Man this is awesome...Sub Frame Connectors from WSP OWN!
12-01-2001, 12:37 PM
#1
Man this is awesome...Sub Frame Connectors from WSP OWN!
I just cant get over how well my handling is with the sub frame connectors. Remember I am stock with FSTB and rims. I swear to you all, sometimes I feel like there is no body roll at all. I have been pounding the crap out of the car and it feels solid. I beleive these will take off, especially with the low WSP prices.
12-01-2001, 12:46 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 399
Re: Man this is awesome...Sub Frame Connectors from WSP OWN!
Originally posted by dmontzmax
I just cant get over how well my handling is with the sub frame connectors. Remember I am stock with FSTB and rims. I swear to you all, sometimes I feel like there is no body roll at all. I have been pounding the crap out of the car and it feels solid. I beleive these will take off, especially with the low WSP prices.
I just cant get over how well my handling is with the sub frame connectors. Remember I am stock with FSTB and rims. I swear to you all, sometimes I feel like there is no body roll at all. I have been pounding the crap out of the car and it feels solid. I beleive these will take off, especially with the low WSP prices.
12-01-2001, 12:58 PM
#5
NO, Actually zcarguy has a set on his 4th gen. And he also has nothing but positive things to say. NVH? I am not sure what that means, but characteristics. My car feels like this II, there is hardly any side to side rocking/body roll. And going over speed bumps is way different, or pulling into driveways. The car doesnt rock front to back one bit. If you need to know anything else let me know! I will be glad to let you know my honest opinion. I am just a car owner speaking my opinion.
12-01-2001, 01:13 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 399
Originally posted by dmontzmax
NO, Actually zcarguy has a set on his 4th gen. And he also has nothing but positive things to say. NVH? I am not sure what that means, but characteristics. My car feels like this II, there is hardly any side to side rocking/body roll. And going over speed bumps is way different, or pulling into driveways. The car doesnt rock front to back one bit. If you need to know anything else let me know! I will be glad to let you know my honest opinion. I am just a car owner speaking my opinion.
NO, Actually zcarguy has a set on his 4th gen. And he also has nothing but positive things to say. NVH? I am not sure what that means, but characteristics. My car feels like this II, there is hardly any side to side rocking/body roll. And going over speed bumps is way different, or pulling into driveways. The car doesnt rock front to back one bit. If you need to know anything else let me know! I will be glad to let you know my honest opinion. I am just a car owner speaking my opinion.
12-01-2001, 01:40 PM
#8
Originally posted by NickStam
There has to be some downside to this mod, yes?
There has to be some downside to this mod, yes?
12-01-2001, 01:55 PM
#11
Originally posted by NickStam
There has to be some downside to this mod, yes?
There has to be some downside to this mod, yes?
12-01-2001, 02:40 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 449
Great on 4th gen!!!
Like Donnald said i have nothing about good things to say about the subfames. To keep it short my cars feels like its cost 10 grand more than it used to. I cant think of any downsides to this mod yet. Ill keep looking and let you all know.
John.
John.
12-01-2001, 04:37 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 666
WSP subframes
The frame actually rides along side the existing hollow beam the basicall runs from under passengers/drivers feet to just in front of back wheels, very little if any loss of clearence. We paid attention here as my car is lowered and I already have minor clearence issues. See the link to PICS.
http://www.warpspeedperformance.com/subframe.htm
We are looking at bolting them on, but instal would still be a pain as drilling and tapping may be required. We will keep every one posted.
Dan WSP
http://www.warpspeedperformance.com/subframe.htm
We are looking at bolting them on, but instal would still be a pain as drilling and tapping may be required. We will keep every one posted.
Dan WSP
12-01-2001, 05:21 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 866
Re: WSP subframes
Originally posted by Dan 93 SE
The frame actually rides along side the existing hollow beam the basicall runs from under passengers/drivers feet to just in front of back wheels, very little if any loss of clearence. We paid attention here as my car is lowered and I already have minor clearence issues. See the link to PICS.
http://www.warpspeedperformance.com/subframe.htm
We are looking at bolting them on, but instal would still be a pain as drilling and tapping may be required. We will keep every one posted.
Dan WSP
The frame actually rides along side the existing hollow beam the basicall runs from under passengers/drivers feet to just in front of back wheels, very little if any loss of clearence. We paid attention here as my car is lowered and I already have minor clearence issues. See the link to PICS.
http://www.warpspeedperformance.com/subframe.htm
We are looking at bolting them on, but instal would still be a pain as drilling and tapping may be required. We will keep every one posted.
Dan WSP
12-01-2001, 05:22 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 211
In answer to a question, or to clarify, whatever:
Usually, with stiffening the chassis like this, the handling does get better, but because the chassis is STIFFER, more road noise is introduced into the cabin, small bumps seem bigger and road vibrations tend to get amplified, rather than being soaked up by the previously softer chassis, and causes little things that didn't use to vibrate and squeek to now vibrate and squeek.
Does this seem to be the case?
Usually, with stiffening the chassis like this, the handling does get better, but because the chassis is STIFFER, more road noise is introduced into the cabin, small bumps seem bigger and road vibrations tend to get amplified, rather than being soaked up by the previously softer chassis, and causes little things that didn't use to vibrate and squeek to now vibrate and squeek.
Does this seem to be the case?
12-01-2001, 05:26 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 866
Originally posted by 2k2se6spd
In answer to a question, or to clarify, whatever:
Usually, with stiffening the chassis like this, the handling does get better, but because the chassis is STIFFER, more road noise is introduced into the cabin, small bumps seem bigger and road vibrations tend to get amplified, rather than being soaked up by the previously softer chassis, and causes little things that didn't use to vibrate and squeek to now vibrate and squeek.
Does this seem to be the case?
In answer to a question, or to clarify, whatever:
Usually, with stiffening the chassis like this, the handling does get better, but because the chassis is STIFFER, more road noise is introduced into the cabin, small bumps seem bigger and road vibrations tend to get amplified, rather than being soaked up by the previously softer chassis, and causes little things that didn't use to vibrate and squeek to now vibrate and squeek.
Does this seem to be the case?
12-01-2001, 05:37 PM
#20
I think there is more to play with the softer frame and squeekes and vibrations.
one of them being your suspension, granted that there is going to be a different ride to your car. I don't think it's fair to doom this idea to squeekes and vibrations. I would imagine your polyurethane engine mounts create more vibration to the body than stiffening the frame.
Case in point: FSTB & RSTB haven't been documented for making the car squeeke or vibrate more, and they stiffen the chassis up from different vantage points.
one of them being your suspension, granted that there is going to be a different ride to your car. I don't think it's fair to doom this idea to squeekes and vibrations. I would imagine your polyurethane engine mounts create more vibration to the body than stiffening the frame.
Case in point: FSTB & RSTB haven't been documented for making the car squeeke or vibrate more, and they stiffen the chassis up from different vantage points.
12-01-2001, 07:01 PM
#21
also consider this.. if you put stiffer springs and shocks on your car more stress will be placed on the strut mount when you hit a bump, and another part of the car will need to flex to acomadate the load, so your strut towers will cave in.. then you go out and get a strut bar to reduce teh flexing of the strut towers. after you stiffen the towers up another part of you car would want to flex.. so what i've noticed flexing with is the cabin portion of the car has increased in terms of flexing.. (my car was stripped prior to the install of my strut bar so i can hear the noises). to counter that a sub frame can be used.. however that just means your chassis has become much stiffer and will increase the load on the strut mounts even more.. and with a very stiff spring and shock combination your strut mounts might give in and your struts will go shooting through your hood, or you might risk bending a control arm. this has happened on a few hondas so it wouldn't be unlikely if it happened on a maixma.. but then again the frequency of this problem is very low.. from what has been posted i still think the subframe is a mod woth trying.
12-01-2001, 10:41 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: College Station
Posts: 571
Originally posted by mingo
or you might risk bending a control arm. this has happened on a few hondas so it wouldn't be unlikely if it happened on a maixma.. but then again the frequency of this problem is very low.. .
or you might risk bending a control arm. this has happened on a few hondas so it wouldn't be unlikely if it happened on a maixma.. but then again the frequency of this problem is very low.. .
damn, i have the worst luck...
12-02-2001, 10:56 AM
#25
Originally posted by 2k2se6spd
In answer to a question, or to clarify, whatever:
Usually, with stiffening the chassis like this, the handling does get better, but because the chassis is STIFFER, more road noise is introduced into the cabin, small bumps seem bigger and road vibrations tend to get amplified, rather than being soaked up by the previously softer chassis, and causes little things that didn't use to vibrate and squeek to now vibrate and squeek.
Does this seem to be the case?
In answer to a question, or to clarify, whatever:
Usually, with stiffening the chassis like this, the handling does get better, but because the chassis is STIFFER, more road noise is introduced into the cabin, small bumps seem bigger and road vibrations tend to get amplified, rather than being soaked up by the previously softer chassis, and causes little things that didn't use to vibrate and squeek to now vibrate and squeek.
Does this seem to be the case?
subframe connectors attaches to the body or subframe, not the actual suspension system (strut/coilspring/lca, etc)itself.
if you refer to "chassis" as the unibody itself, then that is the complete opposite of the truth. thats how they built cars in the 20s. they thought that to smooth the ride and lessen vibration they would soften the chassis to absorb the road impacts. later it was discovered that stiffening the body (and softening the suspension) would yield a more comfortable ride with less vibrations. this was found on the body-on-frame system. it applies to unibodies. there is a reason why manufacturers today strive for stiffer bodies. reduction in NVH, crashworthiness, and the refined "feel" that goes in tandem with a stiff structure.
when you stiffen the unibody you increase its natural frequency. the higher it is the less tendency to vibrate. when you drive over rough surfaces the unibody will transmit less vibrations to the interior parts such as the dash, a pillar trim, etc.
if you define "chassis" as the suspension system, then you are correct with regards to stiffening the suspension. but again the subframe connectors do not attach to the suspension itself so it will not harshen the ride or increase noise.
when these babies are mass produced, i am definitely buying them!
12-02-2001, 01:43 PM
#26
As far as road noise. It is the same as it was, I dont notice a diff in bumps or anything. I just noitce a great improvement in handling. And as far as welding, you want them to be welded by a descent welder. As far as I can see. Welding is the only way to go for support and strength. They hand about as low as the exhaust BTW I have 2 3/4 in B pipe.
12-02-2001, 08:28 PM
#27
Originally posted by Smooth Operator
subframe connectors attaches to the body or subframe, not the actual suspension system (strut/coilspring/lca, etc)itself.
if you refer to "chassis" as the unibody itself, then that is the complete opposite of the truth. thats how they built cars in the 20s. they thought that to smooth the ride and lessen vibration they would soften the chassis to absorb the road impacts. later it was discovered that stiffening the body (and softening the suspension) would yield a more comfortable ride with less vibrations. this was found on the body-on-frame system. it applies to unibodies. there is a reason why manufacturers today strive for stiffer bodies. reduction in NVH, crashworthiness, and the refined "feel" that goes in tandem with a stiff structure.
when you stiffen the unibody you increase its natural frequency. the higher it is the less tendency to vibrate. when you drive over rough surfaces the unibody will transmit less vibrations to the interior parts such as the dash, a pillar trim, etc.
if you define "chassis" as the suspension system, then you are correct with regards to stiffening the suspension. but again the subframe connectors do not attach to the suspension itself so it will not harshen the ride or increase noise.
when these babies are mass produced, i am definitely buying them!
subframe connectors attaches to the body or subframe, not the actual suspension system (strut/coilspring/lca, etc)itself.
if you refer to "chassis" as the unibody itself, then that is the complete opposite of the truth. thats how they built cars in the 20s. they thought that to smooth the ride and lessen vibration they would soften the chassis to absorb the road impacts. later it was discovered that stiffening the body (and softening the suspension) would yield a more comfortable ride with less vibrations. this was found on the body-on-frame system. it applies to unibodies. there is a reason why manufacturers today strive for stiffer bodies. reduction in NVH, crashworthiness, and the refined "feel" that goes in tandem with a stiff structure.
when you stiffen the unibody you increase its natural frequency. the higher it is the less tendency to vibrate. when you drive over rough surfaces the unibody will transmit less vibrations to the interior parts such as the dash, a pillar trim, etc.
if you define "chassis" as the suspension system, then you are correct with regards to stiffening the suspension. but again the subframe connectors do not attach to the suspension itself so it will not harshen the ride or increase noise.
when these babies are mass produced, i am definitely buying them!
that was really well wrote.I think I'm sold on the idea. I would define Chassis on the body/frame structure.
12-03-2001, 07:55 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
One of the greatest advantages of a stiff chassis is that you can actually SOFTEN the springs and shocks. To counteract the twisting of the chassis, to reduce body roll you need to dial up the stiffness at each wheel. When yoy stiffen the frame, you reduce twist and the resulting body roll, thereby allowing reduced spring rates and dampening to achieve the same amount of body roll and steering reaction. By dropping these, you obtain a more comfortable ride by allowing the suspension to soak up bumps better. Also, as stated earlier, the higher vibrational frequency of the stiffer chassis yields less vibration and rattling.
But again, the greatest benefit of increased chassis stiffness is that you can make a car handle well while having a comliant ride quality.
For those with AGXs or Konis (like me), this is great news. I'll be able to dial down the dampening with these SF connectors in place and keep the same level of handling (or even improve).
But again, the greatest benefit of increased chassis stiffness is that you can make a car handle well while having a comliant ride quality.
For those with AGXs or Konis (like me), this is great news. I'll be able to dial down the dampening with these SF connectors in place and keep the same level of handling (or even improve).
02-20-2002, 07:18 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 544
the bottom line is, A stiff chassis allows the suspension to do its job. it will also make the car more compliant. does anyone know if the subframes actually connect to the suspension pivots? that would be ideal. i wish someone would make a suspension upgrade like the k member upgrade on a 5.0 mustang. My ultimate goal is traction and these subframes along with radius arms PR motor mounts an act clutch and my vlsd tranny should be the correct recipe for traction
-pete
-pete
02-24-2002, 08:10 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 156
To anybody that thinks a stiff chassis will cause more ride harshness and vibrations... sorry but that's the complete opposite of the truth.
Go drive a 97+ corvette... full hydroformed steel rail chassis... stiff as anything, and rides like a dream. MANY people who get subframe connectors for their mustangs, camaros, and various other performance cars don't do it for the handling... they simply do it to improve the ride quality and reduce the squeeks/rattles.
Among the rest of the performance world, a front strut tower brace really isn't even regarded as a true chassis stiffening mod. Mostly just for handling. These SFCs should (in theory) stiffen the chassis many times more than anything a FSTB could do.
I personally own an '00 silverado. Hydroformed fully boxed in chassis. There would be no point for subframe connectors because there are no subframes: it's all one frame and it's completely hydroformed. I promise you this technology is the future. If Nissan is smart they will move all of their cars to this technology ASAP. To date only the '99+ Silverado, new '02 Ram, '97+ vette and a few other very expensive european/japanese cars use this technology.
Next time you go new car shopping, ask the dealer to disclose how the chassis is manufactured, and what the frame natural resonance frequency is. The higher (in Hz) the frequency is, the better. You'll find that this makes more of a difference than anything else in the long run as to how nicely a vehicle rides, handles, and maintains it's "composure" on uneven road surfaces.
Go drive a 97+ corvette... full hydroformed steel rail chassis... stiff as anything, and rides like a dream. MANY people who get subframe connectors for their mustangs, camaros, and various other performance cars don't do it for the handling... they simply do it to improve the ride quality and reduce the squeeks/rattles.
Among the rest of the performance world, a front strut tower brace really isn't even regarded as a true chassis stiffening mod. Mostly just for handling. These SFCs should (in theory) stiffen the chassis many times more than anything a FSTB could do.
I personally own an '00 silverado. Hydroformed fully boxed in chassis. There would be no point for subframe connectors because there are no subframes: it's all one frame and it's completely hydroformed. I promise you this technology is the future. If Nissan is smart they will move all of their cars to this technology ASAP. To date only the '99+ Silverado, new '02 Ram, '97+ vette and a few other very expensive european/japanese cars use this technology.
Next time you go new car shopping, ask the dealer to disclose how the chassis is manufactured, and what the frame natural resonance frequency is. The higher (in Hz) the frequency is, the better. You'll find that this makes more of a difference than anything else in the long run as to how nicely a vehicle rides, handles, and maintains it's "composure" on uneven road surfaces.
02-24-2002, 11:31 PM
#31
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,941
Originally posted by Threxx
Next time you go new car shopping, ask the dealer to disclose how the chassis is manufactured, and what the frame natural resonance frequency is. The higher (in Hz) the frequency is, the better. You'll find that this makes more of a difference than anything else in the long run as to how nicely a vehicle rides, handles, and maintains it's "composure" on uneven road surfaces.
Next time you go new car shopping, ask the dealer to disclose how the chassis is manufactured, and what the frame natural resonance frequency is. The higher (in Hz) the frequency is, the better. You'll find that this makes more of a difference than anything else in the long run as to how nicely a vehicle rides, handles, and maintains it's "composure" on uneven road surfaces.
02-25-2002, 01:06 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: College Station
Posts: 571
Originally posted by Bman
Thanks for the interesting info, but ask a dealership salesman this and he'd look at you blankly for a sec, bead up in sweat, and promptly have a brain aneurism!
Thanks for the interesting info, but ask a dealership salesman this and he'd look at you blankly for a sec, bead up in sweat, and promptly have a brain aneurism!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
REDinLV
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
5
08-15-2024 12:30 AM
AaronL
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
4
09-23-2015 03:34 PM
Hdnseek
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
3
09-09-2015 05:55 AM