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.

Anyone running only 1 N-S Subframe?

Racah15

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
315
Location
Colorado springs CO
Hey guys, so It's kind of a pain for me to keep having to remove the drivers side N-S Subframe piece every time I want to do an oil change. I have to remove it because I have a FFOFH and the filter is right ontop of the frame piece. Is there any negative or ill-effects of running only 1 subframe piece? I don't think it should be too much of an issue, but it's worth asking. I'm pretty newbie with these cars. Definitely nothing like a 2g.
 

Captn

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
231
Location
Houston, Texas
I have a forward facing OFH and I don't have to remove anything....

I use oil filters for evos. They are pretty small and fit fine.
 

Fiascoxl

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
320
Location
Stuarts Draft, Va
Yup I to found this out the hard way, it only leaves under a inch of clearance between it too. Hopefully I'll have a Bull Fab bar here soon.
 
Last edited:

dsm10o0

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
680
Location
San Jose CA
I never ran the driver side N-S bar on my old galant, no issues, daily drove for 2 years, tracked a good amount of times
 

EMX5636

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
1,631
Location
Bucks County, PA
I take a cardboard flap from the oil box and build a little "gutter" to deflect the oil into the drain pan. Just a suggestion.
 

turbowop

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2001
Messages
11,972
Location
Yakima, WA
It's only a few bolts to remove once every few thousand miles. I think removing the undertray from most newer cars is actually more of an inconvenience than that NS brace is.
 

prove_it

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
4,201
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
^ that's for sure. Our newer Acura vehicles are a pain. Pretty much any new car worth over 25k has a shield to remove. Plus up north in the salt belt everything rusts so after a few years they really suck.

Not running a frame piece just because it's a pain to take 5 bolts out every 2-3k miles is like saying I'll leave my gas cap off so I don't have to screw it on and off when I get gas.

Just build a funnel with an old license plate. And use some brake cleaner to clean it up.

No trying to sh*t up your thread, but hey.
 

Racah15

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
315
Location
Colorado springs CO
The thing is that it's not so much of a pain, as it is just dead weight. There's a difference between dead weight and a critical part such as the gas cap. The gas cap keeps the gasoline from evaporating, thieves from siphoning your gas (at least on our cars due to the interior release, gas from spilling out and so forth. But I understand where you are coming from. I'm not asking it to be lazy, I'm asking for making it more efficient and clean for me. I like efficiency, which is why I switched to the FFOFH. Makes oil changes quick and easy. And I like my engine bay to be spotless. But anywho, I've been doing it by just removing the piece and putting it back, and I still do it, but it doesn't hurt to ask I guess. That's why I'm asking if it's okay to do it, because there seems to be no ill/detrimental effect from running one frame piece. I guess I could build a funnel.

You are not shitting my thread, I appreciate your constructive criticism. As long as we don't talk about Speed Density, I am all for your opinions in my thread.
 

iceman69510

Turn Right Racing
Staff member
Joined
Mar 5, 2001
Messages
10,964
Location
Michigan
It is there for a reason. It ties the front and rear crossmembers into a rigid structure. I personally would not drive (at least on other than straight roads /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif) without it. Can't picture it exactly at the moment, but if it also bridges across the rear front crossmember, it serves to stiffen that. We have seen some cracked ones on cars that left off that smaller brace on the right side.
 

Racah15

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
315
Location
Colorado springs CO
There we go, some detrimental experience is all I asked about. Ok, I will continue to run with mine on. Like I said, I don't mind constructive criticism, I just want to know what happens w/o it. I'm not trying to be lazy, I just want to know if I can/can't why.
Thank you.
 

toybreaker

iconoclast
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
3,581
Abe,

I've seen a few crossmembers fatigue/stress crack from leaving out the gusset plate on the passenger side.


That suggests that the loads fed into the structure by the control arm/suspension are enough to flex the crossmember past what it can endure over the long haul. Probably be okay for awhile, but I've seen at least two cracked crossmembers personally, and have heard of several others. All the control arm loads are fed into the front part of that "u" shaped crossmember, and without the gusset plate there to spread the load, shits gonna flex.


... and that gives me double the concern on the drivers side.

I'm not an expert, but from just looking at things, it would seem to me that north/south bar works a lot harder on the drivers side. It's doing the same job of bracing the crossmember open "u" section, and feeding the control arm loads into the subframe/chassis, and it's doing it without the benefit of the gusset plate on the other side.

Since the control arm is where all the loads are fed into the chassis/subframe, I think having that arangement as stiff as possible is the best bet for a long trouble free service.



... or to put it another way, deflection leads to wheel hop

... and wheel hop leads to broken parts
 

EHmotorsports

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
1,278
Location
Beaverton
Quoting Racah15:
There we go, some detrimental experience is all I asked about. Ok, I will continue to run with mine on. Like I said, I don't mind constructive criticism, I just want to know what happens w/o it. I'm not trying to be lazy, I just want to know if I can/can't why.
Thank you.



I can understand your reasoning if this were a factory option. But since they built every galant and DSM this way your reasoning is Moot.
I use this click
 

Racah15

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
315
Location
Colorado springs CO
Quoting toybreaker:
Abe,

I've seen a few crossmembers fatigue/stress crack from leaving out the gusset plate on the passenger side.


That suggests that the loads fed into the structure by the control arm/suspension are enough to flex the crossmember past what it can endure over the long haul. Probably be okay for awhile, but I've seen at least two cracked crossmembers personally, and have heard of several others. All the control arm loads are fed into the front part of that "u" shaped crossmember, and without the gusset plate there to spread the load, shits gonna flex.


... and that gives me double the concern on the drivers side.

I'm not an expert, but from just looking at things, it would seem to me that north/south bar works a lot harder on the drivers side. It's doing the same job of bracing the crossmember open "u" section, and feeding the control arm loads into the subframe/chassis, and it's doing it without the benefit of the gusset plate on the other side.

Since the control arm is where all the loads are fed into the chassis/subframe, I think having that arangement as stiff as possible is the best bet for a long trouble free service.



... or to put it another way, deflection leads to wheel hop

... and wheel hop leads to broken parts



Thanks! This is exactly what I needed to know. This is why I put it in the newbies section, I don't know these things, I appreciate knowledgeable answers like this without the newb bashing.


Quote:

I can understand your reasoning if this were a factory option. But since they built every galant and DSM this way your reasoning is Moot.
I use this click





Well not every DSM, 2g's came with only 1 N/S bar. Unless you don't classify 2g's as DSMs. That is why I asked though. Also, not everyone runs the intake manifold brace/bracket that bolts to the manifold and block. So it's stuff like that, that I'm trying to learn about. I didn't know it was such a crucial piece, but that's why I posted in the newbies section. To me, the second N/S was a similar piece. Just extra bracing. But now I know better. Another example is the A/C bracket that bolts on to the block. Many people remove that when they remove a/c, but they don't use a spacer or leave the bracket on when installing the half shaft. That's probably more crucial than the intake manifold bracket/brace. I'm not trying to argue or anything, I'm just explaining my point of view on why I asked if it's okay. I appreciate the response, but I don't think it was entirely moot, at least based of these reasons.

That's pretty sweet. I'm definitely going to pick one of those up!

Thanks guys.
 

EHmotorsports

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
1,278
Location
Beaverton
No worries and I meant it not as being an ass but just as lightly joking with you. I don't consider the 2g dsm into the same platform as the galant. The 1g dsm and 6g galant share the subframes, rails and braces.
On another note that moldable funnel works great for a lot of newer cars with issues like that.
 

Racah15

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
315
Location
Colorado springs CO
OH! Haha gotcha. Hard to tell on the interwebz. Yeah, I gotcha. I just have seen people w/o the drivers and w/o the passengers side (for easy trans removal) with no SAID ill effect, hence why I asked. Haha. Thanks for that link, You're right, I know 2 cars already this could benefit on!
 

prove_it

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
4,201
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
The 2g has a whole different suspension/ frame design. Some day I plan on cutting off the edges of my cross pieces where it's pinch welded together and welding them back together along the seam. It would make the pieces square rather than have the lips on each side. This would add some room and give the frame pieces a little more strength. Just an idea, it might help you out to have it done.

Oh and speed density, blah blah blah /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

mitsuturbo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
3,551
Location
Near Seattle, Washington
I have to concur that ALL the braces that go under the VR4 and DSMs are REQUIRED to be there. The front and back of the lower part of the K-member must be kept rigid to one another with the gusset and both braces. I once was lazy with a DSM and didn't put the driver side one in. I was obtaining 1411/2000 in a straight trade for my 90 Talon. The vr4 needed engine work, and the DSM had been sitting for a year with nothing in the engine bay. I had a spare engine lying around, and the guy i was trading with was needing a running car urgently. I put the DSM together and buttoned most of it up. He showed up wanting the car immediately, and i hadn't put that brace in yet. He came back a week later after driving it, and it was a holy f***ing pain in my ass to put it back together. The K member was flexing enough that it was not only difficult to put the bolts in, but i could see that the lower control arm was moving in and out of its rear bushing a bit.

Leaving any of these pieces out severely compromises the rigidity of the structure, and i could see how it could lead to much bigger problems later on. This is precisely why i'm not a fan of the "chromoly crossmember" setups, even with the 2 bars and heim joints. They do not seem to address the issue of keeping the bottom of the K member rigid, particularly on the driver side.
 

DynastyLCD

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
761
Location
Harwinton, CT
i agree with the first part of MT's comment. i had the passenger side NS bar out of 881, and when i went to put it in at work after driving it a little bit, it was a major pain. nothing wanted to go together nicely. considering my GVR4 will probably never be anything more than a streetcar, i'll keep the NS bars in it, no chromoly crossmember for this one.

however, on my 1g i run the Bulfab crossmember up front, no NS provisions. what i did do though, was cut the NS bars so that they still brace the K-member. so basically it still has the support and it won't flex as it would with no NS bar there at all. the back of the K-member is still braced to the front of the K-member. the biggest issue i had read from high HP guys running this setup, was that if the K-member wasn't braced, it could flex, bend, and potentially break. that's where i took the idea to cut the NS bars and bolt them in place. i also notched the 5 bolt gusset plate that's on the passenger side. now i can leave that and both pieces of NS bar bolted on the car when i remove the transmissioni /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
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
Top