Fbird88

The topic says it all. They don't seem like they'd be expensive at all to produce, just basically two more bars of metal in the frame. They would increase handling a great deal and make the car more stiff, which would be a turn-off to some buyers. GM still could have put them in the more performance-oriented cars like the Z28's, the TA's and definitely the 1LE's and TTA's. They'd almost certainly be cheaper to mass-produce than many of the options these higher-end cars shared. If not those, they could have at least put them in the T-top and convertible cars. There seems to be a consensus on this board that installing SFC's should be the first thing done on one of these cars. There don't seem to be any real disadvantages in having them (other than minor exhaust clearance issues), so why didn't GM put them in our cars?

paul_huryk

... GM didn't do it because the whole culture is based around red tape and saving a buck now (but screwing the customer). Not even counting the fact that GM loves to use sheetmetal for everything, including the front A-arms, rear CA, panhard rod, frame rails (doubled or triples up)... its rediculous.

Now when you buy a car like a BMW or Mercedes, they would never let something out of the factory like that, its too cheap-*** for a car with a quality-based reputation. They use boxed steel frames, triangulation of the metal, and all sorts of modern techniques to stiffen up the car (so it doesn't rattle or ride bad). Then again a $40k car better feel "tighter" than a $30k one, all else being equal.

What about the rest of the car?
GM did a job on skimping out on that too:

7.5" rearend (or 7-5/8")
Weak 5 speeds (never a factory 350 with one)
Compromised exhaust (2-1/4" on LG4 and LO3)
No front coil-overs (struts and springs separate)
Clutch fans and 1 row radiators on non hi-po models
Too heavy hatch (why not a trunk with a smaller window?)
Small gas tank (only 16 gallons?)
Some cars only came with 85 speedos but could go over 120
Worst speaker placement ever (why not use the front doors?)
Low revving TPI engine
TH700R4 has the absolute worst gear spread between 1 and 2nd
IROC noses are too long: they scrape all the damn time
Trans Am rear spoiler that fades and cracks
No window frames for side windows
All suspension pieces are made out of sheetmetal
Back seat is almost useless (too small to have sex in)
No storage (trunk space)
Huge doors
Huge metal hood
Easy to steal
The world's worst rear disc brakes (the old iron POS ones)
They actually had the nerve to make a 4 cylinder model!
Urethane bumpers that spider when tapped lightly
Too heavy in general (for a POS sheetmetal design)
T-tops and convertible cars were aftermarket, not factory
The TH700R4 full throttle detent switch thingie
No glove box

Anyone think of any other "flaws", write 'em down.

camaro03

hey, they have front and back ash trays, lol

AlkyIROC

I think that about covers it!

No SFC mainly so that the chassis isn't too stiff. Don't forget that they build cars to suit a wide range of drivers, driving habits and conditions. Not everyone wants a car that has a suspension that will only go straight or one that carves corners well. Not everyone wants a gas guzzing street car or a fuel pinching low performance one.

After they sell the car to the public, the aftermarket parts will change any car into what you design to use it for. Putting on SFC will stiffen up the chassis and get rid of squeeks however a stiffer ride has to be accepteded as a comprimise.

camaro6spd

T-Tops were factory.....convertalbes were not......

SoCo80p

iTrader: (5)

when they build the cars the build them to just handle what engines will be in it, like the early big block cars had TH400's mucies and 12 bolts, then when the engines were getting a little smaller went to the TH350's super t-10's and 8.5 ten bolts, then in the 80's (GM's worst tooling ever) with the crappy 7.5 and 700r4. they used these as thats all that was needed to handle the weak 305's. paul hit it right on the head, it all comes down to the mighty $$$ frame ties are a great idea, but not needed for a stone stock car.

ploegi

Let us also not forget... Structural rigidity also translates to a less effective crush zone in the event of a collision. Subframe connectors dramatically increase rigidity, and in a collision, will not crush down, which means the passengers will "feel" more of the impact.

Fbird88

That sucks, but it'll still probably be pretty safe in a crash. From what I've read from the manufacturers (don't know whether it's true or not), SFC's are supposed to increase safety in a side impact collision.

BTW, here's another part to add to the list of things GM skimped on in our cars: the engine blocks. They put in ****ty thin-walled, low-nickel castings. Not that it matters unless you've got loads of power, but they put better blocks in the older cars. I've heard the Canadion blocks are much stronger, though.

cort351w

And the problem with that would be...

Framed windows are not generally seen on performance cars. It looks SO MUCH better. On the other hand, maybe GM is just skimping out in that area on the corvette, too. Funny how Dodge just can't get that part right on the viper. I also guess that the unframed windows are a real step backwards on the Mustang (99+ is best design since 69 & 70 fastbacks, IMO). When you look at it, there are a lot of cars whose makers are too "cheap" to frame the windows

We all know that GM is cheap, but at least they are not as cheap as ford, and, although I like some of them (mostly the muscle cars), mopars are even cheaper still.