1973 Charger Sub-frame connectors

[Ryan.C]

A buddy of mine has a '73 Charger and is in the market for a set of sub frame connectors. He told me he could not find any and after a quick google search it appears he is right. I did search this site and found a thread that made mention of a company (magnumforce) that some had luck purchasing connectors from. It would appear that the company no longer produces connectors for 73-74 Chargers. What gives? What are you 73 & 74 Charger guys using to stiffen your uni-body? What is so darn different about these two years that sub frame connectors cannot be had off the shelf???

If these questions have already been answered then please point me in the right direction. Thanks gents.

[303 Mopar]

I installed 1x2 steel tubes on my '68.  It was cheaper than any after-market, they made a big difference and they tuck up nice to the floor board.

[Nacho-RT74]

73 and laters are very diff monsters, due the isolated crossmember for the T bars which is located just right after the frame crossmember... hence the T bars are longer for these.

I have no pictures of the area, and its being long time since I have checked my car on that area to detail it.

I'm thinking in make the same than you, nothing fancy... something simple and maybe even removable, like the MP ones.

I think should fit diagonally instead straight to sway the added crossmamber, linking directly rear and front frame rails

[Nacho-RT74]

dunno if you are able to see it, but here is the extra crossmember added on isolated systems, for the T bar.

Sub frame connectors would need to sway this crossmember

[Ryan.C]

hmmm. I am having trouble visualizing how the connector would go around the torsion bar mount.

[Nacho-RT74]

I can't find a better pic to show. And I can't check my own car.

The t bar crossmember doesn't go from side to side of the body anyway.

[Nacho-RT74]

found a pic on my PC

it is posible to do it, going diagonally between real frame rail and front frame rail junction

[HPP]

Might tell your fiend to replace the isolation bushings with aluminum  pucks instead of rubber. That will reduce alot of flex.

For SFCs, he will have to fab his own.

[Ryan.C]

Might tell your fiend to replace the isolation bushings with aluminum  pucks instead of rubber. That will reduce alot of flex.

For SFCs, he will have to fab his own.

I will pass it along, Thanks.

[sccachallenger]

Might tell your fiend to replace the isolation bushings with aluminum  pucks instead of rubber. That will reduce alot of flex.

For SFCs, he will have to fab his own.

Don't own a '73 but this is what I'd do, connectors for the body, solid mounts for the subframe.
And post pics!

[Scaregrabber]

Yup: That car will drive so much better.

Sheldon

[Nacho-RT74]

Might tell your fiend to replace the isolation bushings with aluminum  pucks instead of rubber. That will reduce alot of flex.

For SFCs, he will have to fab his own.

I will pass it along, Thanks.

no need for solid, poly are just fine.

[Nacho-RT74]

an all cars the front rail frames junctions are located on same place... circled in red, which is away from the laters T bars crossmember.

IMHO The only reason to make them allways straight instead to the Front rail junction is because the Rear frame rails doesn't have a flat crossmember section like fronts have, to make a direct conection between both Frame rails sections. So the Subframe conectors are simply made like an extension of the Rear Frame rails.

The hard job then is actually make the diagonal from the rear frame rails which are Curved... thats the plus on the dificulty. If they were somekind flat, would be way easier.

But if you ask me, the direct conection between front and rear frame rails could be more effective than a simple rear frame rail extensions to the front frame rail crossmember conection.

Dunno if you got what I meant.

[HPP]

...or, eliminate the isolated rear t-bar anchor, weld new sockets into the forward cross member and use 66-72 torsion bars.

no need for solid, poly are just fine.

True, poly would work too and is much more widely available.

[Nacho-RT74]

And cheaper.

I can't be sure on the T bars socket moving to the unybody will be enough to match with pre 72 T bars. The difference between both bars is as far I recall a bit less than 2 inches, and the Crossmember adds more than this on length. Dunno why I think the LCA on 73 and lates fits a bit diff deepness than pre 72