Is there anyone (Vendor) out there selling sub frame connectors for the early A. I know I can build my own but just curious if there’s a source especially bolt on connectors.
Frame Connectors
- Thread starter dart4forte
- Start date
-
Hotchkis has them
MidnightSwinger
Well-Known Member
63-66 darts are still 111” wheelbase so the new(67-76) dart connectors should work. I think the 63-66 valiant is also the same 108” wheelbase as the newer Valiants and Dusters. I have a set of the old MP frame connectors waiting to be installed in my 65.
US Car Tool makes a number of stiffening components for early A’s my 66 was used to prototype
USCT Web Store
USCT Web Store
reddog
Well-Known Member
I have Mopar Performance DCC-4286868 on my 63. Got them from Summit a few years ago, although I don't see them on their website now.
Irving Santiago
Member
I have the US Car tool kit installed in my 69 GTS. It is pre shaped/contoured (level 1 stiffening kit @$650.) and fits the floor pan 98% perfect ( New Dodge floor pan in the box purchased 10 years ago) with minor contour fitting. It took me less than two hours to weld in and is a very robust kit.
340six
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,194
- Reaction score
- 1,652
That's what I have. Made a plate to keep the bolts from crushing the frame where they bolt on.
J-c-c
Well-Known Member
Don't take this personally as many get a bit put off when I share my view on this matter.
I believe a structural member is often as weak as its weakest point. The sculptured USCT frame connectors (FC) are reduced to a rather small cross-section in areas, largely reducing the stiffness added, they have other shortcomings outside the engineering realm and is another topic.
The mention of "number" of USCT stiffening components usually includes torque boxes, which I concede are an improvement when used without frame connectors but are not a good nor efficient engineering solution to gain stiffness, especially compared to FC. Using both is redundant as the FC's are much better at achieving the goals sought. Kind of like wearing a belt and suspenders to hold up one's pants, one of them is much better.
The largest FC cross-section suitable is the stiffest, and the wall thickness can be reduced as the FC gets larger to keep weight in check.
The biggest hurdle for many is having the FC penetrate the floor. I personally can find little reason to have that aversion. Function trumps form almost always for me. The price paid by not penetrating the floor regarding stiffness/ground clearance is IMO significant. A robust FC solution also provides a few other benefits, mainly a solid member to attach seats/belts/DS safety loops/etc to.
The pics below are my 62 Lancer GT, with 2 3x2 FC and I added two crossmembers for a second driveshaft (DS) safety loop and seat mounting, since I am using Sebring seats with integral belt mounts which adds significantly to the seat floor mounts. I also expanded the DS tunnel to allow me to tuck up the exhaust tighter, and the battery now mounts in the rear removed seat area thru the floor.
Last edited:
I’m mainly interested in throwing something on. It’s not a torque monster but rather a semi twisty driver. Really don’t want to cut into the body,
Same here. My 66 is pretty loose feeling. I think a 4 speed car makes a difference.
-
