'05 300 question..

Can't think of a unibody car made in the past 40 years that DOESN'T have
a front subframe...including all Mopars.

 

No, that's not an Amsoil product- its all just snake-oil anyway. You're
thinking of Slick 50 Intelligent Lubricant, with neuropathic PTFE
networked particles. "The lubricant smarter than the people who buy it."


=-----

 

Are you sure about that? I thought that they were relatively new since they
did require more room. Sure looked like my 91 Taurus engine was just
attached to unibody. I'm sure it was strong unibody but not an isolated
cradle.

 

Like most others on this group, Steve knows a whole hell of a lot more
about cars than you do.

Those Darts and Valiants you love to bitch about had subframes holding the
engine and front suspension; the subframe was bolted to the unibody.

Well, see, being wrong is just what happens when you just guess at it
ignorantly, Art.

 

Most assuredly, your 1991 Taurus had (has) a front sub-frame.

 

Art wrote:

I know that Chrysler B-bodies had bolt-in front subframes right from the
beginning. My '69 Coronet has one, my friend's '67 GTX has one, and I've
seen them all the way back to the '61 or '62 models. The C-bodies have a
"stub frame" that is welded to the unibody, but conceptually its the
same as a subframe. The F/M/J bodies of the late 70s and 80s (first
models were Aspen/Volare, last were the Diplomat, Gran Fury, 5th Ave).
had an elaborate bolt-in subframe, isolated by big rubber donuts
(replaced by iron spacers to improve handling in copcars), that carried
the entire front suspension including the transverse torsion bars. I'm
pretty sure the K-cars and OmniRizon also had bolt-in subframes, but I
never had much to do with those after a bad experience with a '78 Horizon.