JamesC

iTrader: (5)

The pluses:

Quality workmanship that far exceeds OE. (See UMI's website for details, P/N 2221.)

*Direct fit with provision for drilling/taping two OE bolt holes. I used a 10mm-1.5 tap and an 11/32 (8.7mm) drill bit.

*Ease of installation.

Rugged power coating.

Six bolts, grade 10.9 (M10 x 1.5 x 32) with washers. (The smallish nature of the washers, compared to OE, was somewhat dissatisfying.)

One Concern:

*The bolt slot (cross member to transmission mount) wasn't large enough to accept the bolt from my Energy Suspension poly mount (3.1108). I was forced to hit it with a Dremel and to spray it with a bit of red paint.

Issues to Consider:

The weight is marginally heavier than OE, and a bit of ground clearance is lost.

All in all, I'm quite satisfied with the purchase.

NOTE: I used a poly mount with the UMI piece. The noise/vibration is a bit louder, but that would be expected as the OE secondary cross member is equipped with four rubber mounts. If your car is equipped with the latter cross member, I recommend swapping it for a one-piece, either OE or after market. The 'feel' is much improved.

EDIT for mount info: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tran...ison-pics.html

JamesC

The Project

iTrader: (6)

Great review James..

I plan on picking up one of these before installing my new tranny.

Sutoto2189

Why not just use a fender washer or another larger diameter washer to help it cover the hole a bit more? The current washers are a bit to small for my liking, especially if your using their cross member mounted torque arm also.

JamesC

iTrader: (5)

Since the UMI washer is approx. the same diameter as the flanged OE bolt, I'd suggest using it under the UMI bolt head, then using a second washer which approximates the OE washer's diameter. The two non-OE washers will then be about the same thickness as the single OE.

Below the flanged OE bolt and UMI washer. The UMI bolt with their washer and a second larger washer. I threw in the OE washer to provide some perspective.

EDIT: I found the correct flanged-headed bolt at my local ACE hardware, but since they were $2.68 per, I passed.

JamesC

Confuzed1

iTrader: (4)

James,

It looks like a regular trans cross member...don't get me wrong, it's nice but is the OEM one that flimsy?

I definately see upgrading to one where the torque arm mounts up to it so the stress can be taken off the tranny tailshaft, but what's the advantage of buying a direct replacement aftermarket type? Just curious.

BTW, yours has to be stronger than my OEM one, since I only have two bolts in each side of my xmember - it came that way AFAIK....

JamesC

iTrader: (5)

You'll note that in my first post I suggested either an OE or an after market one-piece. Also note that the UMI piece has provision for two more bolts, if you care to drill/tap OE holes.

Flimsy? I suppose in the same way that our LCA's, pan hard, and torque arm are stamped-steel flimsy--and many of us replace those, so what the heck....

JamesC

Confuzed1

iTrader: (4)

Ahhh....Ok...now I understand. I also used to have one of the older type of cross members with the secondary piece w/rubber "donuts" also. I didn't catch that on your first post. A lot of people don't realize the earlier thirdgens had a two-piece type.

I actually found the replacement rubber pieces at the dealer (my original where dry and cracked), but when I disassembled my old one, I discovered it was rusted badly around where the donuts and big metal washers sat and the remaining metal was left very thin in that area - to the point I couldn't trust it.

I ended up going to the bone yard and digging up a one piece type from a newer Camaro. I didn't notice any increased vibration, and it left me wondering why they designed the earlier ones with the stupid donuts anyway!!

88fastgta

iTrader: (9)

just wondering why didnt you go with their torque arm relocation kit to take the torque arm off the tailshaft......

JamesC

iTrader: (5)

Two reasons:

I didn't like the idea of using an OE rubber trans mount, which UMI recommends, and I didn't like the modifications that the relocation kit required. For more info about that check page 2, post #40 of the following link:

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/susp...mounted-2.html

JamesC

88fastgta

iTrader: (9)

yeah i had a bmr torque arm relocation kit but it caused me so many vibrations that i took it off.... james c.... what do they do besides taking the stress of the tailshaft..... do they offer better handling or somethings.. i have a aftermarket torque arm with the poly bushing already..... the 4th gen cars have alot more horsepower than our cars and most of them still use the stock tailshaft setup... so i dont really see the benefit for our cars....

JamesC

iTrader: (5)

Aside from removing the stress from the tail shaft, they allow for some "instant center" fine tuning. Both UMI and BMR mention that for factory horsepower levels and average street driving the OE works fine.

JamesC

88fastgta

iTrader: (9)

Well my problem is that by this winter I'm expecting to have around 350+whp and around. 370+wtq with my new setup.... Do u think the stock tailshaft location would be fine... I don't race at the track.. This is just a powerful daily driver.... That will have some fun on the streets....H

JamesC

iTrader: (5)

Given your driving intentions, I wouldn't see why not. I harbor no fear of wrecking my non-WC--but I don't drive it hard either.

JamesC

Confuzed1

iTrader: (4)

Well, I can tell you I'm running around 390rwhp and 495wtq with a UMI torque arm and poly bushing on the tail shaft of my trans - OE style, and no issues yet....but I'm not running at the track either. Good traction is an issue however.