TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,033 Posts
Kenny Brown was making, not sure if they still are.

Johnny Langton was making them also, but I believe he's giving them a rest at the moment.

Check the For Sale forums, they show up there once in a while.

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
If it's good for a '67 Mustang, It HAS to be good for an MN12

The early Mustang/Cougar platform flexed & twisted ALOT. To cure that, subframe connectors were invented. They connected the front & rear frame sections of the unibody together more strongly than the sheet metal unibody did.

MN12 have a front & rear removeable subfames that bolt on to the unibody. I assume that you are not going to connect those together.

The next question that comes to mind is are subframe connectors even needed? The MN12 platform is extremely rigid. If you don't beleve this, get the car on 3 jackstands, one at each corner. Then open & close each door. There is no body flex or twist, and the door can be closed easily. Try that with a 2nd. gen. Mustang, & the body will twist enough to prevent the door from closing at all. So if the MN12 doesn't twist/flex, then why bolt/weld on heavy subframe connectors?

A Road Racing ONLY car "may" benefit from subframe connectors, but hardly a street car.

68COUGAR
 

·
Fry Rice Specialist
Joined
·
4,794 Posts
Dr. FrankenCougie said:
I have installed a bunch of Sub frame connectors on both MN12's and FN10's and they have had a positive effect on both platforms period.

-Scott
i just had the front one installed and makes all the night and day difference in my tired chasis. for low mileage car might not seem like helping but with my high mileage car i highly recommneded.

our chasis are rigid enough because the tunnel below the door are filled with those almost like styrofoam stuff (i don't know what to call) along the body. it's a 2 part chemical mixture when mixed up it produce foam like material and once it hardened up it is very stiff an rigid.

it is a very popular mod for streetcar in japan to increase rigidity of a car's chasis.

if rear subframe connector are made i'm sure i will buy one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
68COUGAR said:
If you don't beleve this, get the car on 3 jackstands, one at each corner. Then open & close each door. There is no body flex or twist, and the door can be closed easily. Try that with a 2nd. gen. Mustang, & the body will twist enough to prevent the door from closing at all. So if the MN12 doesn't twist/flex, then why bolt/weld on heavy subframe connectors?

A Road Racing ONLY car "may" benefit from subframe connectors, but hardly a street car.

68COUGAR
I can't believe that you just stated that the MN-12 body doesn't flex or twist :rolleyes: ALL MN-12s or FN-10 can benefit from subframe connectors, just because you can open and close a door with the car on 3 jackstands hardly means there isn't any flex.

Russ
 

·
Fry Rice Specialist
Joined
·
4,794 Posts
Rich95XR7 said:
when I installed my subframe connectors, you could tell the difference as soon as I pulled it off the lift.

same as mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I got alot of winding country roads where I live and I do enjoy "racing" down them from time to time. I just want the car to be as stable as possible, whether I am cruisin around town or take the twisties on the high side of the speedometer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I also would like to find some and have them installed.
Our Tbird is a 94 lx 4.6 that we just bought from the first owner. It is quiet and solid and we would like to keep it that way! Not to mention I would like an improvement in handling and ride. I have had lots of Fox Tbrds and Mustangs and always like the improvement that subframes gave the cars ride and handling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
PM Johnny Langton and he should be able to help you out with the subframe connectors. I have some from him.

Russ
 

·
PostSlut
Joined
·
13,597 Posts
68COUGAR said:
The early Mustang/Cougar platform flexed & twisted ALOT. To cure that, subframe connectors were invented. They connected the front & rear frame sections of the unibody together more strongly than the sheet metal unibody did.

MN12 have a front & rear removeable subfames that bolt on to the unibody. I assume that you are not going to connect those together.

The next question that comes to mind is are subframe connectors even needed? The MN12 platform is extremely rigid. If you don't beleve this, get the car on 3 jackstands, one at each corner. Then open & close each door. There is no body flex or twist, and the door can be closed easily. Try that with a 2nd. gen. Mustang, & the body will twist enough to prevent the door from closing at all. So if the MN12 doesn't twist/flex, then why bolt/weld on heavy subframe connectors?

A Road Racing ONLY car "may" benefit from subframe connectors, but hardly a street car.

68COUGAR

Do what?????

If I jack up one wheel, the door doesn't open and close perfectly. IT opens and closes, just not perfect.(without the connectors).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Ok. After reading post after post about subframes, all I see is supposition. Now, some people have based conclusions on trial and error/experience, however, does anyone have any real tech?

Does anyone actually know the torsional stiffness of the MN-12? Also, how stiff is too stiff? Over a theoretical 200k mile daily driven life, wouldn't a car that is too stiff start stess fracturing in some of the seams? The suspension, and unibody need to safely dissipate all that energy every time you hit a pothole or bump. Has anyone done any FEA modeling to see what the high stress points on the MN-12 unibody are? How do you know what points to tie together then?

Not to knock anyone, but all I see are guesses and opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
If you want tech....then why don't you do it? I don't think anyone here has done FEA on a MN-12 and really I don't see a reason to since it is an older car. The subframe connectors connect the rear subframe connection points to a rail that comes off of the front subframe.

I would think that it would depend on the area for stress cracks caused by frame stiffening, which I haven't ever heard of anyone complaining about. I think that too much twisting would cause stress cracks before a stiffened frame would.

By all means bring the tech on. I am not an engineer nor do I have access to FEA, but I do know a little bit ;)

Russ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
If you want tech....then why don't you do it?
I plan to. I'm a second year ME student and I discussed a possible senior project with my professor today. Although it was more directly related to the K-Member, problems with data (Ford isnt just going to give it to me), and test equipment, which the University doesn't exactly have (although a company I used to work for does).



I don't think anyone here has done FEA on a MN-12 and really I don't see a reason to since it is an older car.
So that means that no one should bother making subframe connectors, shock tower braces, QA1 coilovers, rear torsion load braces, for the MN-12 platform because it is too old, in your opinion? Sure the braces work, but without FEA no one really knows what they are doing (to the dynamics of the unibody) other than the fact that it "feels" stiffer, and seems to handle better.

That's fine, but I'm more interested in numbers and data, not impressions.


I would think that it would depend on the area for stress cracks caused by frame stiffening, which I haven't ever heard of anyone complaining about. I think that too much twisting would cause stress cracks before a stiffened frame would.
I agree that no one has made their car so stiff to the point that it has produced cracking problems. That does not mean that the case can't exist. You have to look at it as the lesser of evils. As is, stock, I would venture to say that torsion, and stress distribution is your biggest problem because people have seen firewall cracks and x-brace cracking. If you approach a scenario where the unibody doesnt flex at all and is completely rigid, that would mean your suspension would have to do all the energy dissipation. Maybe that's good, maybe thats bad. I have no clue. I could be completely wrong even. My point is, is that I would rather know why something works/doesnt work than 'hey my car felt good' when I did it.



Again, I'm not discounting anyone's work or experience, I'm just saying that to date, I haven't seen any hard data whatsoever to back up why people have made the pieces they have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
Fusion0507 said:
So that means that no one should bother making subframe connectors, shock tower braces, QA1 coilovers, rear torsion load braces, for the MN-12 platform because it is too old, in your opinion? Sure the braces work, but without FEA no one really knows what they are doing (to the dynamics of the unibody) other than the fact that it "feels" stiffer, and seems to handle better.

That's fine, but I'm more interested in numbers and data, not impressions.
I don't see a reason to do it now because we already have subframe connectors on more than one car and they work great....even though it is just perceived stiffness :tongue: Your problem here is going to be modeling the car's chassis to do FEA....good luck with that one and the hundreds of hours that you will spend on that. Ford wouldn't even have data like this.....FEA would be near impossible by hand which is what their option would have been when they designed our chassis. I would say that they did more experimental design when they made our chassis. What I am trying to say is that they are "Subframe Connectors"....that is all....they do just what the name implies. I don't know of any company that has done FEA on a chassis just to figure out what is the best way to build their subframe connectors. Instead they just look at the car and design something that will connect the front and rear subframes.


Fusion0507 said:
I agree that no one has made their car so stiff to the point that it has produced cracking problems. That does not mean that the case can't exist. You have to look at it as the lesser of evils. As is, stock, I would venture to say that torsion, and stress distribution is your biggest problem because people have seen firewall cracks and x-brace cracking. If you approach a scenario where the unibody doesnt flex at all and is completely rigid, that would mean your suspension would have to do all the energy dissipation. Maybe that's good, maybe thats bad. I have no clue. I could be completely wrong even. My point is, is that I would rather know why something works/doesnt work than 'hey my car felt good' when I did it.
I think you are looking into this too hard. Poor manufacturing and loose tolerances are what is causing the problems with the uni-body. The connectors help out to keep things from cracking by not letting them twist as much. There might be more energy going into the suspension but at the moment I haven't heard of anyone complaining about having abnormally quick wear on suspension pieces as a result of chassis connectors of any sort.

Russell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Your problem here is going to be modeling the car's chassis to do FEA....good luck with that one and the hundreds of hours that you will spend on that. Ford wouldn't even have data like this.....FEA would be near impossible by hand which is what their option would have been when they designed our chassis.

http://www.ansys.com/

http://www.fea-optimization.com/ans_macro/ANS-history.txt


ANSYS has been around since the early 70's. I doubt they did it all by hand and it wasn't their only option. Even if they didnt use it until the 80's, it's absurd to think it wasn't modeled for the 94-97 platform.
 

·
High-Mileage 4.6L Thrasher
Joined
·
3,232 Posts
Fusion0507 said:
Ok. After reading post after post about subframes, all I see is supposition. Now, some people have based conclusions on trial and error/experience, however, does anyone have any real tech?

Does anyone actually know the torsional stiffness of the MN-12? Also, how stiff is too stiff? Over a theoretical 200k mile daily driven life, wouldn't a car that is too stiff start stess fracturing in some of the seams? The suspension, and unibody need to safely dissipate all that energy every time you hit a pothole or bump. Has anyone done any FEA modeling to see what the high stress points on the MN-12 unibody are? How do you know what points to tie together then?

Not to knock anyone, but all I see are guesses and opinion.
I can't show you 200K mile durability,but i can show just over 120K miles worth on my car.
No cracks,no stresses,no problems-just rattle free,squeak free driving.
I've launched it at the track all the way down to 1.74 60's,and ran it through hell on the street everyday for the entire time I've owned the car.
If you wanna do some FEA, have fun...I'll just go drive my car.
JL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
JL, I know you and Frankencougie have real experience to warrant weight behind your designs. While this isn't hard data, im sure you guys know a hell of a lot more about whats going on than others. I wasn't even eluding to you.


I've launched it at the track all the way down to 1.74 60's,and ran it through hell on the street everyday for the entire time I've owned the car.
^^^ is good information based on testing. My point was, that the "door" test, can hardly be considered conclusive proof lol. I was also referencing the mn12 performance pinion brace to be a copy of the one available for SN-95's. I'm not saying it isn't needed and I'm sure it works, however it seems a lot of mods suggested are adaptations of other platforms' aftermarket parts.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top