http://www.cars-on-line.com/29028.html Here's a stunning, supposid totally stock 87 convertable. It's got what looks like ground effects. In talking with Kat, he mentioned that it's actually the SFCs that ASC installs. Is this really where the SFCs sit on the convertables? You can see in this pic that it sits right up where a factory Z28 ground effect piece would sit: This isn't the ASC subframe connector is it? It looks a lot more like an aftermarket ground effect piece to me.

Looks like a GFX piece to me also.

The 91 RS Vert I had was diff. Then again They might to it that way on a non gfx car. I dont think so thou.

Isn't that nose from an 82-84 car? I thought they did away with the front vent holes in 85+.

The lower part of that is the SFC, I dont know what sort of trim piece ASC installed but thats why its there. It may be a part of the SFC, one of the Formula vert guys would know for sure... I've never seen one close up, but Kat probably has.

Yup, thats just the SFC... here is my Formula same piece...

If you look at it there is the lower SFC, then there is a 1.5" wide trim piece that runs the entiere length, at either the front or the rear it is bent over, the other end is cut to length... interestingly the trim piece is identical to the ones found on the Cavilier & Sunbird convertibles in the mid to late 80's... I have yet measure a cavilier to see if its longer or shorter, but it uses the same clips. The clips that hold on the piece are still available through GM...

If you look closely the piece is just below the door, the stock Camaro & Firebird GFX actually were integrated into the lower portion of the doors.

THats a very unusual car there.

Actually i beleive the had the vent holes all the way up to 88, possibly 89. Thats a post 85 nose anyway, the 82-84 had much larger vent holes, and sharper corners below the parking lights on the front valence.

1987 was the last year for that facia.. In 1988 all camaros came with the ground effects from the factory. Interestingly I believe it may have been due to the Convertibles that this was done. That way they could sell the base camaro and the Z28 asa convertible without the subframe connectors showing. WHat I noticed about the later Caviliers as well is the SFC was more hidden eventually...

Similarly In 91 & 92 Firebird Convertible the only way you could get the Vert is with the ground effects.

indeed it is. Oddly enough, I just found another one for sale on the auto trader that's about 100 miles from me. 14k miles. Too bad I have no time/money/space for it.

Ok, trying to findout what these are, I found this topic, and I'm not very happy.

I just bought an '89 base bird 'vert, and it has these flimsy-looking, ugly pieces across the bottom that I was HOPING were an aftermarket gfx piece that a previous owner might've added on that I'd be able to remove. But I guess not.

I'd never noticed them on any 'vert before, I guess because they're hidden by factory gfx on most 'verts. So these are the pieces that ASC added, huh? I'm wondering which GM executive said this was acceptable. And I find it very hard to believe no one could come up with something more asthetically pleasing and better integrated into the car's design than these things!

Has anyone ever 'knocked' on one of these? You can almost make a dent in them with your hand. These things couldn't possibly add much to the structural rigidity of the frame. And not only that, you mean the body panels are actually destroyed for the installation of these parts? So they can't even be removed in favor of a Spohn or UMI style SFC without having to do semi-major body panel repair, other than just filling in some holes?

I'm sure someone likes these or thinks they're attractive, so I'll prolly offend someone by asking...

What were they thinking when they designed these?!

What kind of challenges will I face if I try to remove them, get the clean, non-gfx body line back, and add one of the other style SFCs along the frame? Have I pretty much outlined it already?

And on mine, one side has some large dents, and one end of the upper trim piece is breaking off at its attachment point. So if I can't simply remove them, will I, at least, be able to find replacements?

Considering at the time it was pretty much common practice.

The early Cavalier & Sunbird convertibles also had almost identical pieces at the same place, matter of factly the trim piece which covers the rivets is the same but a different length.

Unfortunately under your trim pieces you will find rivets where they mounted the SFC to the car. You can still get the plastic trim clips from GM for now, I paid $10 for a pack of 10 which will do the entire car. I got mine last summer, get the part number from the clip.

As far as removing them they do something, I cannot imagine them installing something like this just to have it there. If you were to get some good SFC's and then remove the stock ones you would probably be ok, BUT it is hard to say.

Good luck.

John

I'm not saying the car didn't need, or that they didn't think it needed, extra structural bracing. I'm saying it just seems like with a little extra thought and common sense, someone could've come up with something A LOT better than this for both asthetics and strength.

I just find it hard to believe that a design like this was given the "OK," where these were allowed to be so poorly-integrated into the car's visual design(regardless that they prolly figured, "they'll be hidden by the Camaro's gfx"), along with also knowing it would ruin the associated body panels by cutting them up, all for the apparent little amount of extra support these obviously-weak pieces actually add. It just seems like someone wasn't thinking.

And I really doubt it was because the 'technology' of the time didn't allow something different. Do you think it took Spohn 10-15 years of thought and r&d to concieve and produce his idea for SFCs that support the same area? I don't. But oh well, it's not like I can turn back time and have these done differently... or can I?

This car is going to be a project anyway, so I might as well go the distance and make it into the convertible that could've and should've been created by GM/ASC in the first place and remove these ugly, almost-worthless, things, repair the body damage caused by them, and add REAL structural support in the same area with Spohn's, along with a set of Alston's underneath.

I dont disagree about the appearance but then again the 1/4 panel cap is a hackjob too IMO.
I wouldnt discount the strength though. They're connected at multiple points to the same area thats supposed to carry load from front to rear and I'm sure they're fine. They are also under the rocker rather than next to it, so because of that they are actually stronger in bending with the rocker than a Spohn or UMI would be if the materials have similar strength and sizing... and I think they are pretty close.

If you want to do it right, find a better way to transfer the load from the front frame rails to the rear frame rails through the SFC and attach the SFC to the rocker at multiple points. Any part that is attached at more locations will have less deflection than one connected at the ends only, and deflection is what you're trying to minimize.

Spohn is off the game anyway. SSM (South Side Machine) designed SFC's that ran behind the rockers before Spohn was even in business. I think they were available while the cars were still in production.

This one?

It's only about 25 minutes from me. I've thought about going to take a look at it.. but I don't need another vehicle and have no good place to store it right now.

Thanks for your input.

Using Spohn as an example because his site has installed pix, his are welded at multiple points, but along the existing ASC part. So if I remove that, then depending on what's left of the car, I guess, I'd need an SFC for a regular chassis, right? And like you said, and Spohn's pix show, it should be tacked at multiple points, not just the ends.

I'll search for South Side Machine and see what I can find. Thanks, it's nice to know there are other sources out there.

SSM is long gone. Dont search.

Yes, if you remove the factory junk... all thats left is a regular ol t-top/hardtop chassis. I'd suggest some serious interim bracing if you cut off the ASC stuff, otherwise you could end up with a bent car... or do it all at once and use a frame rack or other means to keep the frame locations intact.

The ASC frame reinforcement that is the topic of discussion isn't the only reiforcement used in that area over and above what a t-top coupe had. There is also a sheet metal piece that was welded in under the plastic door trim plate. I discovered it when I tried swapping another trim piece from a coupe onto my 'vert. You need to hack up some internal ribs on that traim piece to get it to fit over the added reinforcing piece on a convertible.

It seems like a lot or work to remove the rivets, factory undercoating, then fill in the rivet holes with weld once you've got the pinch-rail reinforcing pieces out. Yes it appears to be do-able. You have an added incentive since one of the pieces is damaged. Once out I'd either get one of the SFC's made of square tubing for a coupe or make your own to weld along that area. This might be a job best done on a chassis rotisserie with the interior gutted.

Lon

THe most obvous reason that I believe why they made the cars the way they did was for production purposes.

Consider if they used a weld-on type Subframe connector, They would have to remove more of the interior, and they would have risked catching each & every car on fire when they welded it. If they had to do some Spot welding, as I assume they did for some of the pieces, is not nearly as dangerous.

My hunch is that Pontiac did not get on board until 1991 because of the bracing. If you think back to 1987 & 1988 the only Firebird to have ground effets to cover the SFC would have been the Trans am or GTA. Not until 1989 were the GFX an option on the base firebird...

This would explain why the Formula was NA as a vert even in 91 & 92, but you could get T-tops on all Formula models in late 91 & all of 92. Just some thoughts.

John

I had a chance this afternoon to take a closer look, and I saw where they cut-off the bottom of the fender, mutilating the car to install these supports. I was thinking of installing '82-'83 Trans Am fenders anyway. So this will be my excuse, if I do it.

John, they might've done some spot welding, but I believe it was mostly riveted, from what I'd been told. But everything you said makes sense, so you're prolly right. I still think they could've done something better though.

And Lon, I did plan to strip the car down to a bare chassis soon, maybe a few months. But I'm gonna enjoy the car for awhile first.

wow, that vert looks just like my dads old 87...amazing.

Yup, if I do this, I'll install a set of Lon's Alstons first. But I'll investigate more to make sure that'll be enough support before removal.