The Central Hub for DSM Community and Information

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. This is where the DSM platform history is documented and archived. Log in to help us in our mission, and to remove most ads from the browsing experience.

Tubular rear subframe - Input needed

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

I'd be ok with just a tubular cro moly front subframe without the replacement control arms. Preferrably with roll center issues corrected but I am not going to wildly lower my GSX. Maybe just an inch below stock. So i don't know if it would even be neccessary in my case. I think addressing any real issues with the front suspension would get very involved and very expensive very fast.

ps I really like how you are doing the attachment points. I am not a fan of the too often seen flat washer welded on each end of a tube.
 
Hey Paul,

Any updates??
I wish. Still waiting for brackets. I'd like to think that I would have them all within the next 2 weeks. And I'll have it fit and tacked within 2 days of receiving the brackets. I'm itchin to work more on this and the waiting is killing me!

On a related note; I just brought home a new TIG welder and a huge welding bench yesterday. :D Looking forward to putting it to use.
 
I wish. Still waiting for brackets. I'd like to think that I would have them all within the next 2 weeks. And I'll have it fit and tacked within 2 days of receiving the brackets. I'm itchin to work more on this and the waiting is killing me!

On a related note; I just brought home a new TIG welder and a huge welding bench yesterday. :D Looking forward to putting it to use.

Finish this thing already, I want to know how much it will cost. ROFL
 
ROFL

Nice and subtle.

LOL. It's that one dude that always posts his ideas, theories and laws of physics, engineering, mathematics and so on to make him look important. He posted on the other guys thread about how you have to anneal the frame in order for it to work. I don't want Paul to finish the frame and not anneal it first.
 
LOL. It's that one dude that always posts his ideas, theories and laws of physics, engineering, mathematics and so on to make him look important. He posted on the other guys thread about how you have to anneal the frame in order for it to work. I don't want Paul to finish the frame and not anneal it first.

Thats all he does is run his mouth. That guy is never happy unless he is creating some kind of drama or an argument. His theories are so amazing yet he never shows any proof that nothing works except for what he says and you never see any work that he has accomplished. Just be sure to trust his every word because he has a degree.

Hope to see one of these up and going soon. Glad to see someone with real skills taking his own time to help make products for the DSM crowd and not someone the will BS about there BS.
 
Thats all he does is run his mouth. That guy is never happy unless he is creating some kind of drama or an argument. His theories are so amazing yet he never shows any proof that nothing works except for what he says and you never see any work that he has accomplished. Just be sure to trust his every word because he has a degree.

You should see when he posts over on the ecmlink forums, he's an entirely different type of troll. Less arrogant, more of a little bi***. Runs over there complaining about what he sees on toonerz :)
 
You should see when he posts over on the ecmlink forums, he's an entirely different type of troll. Less arrogant, more of a little bi***. Runs over there complaining about what he sees on toonerz :)

If you're not a member of NABR you're made fun of. You have to go 9.99 or faster to be a true DSMer. People have lost sight of what this is all about.

Aside from that, keep going Paul I know it will look sick when it's done and perform even better.
 
Well, I've received a large order of pinion brackets that fit perfectly. I also received a sample of the inboard pick-up bracket, and found an issue. I had originally planned to have 3 adjustment levels (stock, +1" and +2"). After mocking up the bracket, it seems there isn't room for such a bracket.

For the inboard toe arm pick-up, +2" raised would put it right into the highest point of the entire assembly. Not only would it not physically fit, but it wouldn't allow any upward travel during suspension compression. The factory arm is curved there, so a straight arm already loses some clearance for that reason alone. I'd venture to say that some cars that are extremely low, might not even have clearance for the +1" setting. I do know that a straight arm will clear almost any car at the stock pick-up point, and it should also clear 95% of the cars at the +1" point. I'm plan to do a curved toe arm for additional clearance and see how that works.

The 3 position brackets is also an issue with the LCA inboard pick-up. With the axle shaft passing by almost directly below and parallel with the LCA, there isn't enough clearance around the CV shaft to allow for raising the pick-up by 2 inches. One inch would be fine though. Is 1" raised sufficient?

Another option for the inboard LCA pick-up is to move it rearward, further away from the CV shaft so that it is less above the shaft. What are your guys' thoughts on this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am no engineer, but I had a few questions and possible points about moving the pickups and the purpose of them. Geometry in the suspension was designed by an engineer perfecting the geometry for handling, comfort and ride height. When we "lower" our cars, we are changing the geometry in all of the arms. A shorter shock and spring is being used to lower the vehicle, changing all the angles of the arms. The goal with raising the pickups is to correct this geometry as close to stock. My brothers both have 1950 Ford Coupes. We changed the pickup points to physically lower the car and then put custom length shocks on. In no way did the shocks and springs lower the car. we "lowered" the car by moving mounting points. This is what I was believing to be done here, but maybe I'm wrong? I'm not criticizing, i love what your doing and saving my pennies for it. I was wondering if your moving the upper arms up only or are you moving upper and lower arms? If you move upper and lower arms together a set height, It means the hub/knuckle must raise too right? If it raises the hub up further, and a correct length shock is used, wont the car will sit lower with more correct geometry? I"m thinking if you move upper and lower arms up say 2" it will raise the hub as well. doing this and also using a say, 2" lowering spring wont it lower the car too much and bottom out and still have poor geometry ? Like i said I'm not an engineer but just was wondering on how you wanted the moved pickups to work.
 
A buddy and I were just discussing rear upper control arm angle yesterday and I can't think of a way to change the angle aside from a shorter spindle. There's really no good or simple way to change the mounting points of that UCA. I'm not sure how it will react with raised lower pick-ups and stock uppers, so I'll be interested to find out in testing.
 
Add Value - Be Respectful - No Trolling - No Misinformation - Participate Often!
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community

Build Thread Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top