Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

umi subframe connectors

This is a discussion on umi subframe connectors within the Firebird / WS6 forums, part of the Vehicle Specific category; Welded mine in took about 45 min. to fit and grind. One of my best mods!...

  1. #21
    Member Rob Mellinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Roanoke, VA
    Posts
    112

    White
    1998 Trans Am m6

    Welded mine in took about 45 min. to fit and grind. One of my best mods!
    LS6 intake,B&M short shift, Pacesetter ceramic lt, ory, umi subframe connectors, umi lca, slp lid, tr 230 cam, comp 918 springs,centerforce dual friction clutch, Frost tune.

  2. #22
    Electrical Engineer KMdef9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North of the Motorcity
    Posts
    2,611

    Custom Swirly Black
    2001 WS6 M6

    I also just did the 3 point umi SFC. Really easy. I'll put something together in the suspension section soon.

  3. #23
    Junior Member traumadog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    40

    Silver
    2004 Pontiac GTO/Monaro

    Mounted mine using ramps for the fronts, then putting jackstands under the rear axle. I also got weld-ins, but they're just bolted in at the moment. (I also have a convertible F-Body, so the mounting's different vs. some other SFC's).

  4. #24
    how did you go about the with the welded part and painting the SFCs?

  5. #25
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    worth noting is that tubular is stronger than box, and tubular also give you new jacking points.

  6. #26
    Member Mieux97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    614

    White
    99 Pontiac Trans Am #2466

    which is better....2pt or 3pt?

  7. #27
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by Mieux97 View Post
    which is better....2pt or 3pt?
    3 point is better in terms of chassis stiffness. 2 point is better at "clearance" as if it even matters

  8. #28
    Moderator 35th-ANV-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wherever life takes me
    Posts
    12,465

    Red
    02 35th LE Camaro SS

    This is from EPP's website talking about BMR SFC's.

    Which one do I choose? - While you can't go wrong with either design, use the following to determine your order: If strength is your number one priority, choose the boxed design. Boxed tubing is torsionally stronger than round tubing however you will lose approximately 3/4" of ground clearance when using this style.

    If your car is lowered and ground clearance is the prime concern, go with the tubular model. While round tubing is not as strong torsionally, there are other features to these subframe connectors that make them more rigid than most other tubular models available.

  9. #29
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by 35th-ANV-SS View Post
    This is from EPP's website talking about BMR SFC's.

    Which one do I choose? - While you can't go wrong with either design, use the following to determine your order: If strength is your number one priority, choose the boxed design. Boxed tubing is torsionally stronger than round tubing however you will lose approximately 3/4" of ground clearance when using this style.

    If your car is lowered and ground clearance is the prime concern, go with the tubular model. While round tubing is not as strong torsionally, there are other features to these subframe connectors that make them more rigid than most other tubular models available.
    i thought tubular is stronger than box, as in there are less stress points aka bends
    Last edited by shady milkman; 04-23-2010 at 09:56 AM.

  10. #30
    Moderator 35th-ANV-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wherever life takes me
    Posts
    12,465

    Red
    02 35th LE Camaro SS

    Quote Originally Posted by shady milkman View Post
    i thought tubular is stronger than box
    I was always told the other way around so I thought about it more being an engineer.

    For a beam, bending stress = Mc/I, where (M) is the bending moment at a section along the beam, (c) is the distance from the neutral axis of the beam to a point you want to compute stress at, and (I) is the moment of inertia. Because the moment of inertia is in the denominator of the bending stress equation, the larger (I) is the less the stress will be. This is why many beams have an H or I shape, which produces a large moment of inertia to resist bending moment and reduce bending stress.

    Section modulus, S, is another way of expressing I/c, where c is the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the beam. Thus, maximum pure bending stress = M/S. Therefore, the larger the section modulus, the less stress an object will see.

    The section modulus (S) of a rectangle is: S = (b*h^2) / 6, where b & h would be base and height.

    The section modulus of a circle (tube) is: S = Pi * d^3 / 32

    Therefore, if a SFC was tubular and say 2" in diameter, its section modulus would be 0.785 in^3. Assuming it was solid for ease of calculation.

    A SFC that is 2" square (rectangle) would have a section modulus of 1.333 in^3. Again, assuming it was solid.

    The larger the section modulus, the less stress an object will see under the same load.

  11. #31
    Super Moderator
    pajeff02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mansfield, PA
    Posts
    21,567

    Black & Blue
    '02 WS.6 / '07 Suburban

    Quote Originally Posted by 35th-ANV-SS View Post
    I was always told the other way around so I thought about it more being an engineer.

    For a beam, bending stress = Mc/I, where (M) is the bending moment at a section along the beam, (c) is the distance from the neutral axis of the beam to a point you want to compute stress at, and (I) is the moment of inertia. Because the moment of inertia is in the denominator of the bending stress equation, the larger (I) is the less the stress will be. This is why many beams have an H or I shape, which produces a large moment of inertia to resist bending moment and reduce bending stress.

    Section modulus, S, is another way of expressing I/c, where c is the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the beam. Thus, maximum pure bending stress = M/S. Therefore, the larger the section modulus, the less stress an object will see.

    The section modulus (S) of a rectangle is: S = (b*h^2) / 6, where b & h would be base and height.

    The section modulus of a circle (tube) is: S = Pi * d^3 / 32

    Therefore, if a SFC was tubular and say 2" in diameter, its section modulus would be 0.785 in^3. Assuming it was solid for ease of calculation.

    A SFC that is 2" square (rectangle) would have a section modulus of 1.333 in^3. Again, assuming it was solid.

    The larger the section modulus, the less stress an object will see under the same load.

    I just checked the math, Jon's correct.

    Seriously, either way you go it will make a difference. If the car is going to be raced or you plan on a tunnel mount torque arm, then you may want to go with the 3 point setup. I do like the tubular SFC's as they are almost invisible and have almost no impact on your ground clearance.

  12. #32
    Rockin the Ruckus! 02Sweet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Line Lexington, PA
    Posts
    2,670

    NBM
    2002 z28 camaro

    Quote Originally Posted by pajeff02 View Post
    I just checked the math, Jon's correct.

    Seriously, either way you go it will make a difference. If the car is going to be raced or you plan on a tunnel mount torque arm, then you may want to go with the 3 point setup. I do like the tubular SFC's as they are almost invisible and have almost no impact on your ground clearance.


    This is a picture of the 3 point. The same ones I have and I have plenty of clearance.

  13. #33
    autoconnectionllc.com 02transamce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montgomery,Ala
    Posts
    2,436

    2007 Corvette
    Ebony

    ^nice setup!

  14. #34
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by 35th-ANV-SS View Post
    I was always told the other way around so I thought about it more being an engineer.

    For a beam, bending stress = Mc/I, where (M) is the bending moment at a section along the beam, (c) is the distance from the neutral axis of the beam to a point you want to compute stress at, and (I) is the moment of inertia. Because the moment of inertia is in the denominator of the bending stress equation, the larger (I) is the less the stress will be. This is why many beams have an H or I shape, which produces a large moment of inertia to resist bending moment and reduce bending stress.

    Section modulus, S, is another way of expressing I/c, where c is the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the beam. Thus, maximum pure bending stress = M/S. Therefore, the larger the section modulus, the less stress an object will see.

    The section modulus (S) of a rectangle is: S = (b*h^2) / 6, where b & h would be base and height.

    The section modulus of a circle (tube) is: S = Pi * d^3 / 32

    Therefore, if a SFC was tubular and say 2" in diameter, its section modulus would be 0.785 in^3. Assuming it was solid for ease of calculation.

    A SFC that is 2" square (rectangle) would have a section modulus of 1.333 in^3. Again, assuming it was solid.

    The larger the section modulus, the less stress an object will see under the same load.
    ahh ok.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question: Umi Subframe connectors
    By davidz28 in forum Suspension and Handling
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-15-2010, 09:45 AM
  2. subframe connectors???!!!
    By dadowd in forum Convertible
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-12-2010, 08:25 PM
  3. subframe connectors
    By Scanlamp in forum Rocky Mountain Members
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-20-2007, 08:25 PM
  4. i need help with subframe connectors
    By 15T01Z28 in forum Suspension and Handling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 04:25 AM
  5. Looking for subframe connectors....
    By clg82 in forum Parts Wanted / Trade
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 07:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •