i'm not even gonna read all these but give my .02 based on previous cars i've had.
i had an '89 notch w/ southside bars and hpm subframe conn's w/ the t-bracing ...loved the SFC's but hated the southsides...complete garbage.
i now have a '93 notch w/ max motorsports sub frame connectors (no t bracing for the seats which i wish i had) and max motorsports strut tower brace...the car feels solid as a rock and hopefully tuesday i'll have my hpm mega bite jr's on there to see how it all works together.
i think the mega bite jr's are hands down the BEST lca you can buy.
I don't really agree w/ the "picture of a tool" comment. From what I had on my previous stang, just the std length subframes, strut tower brace, and LCA's (all Maximum Motorsports)...the car was infinately more solid than stock. I'm sure the full lenghts will make a difference, but for a daily driver, I didn't seen the point in it. Its not like I'm trying to fly down Lombard St, in San Francisco @ 60mph or anything.
I don't really agree w/ the "picture of a tool" comment. From what I had on my previous stang, just the std length subframes, strut tower brace, and LCA's (all Maximum Motorsports)...the car was infinately more solid than stock. I'm sure the full lenghts will make a difference, but for a daily driver, I didn't seen the point in it. Its not like I'm trying to fly down Lombard St, in San Francisco @ 60mph or anything.
Every time I've been to San Francisco I've looked down that road and thought "man, I wish I could run my GT down this just once!"
OK, I concede that the "picture of a tool" allegory took it a bit far. However, there is barely any extra work involved with the full lengths, and the extra money is less than two tanks of gas. So in the bigger scheme of things, my take on it is basically this: if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. If there aren't any compromises involved, (there really aren't) there is no reason NOT to go the extra mile in this case.
Full length SFC's also provide support the lower torque boxes, which we all know is one of the most structurally problematic areas on our Fox cars, standards do virtually nothing for this. Considering the wimpy materials used for the stock sub frames, the forward thinking person is going to want as much surface area bonded as possible to lessen the stress on the actual attach points for both superior rigidity and structural integrity that will last (the #1 problem with bolt in SFC's). Full lengths provide more than double the bonding area to the sub frames, cutting the stress factor in half, and may account for the 95% stiffer job than the standard connectors provide. When you consider that the '05 is twice as stiff as a Fox notchback coupe without any after market bracing, suddenly the advantage offered by standard length SFC's over stock seem quite insignificant in the big picture. Even full length SFC's won't make a HB Fox as stiff as an '05 V6 vert "streetcar" is off the showroom floor, so they harldy seem a race only item. To say that standard lengths do nothing was tendentious and I've flamed others for that attitude in here- I was wrong to put it that way. However, when it comes to solving the inherent problems with the fox chassis, they are a Band-Aid not a cure.
I went with the Maximum Motorsports Full Length Subframes, I noticed an immediate change in response, and altogether strength. No more creaks and rattles.
I also installed a Maximum Motorsports Strut Tower brace. I need to move on to LCAs/UCAs next.