)

After all, if the whole unit body is properly welded (roof, floor pan, pillars), then the "whole unit" resists twisting , as designed.

The mistake here is "whole unit body". The mustang has separate C frames on each end of the car, wouldn't matter if the body was a single piece of F1 composite, you'd still notice a great gain from the two C frames being conjoined - like most proper uni-body designs. Ford din't do it because they would have to extend the whole frame, not just weld on connectors like a modification - and my guess is this would require a lil more money and a good amount of weight

darkside03gt · May 20, 2008

TripleBlk said:
Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about subframe connectors, yet :

!) If they were so wonderful , why didn't Ford install them stock ? (cheaper for them by the huge numbers they built)

2) Any instrumentation on the performance improvement (handling , acceleration) ? Or is it all seat of the pants ?

3) Could this be a yearning for "ye olde Chevyesque full frame" of yesteryear ? (body on frame, held together by many creaky bolts, as in the last century)

After all, if the whole unit body is properly welded (roof, floor pan, pillars), then the "whole unit" resists twisting , as designed.

1 pretty sure ford installed them on mach1s and cobra verts
2 call maximum motorsports
3 no.

SilverBullet00 · May 20, 2008

TripleBlk said:
Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about subframe connectors, yet :

!) If they were so wonderful , why didn't Ford install them stock ? (cheaper for them by the huge numbers they built)

2) Any instrumentation on the performance improvement (handling , acceleration) ? Or is it all seat of the pants ?

3) Could this be a yearning for "ye olde Chevyesque full frame" of yesteryear ? (body on frame, held together by many creaky bolts, as in the last century)

After all, if the whole unit body is properly welded (roof, floor pan, pillars), then the "whole unit" resists twisting , as designed.

1)The 5.4 3v is a wonderful motor, why didn't ford offer that in the mustang? Why didnt the make the t-56 an option?

2) They tie the front and the rear of the car together to make it more rigid and solid, improving launches, etc by keeping the body from twisting. The twisting motion is wasting your torque.

3) No.

The uni-body is designed to handle STOCK power, once you start modifying it, all bets are off. Besides, designs don't always work as anticipated.

san~man · May 21, 2008

TripleBlk said:
Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about subframe connectors, yet :

!) If they were so wonderful , why didn't Ford install them stock ? (cheaper for them by the huge numbers they built)

Why should they improve on the awesome Fairmont chassis that's what, 40 years old?

TripleBlk said:
2) Any instrumentation on the performance improvement (handling , acceleration) ? Or is it all seat of the pants ?

The difference is immediately noticeable, after you take your first high speed turn or drive up a steep driveway at an angle. Like the others have said, MM or Griggs would probably have concrete numbers if that's what you're after.

TripleBlk said:
3) Could this be a yearning for "ye olde Chevyesque full frame" of yesteryear ? (body on frame, held together by many creaky bolts, as in the last century)

After all, if the whole unit body is properly welded (roof, floor pan, pillars), then the "whole unit" resists twisting , as designed.

You do realize that the front and rear are merely held together by the body and the sheetmetal floorpan? Hence, the horrible amount of flex a stock mustang body experiences...

I know you're only playing DA, but the improvement is well documented and absolutely necessary.

san~man · May 21, 2008

To the OP: get the powdercoated version. A few bucks more, and like you said, you're only grinding off a small area where the welds go.

A spray paint job can't compare to baked on powdercoating.

Dragstr05 · May 22, 2008

TripleBlk said:
Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about subframe connectors, yet :

After all, if the whole unit body is properly welded (roof, floor pan, pillars), then the "whole unit" resists twisting , as designed.

Obviously, you have never had the opportunity to open one of your doors with your car on a lift...

The flex of a stock mustang is rediculous.

steve_stang2003 · May 22, 2008

Dragstr05 said:
Obviously, you have never had the opportunity to open one of your doors with your car on a lift...

The flex of a stock mustang is rediculous.

1. The stock Vert and Mach (maybe others as well) come with bolt on 1/2 length useless subframes.

2. I installed the MM full lenth powder coated SF on my 2003 GT vert and the difference is amazing.
I could feel it just backing out of the driveway.

Coupled with the MM strut tower brace my car feels like a totally different animal now.

The difference on the coupes is probably less noticeable, but I would go for at least the SF .

FWIW the SF seems to effect the solidness of the back end whereas the the STB effected the front end, obviously

I haven't noticed any downside except I can now feel the Mach 1000 subs rattling by butt when they are cranked

TripleBlk · May 23, 2008

Dragstr05 said:
Obviously, you have never had the opportunity to open one of your doors with your car on a lift...

The flex of a stock mustang is rediculous.

The thing is , (and I forgot to mention) is that the convertibles obviously need the frame connectors because the rigidity of the pillars and roof of the coupes is lacking.

I have seen the "door thing" on a few unit body cars, but kinda chalk that one off to poor choice of lift points ?

I think Ford spent many millions developing/testng/tweaking the Fox chassis and saw no need to include frame connectors, except in convertibles.

Again , as DA, are the subframe connectors considered unsprung weight , or not ? I would tend to think they are "sprung" weight, myself.

san~man · May 23, 2008

They don't add "that" much weight. The advantages of them far outweigh the disadvantage (which is only added weight).

Think of it this way: Once you add a good set (i.e., MM's) of LCA's, you can ditch the quad shocks and negate some of the added weight from the SFCs

Subframe connectors- Some questions...

New Member

Member

chicks make me feel inadequate

Please ask me how much my supercharger cost

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Active Member

Member

New Member

O-G

O-G

New Member

New Member

Member

O-G

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency