Subframe

[tolaas]

My front subframe are a little wrecked at left side,so my Camaro 67 are lower on that side, about 20mm on the rear.
If i bye a new one, AMD or OER, are they worth the money or are they badder then that one i alredy have?
Thank`s

[Henrys Toy]

Originally Posted by tolaas

My front subframe are a little wrecked at left side,so my Camaro 67 are lower on that side, about 20mm on the rear.
If i bye a new one, AMD or OER, are they worth the money or are they badder then that one i alredy have?
Thank`s

Good morning to all,
You might want to take a micrometer to the steel on that front sub frame (H frame) the 1967 Camaro had the lightest H frame. As I recall they .015 to .020 thinner and that made a nice difference. So if you're going to replace that frame just be aware of that difference in weight. Now if it was replaced once before you owned the car there may be no difference. You might want to bring that frame to a good welder/ body man and have it corrected as long as its the lighter 1967 H frame.
Have a good day.

Respectfully,
Henry Kunz 1534 H/SA

[tolaas]

Thank you for your interesting answer, i think it`s a 67 frame.
I`ll take care of this frame, do you have a 67 Camaro mr. Kunz?
Torbjorn Laas Sweden

[Dwight Southerland]

There were two different subframes in production 1967 Camaros and Firebirds. A light one was used in cars with 6-cylinder engines and 327 engines. All others used a thicker frame for the additional weight and stress. The light ones did not have holes stamped on the inside the front of the frame horns, the heavier ones did. Production efficiency and volume production economy dictated changing to using only one frame around June, 1967. That was the story I was told by a Chevrolet engineer around 1979. Actual weight difference I found was 12 pounds between two frames I compared.

The light frames did not have holes drilled and tapped for front sway bar.

[Henrys Toy]

Originally Posted by tolaas

Thank you for your interesting answer, i think it`s a 67 frame.
I`ll take care of this frame, do you have a 67 Camaro mr. Kunz?
Torbjorn Laas Sweden

Good morning to all,
I do not have a 1967 Camaro, but I do race a 1969 Nova. A friend that still races his 1969 Z/28 told me about this when I was building my Nova in the early 1980's. Casey, you know who you are! So I hunted down one of those H frames and its still in the car today. Also if the H frame is suspected to be "bent" you might want to check the frame mounting points on your car body in case the car was involved in a frontal impact and things got moved. I hope this helps and good luck with your project.

Respectfully,
Henry Kunz 1534 H/SA

[tolaas]

My car was comming to sweden in the early 80 as a racecar, Some comtetition class what i heard and then they build a stocker.
It`s 1967 camaro 350 ss car from the begining so maybe i have the thicher frame. Thanks for your answers
Torbjorn

[tolaas]

I forgot, if i look at a blueprint the car are 7-8 mm smaller between the upper control arm brackets and 20 mm lower in the rear wheel house so what i can understand so have the car been smashed sometimes.

[Jeff Kempton]

Originally Posted by tolaas

My front subframe are a little wrecked at left side,so my Camaro 67 are lower on that side, about 20mm on the rear.
If i bye a new one, AMD or OER, are they worth the money or are they badder then that one i alredy have?
Thank`s

Tolaas, my '67 Camaro has the early production subframe with no holes, as Dwight has described in his post. The most easily spotted difference that I've noticed between it and the '68-69 subframes is that the lower control arm snubbers were mounted on the subframe in '67 and contacted the rear edge of the arms, but were moved to the front and bolted to the lower control arms in '68-69.

I agree with the others that your frame can likely be repaired/straightened.