Vintage Mustang Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this month's Ride of the Month Challenge!

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A local guy to me is selling a pair of new Global West Sub Frame connectors for cheap, $50 (Canadian, so like $38 USD)

Has anyone used these and if so, what are your thoughts?

I was planning on going with Tin Man Sub Frame connectors as I have heard nothing but good things on them, but these are so cheap I may not want to pass up.

I am just getting the guy to verify which ones these are as there are different part#'s listed for 65/66 and 67-70.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,716 Posts
If your body shell (cowl, firewall, torque boxes, rockers, pillars, etc.) isn't rusty then I wouldn't spend the money and effort on them. Your car isn't apt to bend in the middle with a solid roof and floor, especially with a small block, and SFC's don't help with torsional rigidity, being connected just to the thin floor supports/front subframe "extensions". If you don't have a one-piece export brace that'd be better money spent. If you do, the next money I'd spend would be a Monte Carlo bar. After that, lower control arm eccentric eliminators and, after that, heim joint/rod end strut rods. That's just my opinion though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks for said opinion!!!

My 68 came from Phoenix, not a spot of rust on it and has original panels except passenger quarter was skinned at one time.. I am running a 1 piece export brace and monte carlo bar (yes a curved one...)

My 5.0L is running about 350 hp hooked to a 5 speed and 373 posi. I do tend to beat on it a lot hence why was considering making the car more rigid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,716 Posts
Thanks for said opinion!!!

My 68 came from Phoenix, not a spot of rust on it and has original panels except passenger quarter was skinned at one time.. I am running a 1 piece export brace and monte carlo bar (yes a curved one...)

My 5.0L is running about 350 hp hooked to a 5 speed and 373 posi. I do tend to beat on it a lot hence why was considering making the car more rigid.
There's quite a bit of longitudinal rigidity built into the rockers and the floor (tunnel, seat risers, etc.). When you look at the potential of the vehicle bending where SFC's would be installed it's virtually impossible... the distance between the front and rear subframes would have to shrink... and torsionally SFC's are not only too close together but not sufficiently tied into anything at the front to use the cowl and torque boxes to prevent twisting. They do stiffen the floor if welded along their length and you CAN feel it in the seat but, I've come to believe, the effort + additional weight (mass) isn't worth it. My recommendation for improving rigidity ultimately goes here: http://www.streetortrack.com/Installing-convertible-rockers-into-a-65-68-p-14.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
I installed a set on my 66 convertible. They were the weld in version. They fit perfectly and installed easily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
For 38$ US, I would not hesitate. I have the GW on both my 66 and 70 and fit is great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 68Hildago

·
rdnck1
1965 Mustang Luxury Coupe, 363, 4R70W, 9", work in progress
Joined
·
267 Posts
I have them on my 65. Fit was perfect and install was easy but the car is not completed yet so I cannot comment on the benefit. I can say that on previous cars it does help and was worth it to me. I welded mine in before doing any body work which helped hold everything together during that phase. Number #910 for the 65/66 and number #911 for the 67-70. Good luck, Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,125 Posts
I don't work for Global anymore, but I will tell you this, anyone who can't tell the difference (even on a "solid"
condition Mustang) either isn't being honest or isn't sensitive to the improvement.
I've had the basic 910 subframe on my '66 since 1985 or so and my '68 has the 911 subframe as well
By themselves they aren't the end-all-be-all but they are definitely an improvement.
For the full effect, you can add in the rocker reinforcement kit #923(looks like rungs in a ladder),
which goes between their subframe connector and the pinch-weld lip.

We've covered the basic subframe topic several times on the VMF.
Here's one response I wrote in 2010 to some of the non-relevant data provided in that thread-

"I'm not a structural engineer, that said, I used to sell a ton of Global West round subframe
connectors. The quick punch line was- "they resist torsional twist better than square or
rectangular tubing." Mainly our competition was offering poorly constructed square tubing
junk that was sometimes even bolted on.

From quick research on the subject, the following is also presented-
"Round tube weighs less than square tube for a given outside dimension. Round tube is available in stronger steel—rectangular tube is only produced in 1010—and 1020 DOM is approximately 30% stronger than 1010. To combat the twisting forces of a chassis (torsional stress), round tube has a much higher modulus of torsional rigidity. This is the reason why driveshafts are not square. It is also worthy to note that round tube is significantly more expensive than its square tube counterpart." (info courtesy of Hans Racecraft)

Personally, I haven't seen any race car chassis made out of square tubing and would
imagine that if there was a massive (or even slight advantage) to square, that's what
would be used.

Global West's subframe supplements were never intended to take the place of a full cage.
A lot of people don't want a full cage in a street car. They were offered as an additional
item that would stiffen the Mustang chassis in a street application.

Once again, I have no dog in this fight. Just wanted to shed some light on the thinking
behind these products that were released in the early 80's and are basically unchanged
today."

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,372 Posts
I have them on my 68 convertible, they work mas advertised
 
  • Like
Reactions: 68Hildago

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Have them on my 70 and car def feels more rigid. Would not hesitate a sec for $50 even if only
20190215_162259.jpg
a fraction of improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,577 Posts
Have them in my '68 FB and would recommend them for that price without hesitation (if they are the correct year). Get a really good welder to install them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 68Hildago

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,229 Posts
I know for a fact Global West SFCs increase torsional rigidity. Its true I have done other chassis stiffening mods...but they are all forward of the firewall...the only chassis mods I have behind the firewall are added front torque boxes and GW SFCs...and now when I jack up the car at the back torque box, the front wheel comes off the ground BEFORE the front wheel(without drivetrain installed)...and while you can say that isnt torsional(and you would be correct) what ALSO happens is a significant raising of the other rear wheel...not enough to come off the ground entirely, but enough you can feel the car pivoting on the jack...and that IS torsional, so they most certainly DO increase torsional rigidity to a degree that can be noticed...at least in comparison to not having subframe connectors. As to the practical effect of that I wont speculate, but those are my observations.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top