The Top Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Resource

Join the best E39A 1991-1992 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 community and document your GVR4 journey.

  • Software Upgraded - Reset Your Password to Login
    In order to log in after the forum software change, you need to reset your password. If you don't have access to the email address you used to register your GVR4.org account, you won't be able to reset your password. In that case, follow the instructions here to regain access to the forum.

Chrome moly crossmember

mountaineerjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
west virginia
does anyone have any experience with running these on the vr4? I like the Idea of saving weight, and it would also save me from having to also buy a solid front mount.
 

IncorpoRatedX

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
5,593
Location
Arizona
you mean like these?

click


they look stupid as sh*t, since you cant connect the other 2 pieces to them.
 

mountaineerjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
west virginia
yes those, why would it look stupid? for the untrained, you wouldnt even know that there is anything missing.
 

IncorpoRatedX

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
5,593
Location
Arizona
it's not the visual concern moron, it's the loss of structural integrity by losing the connection between the front and rear main pieces of the cross member.

not to mention it's washers welded on dom tubing. I contacted a guy i know that builds beautiful tube bumpers for rock rigs and builds his fair share of cages.

this thing needs two more pieces and bushings instead of washers. I'll update if my friend thinks this endeavor is worth a sh*t.

unfortunately there's tons of people like you that dont understand how the stock sh*t works and just assume that if someone is selling something, it's researched and effective.
 

mitsuturbo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
3,544
Location
Near Seattle, Washington
Quoting Alpha Male:
you mean like these?

click


they look stupid as sh*t, since you cant connect the other 2 pieces to them.


I agree.

I once drove a DSM for a couple months without the under-trans crossmember in. It was a TOTAL bitch to get it back on when the time came. You know when the time came? WHEN THE SHOP COULDN'T SET THE f***ing ALIGNMENT properly! I got it back in, eventually, after a bunch of cussing and sweating and pushing on sh*t, and using a jack here and there... then took it back and the caster was more in line with where it should be.

I would NOT run that colossal piece of sh*t "crossmember" on ANY mitsubishi.
 
Last edited:

IncorpoRatedX

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
5,593
Location
Arizona
just got done talking to friend, my galant is going in for mock up asap, this is some of the sh*t he's built.

n638862117_1121614_8987.jpg


29904_397454817117_638862117_4083332_6046628_n.jpg


these will come with poly bushings instead of weak ass washers welded to dom tubing. Stay tuned!
 

mountaineerjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
west virginia
How am I a moron? you said the word 'look' last time I checked that's a reference to visual.

I dont see how you NEED bushings, sure it would cut down on vibrations, but everyone is familiar with the pros of solid mounts.

And there is a lot stock hardware which is either over kill, or meant more for comfort than performance.from keeping up with the posters threads, who is a mod of the site, he seems to always do good work and cares about fabrication.

and by asking if anyone has experience with it makes you think I just assumed that it was researched and effective how?




people like you who jump from giving advice to personal insults are forum's downfalls.
 

boostedinaz

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
4,085
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
I'll agree on a few counts. The piece looks okay but those missing cross members really need to be there especially on a car making decent power. I will also agree that Alphamale went a bit over board with his "criticism" of your question.

If someone would make one that would retain the stock cross members then I think it would be a good purchase, but if you are going for less weight then having a custom tubular subframe would be your best bet. I know a member who could make one while sleeping and the quality would be nothing short of stellar, however, the price of good work is usually not very DSM friendly. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif
 

mountaineerjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
west virginia
im not sure how the braces would help a lot, especially if converting to all solid mounts. I feel like the only time it would be helpful is in high G force turns, at which a 3 point strut brace should be able to make up for any loss in strength. Because from thinking about it (im not in front of the car right now to look at it) it seems like the factory braces would only help with twists. and as far as force goes, once you have solid mounts you effectively have a transition of force between the motor mounts, equal to having a brace there. Force doesnt care if you name it a brace or an engine, its still metal and will transfer the force.

If im forgetting anything throw it out there, thats why I started this to see if there are problems with the theory
 

IncorpoRatedX

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
5,593
Location
Arizona
you need something to tie the entire bottom of the car together.

are you serious here? you're thinking this through and thinking it's a GOOD idea to not have those? solid mounts or not, go remove yours, try jacking up the car from the front cross member and then try bolting them back in, that chassis will flex like crazy.
 

mountaineerjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
west virginia
alright, ive never tried it, hence the questions, but im pretty sure that they only support forces in the same direction of the brace, so thats why I thought that a 3 point strut brace (or even tie in the rad support) would do the same thing on the road. Are these supports even designed for vertical forces? it seems like most of the vertical force is directed to the struts. The rest of the braces are designed for horizontal forces
 

SmoothCustomer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
3,319
Location
Lexington, KY
They might not be the worst thing in the world if you're just cruising in a straight line, you might not even notice a difference but your launches will be horrible. Think about what Curtis' subframe connectors do and why those exist.
 

mitsuturbo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
3,544
Location
Near Seattle, Washington
Quoting boostedinaz:
I'll agree on a few counts. The piece looks okay but those missing cross members really need to be there especially on a car making decent power. I will also agree that Alphamale went a bit over board with his "criticism" of your question.

If someone would make one that would retain the stock cross members then I think it would be a good purchase, but if you are going for less weight then having a custom tubular subframe would be your best bet. I know a member who could make one while sleeping and the quality would be nothing short of stellar, however, the price of good work is usually not very DSM friendly. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif



One could DEFINITELY, and quite easily, create replacements for the parts that would be deleted with this piece in it's current iteration. It would be simple and effective to make something that does the SAME job out of the same material. It would probably help with stiffness all around, much like the LOWER STB that RRE was selling years ago. You know.. the one that went from one A arm bolt to the other?

If you're going to make something like this.. go all out. Make it all in one batch, and sell the piss out of them.

That's just my opinion. I'd probably do it myself, as this seems like a really good idea, even if half-assed and possibly poorly executed.
Overkill is almost never a bad thing, ESPECIALLY where suspension is concerned.

But, alas... i have no TIG, and no chromoly tubing lying around.
 
Last edited:

mountaineerjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
west virginia
Quoting SmoothCustomer:
They might not be the worst thing in the world if you're just cruising in a straight line, you might not even notice a difference but your launches will be horrible. Think about what Curtis' subframe connectors do and why those exist.



well see this is exactly what I was thinking about. and I dont think that Curtis' connectors are any better than a roll cage. because the force travels along a direction, it doesnt matter what height the brace is at. so thats why a strut brace should be able to make up for the loss? I do agree that I would rather it have solid inserts, than washers welded on.

what if we could do something very similar for the rear? then a single chromoly bar could tie the two together, be much lighter and stronger.
 

IncorpoRatedX

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
5,593
Location
Arizona
as soon as my friend chris makes one off my chassis, he'll start producing them, obviously it will be my job to post them for sale here and rest assured i'll take many pictures of them. price-wise, i dont give a sh*t about making money and all he cares about is covering his materials and labor, so i would forecast a pretty reasonable price. the link posted above is $165 for about $10 worth of material
 

mountaineerjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
west virginia
well im down as soon as possible. I have a couple fab guys here in town that could easily make this (Frontline Fabrication), but theres no point going through the R&D twice.
 

H05TYL

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
752
Location
Wgtn, NZ
Quoting mountaineerjeff:

well see this is exactly what I was thinking about. and I dont think that Curtis' connectors are any better than a roll cage. because the force travels along a direction, it doesnt matter what height the brace is at. so thats why a strut brace should be able to make up for the loss? I do agree that I would rather it have solid inserts, than washers welded on.




I was under the impression that Curtis' subframe connectors were designed primarily for people who didn't want a roll cage in their street car, not to be "better than" a cage.

I don't think you are on the right track at all as far as braces at any height having the same result.

Assuming you don't want to remove the braces and then try jacking up your car (front, rear, in the middle, anywhere will do) and seeing how much extra flex is introduced, I have devised an experiment to show you the effect.
Take an empty square plastic container (an Ice cream tub or similar), with the lid in place try pushing and pulling opposite sides of the container. Next, remove the lid and try the same pushing and pulling motions - note how much more the container distorts. Finally, glue the lid onto the bottom of the container, and try a third time.
 

Whoodoo

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
927
Location
Binghamton, NY
^^^ nice analogy! He's right, but the difference between an ice cream carton and a car is where the force is applied to the chassis. All the force from the wheels comes in through the suspension. I haven't done any in depth analysis on exactly how those forces go throughout the chassis, but regardless, Mitsubishi knows what they're doing, so just leaving out a couple frame supports is probably a bad idea.
 

mitsuturbo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
3,544
Location
Near Seattle, Washington
It is a VERY bad idea.

Even FWD shitboxes like the Mirage that make 12.6 horsepower to the wheels have a crossmember running from front to back under the engine. Look at how they bolt up, too. I believe they connect at the front and rear of the part of subframe the steering rack is up inside of. This helps keep it rigid, and in line with the front of the car better, as well as holding up the engine. It is most certainly not just there for an engine mount as this piece advertised above would be.
 

mountaineerjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
west virginia
Quoting H05TYL:

I was under the impression that Curtis' subframe connectors were designed primarily for people who didn't want a roll cage in their street car, not to be "better than" a cage.


Take an empty square plastic container (an Ice cream tub or similar), with the lid in place try pushing and pulling opposite sides of the container. Next, remove the lid and try the same pushing and pulling motions - note how much more the container distorts. Finally, glue the lid onto the bottom of the container, and try a third time.



my point isnt that one was better, it was that they could be equal. so just the way you can use his connectors instead of a cage, you should be able to use an upper strut brace instead of lower ones. its more like you take your plastic container with the lid on try your pushing motions, then you just flip the box upside down, without changing anything, and then apply the same forces. that is a closer analogy. because the box doesnt care if its upside down or not, just as the car should care if the brace was on top or bottom
 
Support Vendors who Support the GVR-4 Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Recent Forum Posts

Top