Chimmer

Did some searching, but nothing on these's came up..... found them a while ago from some other forum, can't remember where but anywho...

http://www.swracecars.com/camaro_boltOn.asp

they are bolt it but i supose can be welded in. Anyone ever hear of these's or maybe someones got them on there car...
can anyone see strengths or weakness's? The only thing i don't like is that there is no bar running along the rocker and u would have to use only there torque arm or the stock one.

Any help is apreciated

irocstang

look like they are built so you can only use their other components; ie you couldnt use a spohn or other company adj torque arm. This may be a downfall.

Just what i think though.

Smokin87TA

iTrader: (2)

i have these on my car and absolutly love them. The fitment is perfect as s+w are among the leaders of f-body suspension. I first bolted them in and then had them welded. I dont feel that using their torque arm is a downfall because it is equally priced (if not cheaper) than others, and it takes the stress off of the transmission and uses the crossmember with ds loop. The only downfall i can see is the weight of them, but the extra support is worth it.

Rembrandt

I have the S&Ws and the fit is not perfect to say the least.

The cup-thing for the rear lower control arm box does not contact the car's metal on the bottom inside of the cup of the SFC.

The passenger side lateral branch was long and a very tight fit, bad to be crow-bar-pried into place.

The passenger side plate that flanks the trans tunnel subframe does not meet it, it has a large gap. Not the part that bolts under the trans crossmember; the side facing towards right not the down side of the trans tunnel subframe.

The holes for the trans crossmember bolts had to be slightly elongated.

The passenger side longitudinal bar butts up against the floorpan in a place that is NOT a welding point.

Besides the fit problems, you lose a considerable amount of ground clearance. My car is not lowered so now I have to traverse even modest speed bumps, driveways, etc., otherwise I get a horrid metallic scrape and resonance through the tubes.

If your exhaust isn't aligned right like mine is, your exhaust will rest and vibrate/flutter on the crossmember that locates the driveshaft loop and torque arm (theirs I do not have installed). My car is single cat and so I ordered the SFCs for a single cat car, so that is not the problem.

The rigidity increase is substantial though, of course. Mine are welded in.

I could build something at least as good as this.

Spohns + Alstons will get you the same thoroughness in directionality of bracing, weigh only a little more, won't scrape, won't lose ground clearance, won't interfere w/ custom exhaust, and allow you to use whatever torque arm you want.

The Spohns will of course fit better, the Alstons I have heard less about the quality of. Plus with the Spohns you'll have a full length jacking rail, whereas with these S&Ws you can only access a side post...the longitudinal bars are themselves too low to fit almost all floor jacks under.

irocstang

you mentioned spohn and alistons....whats ur opinion of the umi sfcs?

Rembrandt

I don't know anything about UMI SFCs.

Recommend search of course.

Pics of any mounted?

irocstang

check out this link for a lot of info and installed pics of the umi sfcs:

https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=335711

ps umi sfcs are capable of handling 700 + horse power

Rembrandt

from what I could see, the UMI SFCs only weld onto the car in localized patches of welding plates.

Spohns are made to be stitch welded the entire length of the floorpan/rocker. It is desirable to distribute stress over as large an area as possible, which means as much contact as possible. If you were told that a car company only welded a body to a frame in a couple places, you wouldn't but the car. Things need to be incorporated into as rigid a unit as possible.

You can see this in the best roll cages of former street cars: gussets and plates extended from the cage tubes to the body, stitch welded to the tube and body say along a windshield and roof pillar. The same is true for SFCs.

The longer the wheelbase of a car, the more it will tend to bend. This is obvious (but also incorporated into the frame design) when you see Top Fuel dragsters in slow motion arching their frame. Also, the more the distance between SFC contact points, the more tendency for bending between them.

The spohns are smaller but are tubular. round is a more stress-resistant shape in multiple directions than boxed for a similar wall thickness and cross section, so that is why boxed SFCs are almost always more bulky and heavy.

The UMIs could well give you more rigidity just from their size.

I would think though, that with the largeness of the Spohn tubes and with a full-length stitching weld, there would be no difference in rigidity.

How do they determine how much 'power' SFCs can take?

Torque by the way is the magnitude of the force the SFCs and everything else are instantaneously subjected to, and so determines what breaks and when.

I could have a 300 lb-ft car that revs to 12,500 rpm and makes about 700 horsepower too...and would break less parts than a 700 lb-ft 700 hp car.

You could of course gear the 12,500 rpm car twice as short and therefore get about as much leverage as the 700-lb-ft car, and part breakage wouldn't change.

irocstang

I believe most of what you are saying. I also believe the extra weld points of the umi sfcs are an added bonus to structual rigidity. (am not sure how many spohns have but umis have 6)
I do not agree with your opinion that the spohns are as strong as the umi ones though. 1.) the spohns are alot smaller in diameter. 2.) the spohns have less welding points including (i think but not am 100% no cross bracing). I do not argue the fact that either would be a good choice as they will both do the job they are supposed to. A good point to remember is that every persons opinion will rest on what they intend to use them for. ie someone who is just after a bit of rigidity but not excessive regidity will get nothing but positive results from spohn. Those that intend to put bigger motors in their vehicles may obviously go with the umis as insure against breakage. Also the umis use the rear lca mounting bracket as a weld point. This also makes good sense as tieing front to back can yield nothing but positive results. I do believe that the spohns have gaps not a total straight rear unibody to front unibody connection. I may be wrong. i do not know. If they are anything like the alstons this is the case and ive attached a pic of MACS to prove this point (and to show you what i am talking about) I will also post a pic of the umi ones.

If anyone has a pic of the spohns installed please post.

At the least either would be a good choice and both have pros and cons. I think it comes down to person choice. Both are very reputable companies.

FACT----4th geners swear by umi...do a search..youll see that....the reason their is not as much info about the 3rd gen ones is that they were released not to long ago.

Each do a good job and each are worthy of our money. Its up to individuals to choice which ones they want according to their needs for them.

irocstang

pic 2

irocstang

pic 3

Rembrandt

the entire length of the spohn pipe is a potential contact/weld point. they also meet the rear lower control arm bracket, but flank it on one side not boxing it like the UMI (advantage: UMI)

check out the 1st and 13th picture on Spohn's website here of the installed pics:

http://www.spohn.net//index.cfm?acti...d&contentid=10

notice the weld beads the every 5 inches or so...the whole length of the bar! both on the lower part along the pinched metal rail of the rocker, and on the inner side of the floor.

I haven't seen the long tube of the UMI welded to the car, just the tabs on the ends.

provided you could weld the long body of the lengthwise box pipe to the car's floor, its rigidity increase would be almost certainly greater than the Spohns.

but as far as I can see, the UMIs only connect on those metal flaps off the main pipes. but they are probably big enough so that this isn't a compromise as much.

irocstang

Yup both these brands rock. They both are different and both have their advantages/disadvantages. Although I willing be receiving my umi sfcs soon I plan on purchasing tubular adj lower control arms from spohn.

Am unsure of what to get for adj torque arm, adj panhard rod/ relo brackets?

Any ideas?

TDS Wonder Bar
Edelbroke STB for TBI
Will have Roll Cage Soon

Rembrandt

BMR appears to have a very good one.

Rick Head's twin turbo 427 street radial stock-style rear suspension car, which runs 7s @ 180 at street weight, uses this.

One pic installed:

http://www.bmrfabrication.com/instru...riversside.jpg

and rest of info here, scroll down:

http://www.bmrfabrication.com/F3-suspension.htm

and the hardcore one:

http://www.bmrfabrication.com/XtremeDuty.htm


It has a crossbar that locates the torque arm, which is trimmable to length that way it can weld to the floor AND weld up to a set of subframe connectors on each end. This would make a full lateral box under the car making it extremely rigid.