Clean Front clip idea

Just wondering something as I was looking at this page: http://www.artmorrison.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=Camaro-FrontClip and I noticed that the 3rd gens and Camaros don't have the subframe rails coming down from the firewall like the 1st and 2nd genners do. Why is that?

What if these guys found a way to run the subframe rails BEHIND the fender wells for the 1st - 2nd gen cars? This would clean up the engine bay a ton. Heidt's and TCI have their frame rails coming down on an angle immediately from the firewall, and CA has his going somewhat more horizontal for a distance and then they drop down to the subframe. So why can't the rails be put in the wheel well area, run horizontal over the tires, tight up underneath the fender, and then drop down to tie into the front subframe assembly in front of the front tires INSIDE the wheel wells. You would never see this under there, allowing even more room for the engine bay and making it look a whole lot cleaner.

I'm guessing that the 3rd gens and Camaros don't have any upper supports, why is that? Why are their setups strong enough to handle the car with only the lower section of the front subframe? When you tied your 1st - 2nd gen rear subframe to the front subframe, wouldn't that be just as strong as the 3rd gen setups?

All of the later generation Novas had a subframe that goes back under the body about 2 feet and bolts into the unibody. That is why they don't need the firewall braces.
Tim

You might be on to something there deuceboy, That sounds like a opportunity for the chassis guys. Since the front clip and rear 4-link kits are selling so good, maybe the next step would be to connect them into a full frame. Could make for some very interesting changes in 1&2 gen. handling, clean up under the hood, and give the Drag boys lots of weld points for those cages.

I was going to come up with a sketch to show exactly what I was talking about. Even if a full frame wasn't made, I think you could connect your rear frame rails to the front subframe (basic subframe connectors that everyone uses) and install a new style front clip.

The new style front clip would run the downtubes about 3-4 inches outside of the current aftermarket clip locations. This would put them behind the inner fender wells. The downtubes would run horizontally underneath and tight up underneath the fender, and well above the front tires. At the point in front of the tires, they would turn down and connect to the lower cross member portion of the front subframe. I checked under my car this morning and see no reason why this wouldn't work.

The only tricky part is that the down tubes would be a few inches away from the 3 bolts in the firewall (due to the downtubes being in the wheel well now and running under the fender). This arrangement might give extra flex since the down tubes are not located exactly where they bolt to the firewall. But a simple gusset in the 3 bolt bracket should fix that.

I'll draw something up, scan it, and post it on here sometime this weekend.

All of the later generation Novas had a subframe that goes back under the body about 2 feet and bolts into the unibody. That is why they don't need the firewall braces.
Tim

But the 1st and 2nd gens do also, right? Or is it a weak spot where they bolt in at the lower firewall area? What is the difference if these were all tied together like most people already do? Technically, they have a full frame car when they use subframe connectors, don't they? Or am I off with my understanding of full frames?


Just curious. Kinda be neat to see a front clip without the downtubes in the way. I think this would allow for a little more cosmetic input into the standard aftermarket flat inner fenders.

I think it depends on how the loadpath goes. I would think that the way to do this type of thing would start at the back of the car. I would think that to do this type of set up you would, at minimum, have to install a crossmember with a driveshaft loop right in front of the rear fenders then run the rails off of those and continue the rails to the front of the car. You'd probably have to cut out where the stock subframe connects at the firewall and weld in the frame rails there. I used to have a link to a guy who did it sort of like this. I'm not sure if he is a member of this site but his name was LynnJ!

John

Here's what I did on my '64. It has a Mustang II front suspension, but to do it right you need somewhere to tie the support tubes into that will actually support the front frame rails. I have a 14 point roll cage which does the job as these tubes extend through the firewall and are welded to the roll cage. It makes the car solid plus you still have the added support of the original factory sheet metal. Without a cage to tie into though, there isn't really anything to weld the tubes to that will provide the support. You would need a full frame or else weld some kind of support coming from behind the inner federwell somehow.

The holes are cut-out at the rear for fenderwell headers but I could have hidden the tubes more if I wanted to. The shock towers are removed but it still retains some of the factory look while dramatically increasing the room in the engine compartment.

http://webpages.charter.net/zjww5226/IMG_5952.JPG

looks good! I actually have one of these Arazona crossmember kits like that, but opted for a Heidt. Seemed easier, but I might give this thought since I'v seen yours. I might use the Arazona on the next projest if I ever finish this one!

You can get the crossmember kits from many places. Some shops like Auto Weld will even fab one up exactly to your specs.

64PRO, I like that setup!! Keeping somewhat of the stock engine compartment look, and allowing a better handling. That is kinda what I was talking about doing.

I own a 1st Gen. Nova and a 1st Gen. Camaro. The way the cars are constructed is totaly different. The floor structure of the Camaro is a lot stronger allowing the subframe something more substantial to bolt to. The Nova cowl area is built more like a box. It needs the upper cowl area to tie into for strength.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but these little cars need all the help they can get as far as structural chassis strength. My stock 64 creaks and groans going up a driveway at an angle. My Camaro, not so much. It's just a better built car.

Tim

They really aren't that much different in construction. The Camaro is still a unibody car in that it has a separate front subframe attached to a unibody set-up. They are a little more rugged than a 1st gen but nothing too dramatically different. I've seen both Novas and Camaros deflect and twist and bend.

My car is also back-halfed and has full frame rails from the firewall all the way back. It also have a 14 pt. roll cage welded-in for more structural integrity and the front frame rails are tied to it. Any time you plan to add big-time power to any unibody car you will need to add some reinforcement.

Check out Brettzer's thread called "Stiffening up the II" in this forum (the suspension forum). He has an awesome idea that would make all of this stuff tie in together.

Believe it or not, I like the look of the downtubes. I wish 3rd gen clips used them. :(

Matt

I don't mind the look of the down tubes either, I actually like the looks of an aftermarket clip a lot. But I really think the stock LOOK is better. But I'll trade the looks for better handling and more room to wrench on things. I just wish there was a way that the aftermarket inner fenders didn't look so plain. The downtubes help make it look better, especially on the CW kit. But if the tubes were put outside, I think they'd have more room to put some more looks into the inner fenders.