# Front crossmember



## ALMSTT (Feb 28, 2012)

So I did some searching on google and didn't really find anything..

Is there anyone that makes a (preferably tubular) front crossmember to replace the intercooler pipe bar?
With as much of a pain in the ass that that thing makes oil changes, I figured there'd be something out there..


----------



## hunTTsvegas (Aug 27, 2012)

ALMSTT said:


> So I did some searching on google and didn't really find anything..
> 
> Is there anyone that makes a (preferably tubular) front crossmember to replace the intercooler pipe bar?
> With as much of a pain in the ass that that thing makes oil changes, I figured there'd be something out there..


I remember a thread recently where Marcus_Aurelius (if I remember correctly) provided a schematic showing it as a secondary source of frame/suspension rigidity (please correct me if I'm wrong) but nothing came from it in the way of an aftermarket option. I wouldn't see it as being anything extremely challenging to fabricate but then, I'm not great at fabricating parts.

I would think that if I were going to attempt it, I would simply remove the factory cross tube, separate the tube from the mounts. Get smaller, just as sturdy tube in the same length/shape then weld the mounts. 

Probably wayyyyy off though.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Once the SAI pump is gone theres plenty of room


----------



## hunTTsvegas (Aug 27, 2012)

PLAYED TT said:


> Once the SAI pump is gone theres plenty of room


Hahahaha.. good point! I still need to get around to doing this ^


----------



## ALMSTT (Feb 28, 2012)

PLAYED TT said:


> Once the SAI pump is gone theres plenty of room


Yeah, I got mine out a while ago.
I'm just looking into this for more rigidity.
Plus, even though the sai is out it still just feels so... in the way.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

I'm working on something! I should have something for you guys by the end of January... Prototype going to Adam so he can test (I know he's been wrestling with his oil changes), and then if everything checks out, the feeding frenzy can begin.


----------



## ALMSTT (Feb 28, 2012)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I'm working on something! I should have something for you guys by the end of January... Prototype going to Adam so he can test (I know he's been wrestling with his oil changes), and then if everything checks out, the feeding frenzy can begin.


Awesome! 
I already know I'll be getting one. :laugh:

By the way, I found the DV on my porch yesterday.
It all looks great! Can't wait till I get my ecu back from Gonzo and the F23 I ordered so I can install everything.
Thanks man!


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

i removed that cross tube. oil changes were a PITA even without the pump.

i have some molly tubing from a cage build. was going to mock something up, but im not convinced you even need the rigiditiy.


----------



## hunTTsvegas (Aug 27, 2012)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I'm working on something! I should have something for you guys by the end of January... Prototype going to Adam so he can test (I know he's been wrestling with his oil changes), and then if everything checks out, the feeding frenzy can begin.


That's what I'm talking about!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I'm working on something! I should have something for you guys by the end of January... Prototype going to Adam so he can test (I know he's been wrestling with his oil changes), and then if everything checks out, the feeding frenzy can begin.



I have my engine out of my 180Q for a clutch, and almost considered putting it back in. :wave: Do you need a donor for end plates or measuring to have end plates cut? 

PS. I'm installing the K04 setup and IC's on the AWP piston'ed engine.:thumbup::heart:


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I'm working on something! I should have something for you guys by the end of January... Prototype going to Adam so he can test (I know he's been wrestling with his oil changes), and then if everything checks out, the feeding frenzy can begin.


Are you doing a sub frame ??? Lighter and more rigged and won't cost $1,000


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

speed51133! said:


> i removed that cross tube. oil changes were a PITA even without the pump.
> 
> i have some molly tubing from a cage build. was going to mock something up, but im not convinced you even need the rigiditiy.


Every bit of rigidity is needed in a roadster for any serious driver. Its not like its gona hurt anything not having it but it would kinda be like deleting the strut tower bar. Why would yah? Its really the only thing other than the crash bar that ties the front of the car together. If I still had a welder Id def take a crack at making my own cuz I do agree since im running a fmic and dont need a huge 2.5" tube spanning across my engine bay when a smaller solid bar or tubing could be used. But ill keep it in until then also cuz in an accident its basically a lower crashbar. 

I def would be interested as well max. Just a suggestion but it would be awesome if it mounted up with some kind of easily removable pin setup so if your doing an oil change or say pulling the motor or what have you, that you can just pull the bar off easily and leave the mounts in place. I honestly am still new to my TT (plus its at the garage) and dont remember if where it mounts to is easily accessible. If it is ignore that suggestion.:laugh::thumbup:


----------



## 1999.5GTIVR6 (Jun 15, 2011)

Totally interested in this for the mk4 world. 

are you guys making a whole new subframe or modifying original ? 

A buddy built/modified one for his golf, totally changed the driving experience. 
his is quit large and heavey but it made it feel like a merc.
lol had to drop it to swap the tranny though, and i think his ways more then my skidplate.....


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> I have my engine out of my 180Q for a clutch, and almost considered putting it back in. :wave: Do you need a donor for end plates or measuring to have end plates cut?
> 
> PS. I'm installing the K04 setup and IC's on the AWP piston'ed engine.:thumbup::heart:


:thumbup::thumbup: For doing the the K04 swap on the higher CR motor! 

I'm chopping mine to build the mounting plates and take measurements. When he prototype is done, it'll go your way for testing (my car won't see any real driving until next summer).


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

01ttgt28 said:


> Are you doing a sub frame ??? Lighter and more rigged and won't cost $1,000





1999.5GTIVR6 said:


> Totally interested in this for the mk4 world.
> 
> are you guys making a whole new subframe or modifying original ?
> 
> ...


Guys, we are talking about the IC cross tube that also serves as a structural chassis reinforcement, not a subframe replacement. :beer:


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Guys, we are talking about the IC cross tube that also serves as a structural chassis reinforcement, not a subframe replacement. :beer:


Dame I was thinking tubular sub frame :facepalm:
I think last I looked cheapest I could find was $1,000 and I think it was through usrt


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

01ttgt28 said:


> Dame I was thinking tubular sub frame :facepalm:
> I think last I looked cheapest I could find was $1,000 and I think it was through usrt


usrt never made a sub frame....they made tubular control arms for the front.
Well, they made this:
http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=76_208_221&products_id=1703

but that is just some steel welded to the oem subframe.

nobody has marketed any aftermarket subframe for the TT (or mk4).


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

speed51133! said:


> usrt never made a sub frame....they made tubular control arms for the front.
> Well, they made this:
> http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=76_208_221&products_id=1703
> 
> ...


Innovative designs and fabrication (same shop that manufactured the tubular front control arms sold by Scott) made a tubular subframe for the chassis. I don't know if it ever went into production, but they had a prototype and a few testers out.


----------



## 1999.5GTIVR6 (Jun 15, 2011)

not to thread jack but someone should really make one.... 
it would work for the golf, gti, jetta, beetle and TT. im sure there is a market for them. they could be bundled with tubular control arms too


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

idk, seems like it would end up looking just like the stock one....tubes would need plates inbetween them to join them together for the strength. what would be benefit be?


----------



## 1999.5GTIVR6 (Jun 15, 2011)

The oem subframe is made from pressed sheet steel and is spot welded together. The subframe, when removed from the car and the control arms, sway bar, and steering rack are also removed, the subframe is flimsy and weak. 

The worst part of the subframe is where the front control arms attach to the subframe. Under hard braking and other high g-force driving flexes the subframe enough to alter the alignment and suspension geometry. 2 large bolts fasten the front of the subframe to the longitudinal frame rails, so the flexing of the subframe also transmits to the frame rails. 

The doggone mount acts to pull on and stress the subframe under heavy load, making the undercarriage feel stiffer and stronger. This is noticeable when accelerating hard on a bumpy road. The front wheels feel heavy and planted on the road, compared to if there was no load and the car was coasting, the front wheels feeling lighter and "bouncier."

This is from my friend that made his
To strengthen the subframe, I shaped a 1/4" angle steel bar to fit around the front of the subframe, and clear the dogbone, with it bolted to the car using the control arm bolts. Connecting this front bar to the back of the subframe, are two 1/4" flat steel bars that are welded and bolted to the back of the subframe, surrounding the rear bolts. 

After it was installed on the car, it felt completely different. Driving over rough road is much less dramatic, as noise is less "bangy" and more "thuddy" the steering wheel doesn't tug and pull over bumps, and with my LSD, it makes perfect burnouts with no wheel hop at all, and stock motor mounts.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

Ask buddy for pics


----------



## 1999.5GTIVR6 (Jun 15, 2011)

Ya we have pictures of the whole build. Ill get him to make a thread or atleast upload them

Back on thread topic with the front cross member, what's the difference between the golf jetta and beetles? 
I know the beetles and tts look similar then the jetta and the golfs look similar


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

1999.5GTIVR6 said:


> Ya we have pictures of the whole build. Ill get him to make a thread or atleast upload them
> 
> Back on thread topic with the front cross member, what's the difference between the golf jetta and beetles?
> I know the beetles and tts look similar then the jetta and the golfs look similar


They're all built on the same chassis. Basically, firewall and frame rails are common between all of them. A pillars, door sills, B and C pillars, trunk, floorpans are different based on body style and drivetrain (AWD vs FWD).


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Innovative designs and fabrication (same shop that manufactured the tubular front control arms sold by Scott) made a tubular subframe for the chassis. I don't know if it ever went into production, but they had a prototype and a few testers out.


Sorry I get some shops confused I know it was a shop that also made front control arms they quoted me 
$1,000 for that part thanks for correcting me :thumbup: 

now back to the topic that front cross member .I removed mine and installed a bigger upper strut brace and
A lower tie bar also solid sub frame mounts do u think It still has flex? And would solid motor mounts like
The ones from ffe would help tie it all together


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> I def would be interested as well max. Just a suggestion but it would be awesome if it mounted up with some kind of easily removable pin setup so if your doing an oil change or say pulling the motor or what have you, that you can just pull the bar off easily and leave the mounts in place. I honestly am still new to my TT (plus its at the garage) and dont remember if where it mounts to is easily accessible. If it is ignore that suggestion.:laugh::thumbup:


But the whole point of the bar is to make it smaller, so I don't think you would need to have it removable at that point.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

01ttgt28 said:


> now back to the topic that front cross member .I removed mine and installed a bigger upper strut brace and
> A lower tie bar also solid sub frame mounts do u think It still has flex? And would solid motor mounts like
> The ones from ffe would help tie it all together


Yes, chassis flex is there with all production cars (some more than others), and removing anything that provides extra bracing and support will increase the percentage of twisting seen while in motion. The stuff that you added don't do much for the actual chassis:

Bigger strut bar doesn't necessarily mean better. The aftermarket ones I've seen, although full of bling, have a major flaw. They don't triangulate by bracing the strut towers with the firewall. This reduces their effectiveness, and make the OEM bar much more efficient at the task in hand.

Lower tie bar and subframe mounts affects the *sub*frame, not the actual chassis or "main" frame. These are good mods that help the flimsy subframe, but have no direct involvement with reducing the torsional deflection or "5th spring effect" of the chassis. Stuff that bolts to the rails (especially forward of the firewall) is what should concerns you. 

Solid engine/transmission mounts does exactly what their name implies, remove slop and movement from the drivetrain. If anything, solids mounts add to chassis flex because rubber normally absorbs most of the energy that is now directly transferred to the frame. 

There are 3 main players when it comes chassis bracing and support (there are others like the dash transversal brace and the roof in the coupe, but I don't think anyone's crazy enough to compromise and remove those) :

1) the crash bar (which Audi considers integral with the subframe and other bits) 
2) the strut tower bar 
3) the front cross tube that we're discussing 

Remove any of these, and you have reduced some of the car's torsional rigidity by a percentage (and not a negligible one). Some don't even realize or "feel" it, some don't care, but it's there! :beer:


*Stuff in red is considered integral to the chassis (kind of weird that Audi sees the crash bar as integral???) and the green colored bits are added structural reinforcements. *


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

looks like the intercooler tube in question is green?


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

So if you add solid mounts engine , tranny, dogbone it wouldn't make the engine like a crossmember ? 
I would think their would be no flex ?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

speed51133! said:


> looks like the intercooler tube in question is green?


Yes Sir!


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

01ttgt28 said:


> So if you add solid mounts engine , tranny, dogbone it wouldn't make the engine like a crossmember ?


At rest or in steady state, I could see how the motor/tranny/dogbone mounts ties the frame in a triangulated fashion. Unfortunately, we are rarely in steady state and the engine and transmission are constantly trying to twist the chassis in various planes. I think you're way over-thinking this! Simply look at the drivetrain, integral chassis, and secondary reinforcements (green bits in the roadster diagram) seperately and it would make more sense. :thumbup:


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> At rest or in steady state, I could see how the motor/tranny/dogbone mounts ties the frame in a triangulated fashion. Unfortunately, we are rarely in steady state and the engine and transmission are constantly trying to twist the chassis in various planes. I think you're way over-thinking this! Simply look at the drivetrain, integral chassis, and secondary reinforcements (green bits in the roadster diagram) seperately and it would make more sense. :thumbup:


Sorry I'm not that great when it comes to this stuff


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

this is the most solid piece of evidence in the argument regarding the cross pipe i've ever seen...
interesting.

however i question if all those bits hightlited are structural, or rather safety parts. Like the beam in the door. The beam in the door that low is to protect the driver...not for chassis stiffness...

however, I can believe the crash bar is part of the structural rigity because it's the furthest point forward on the frame...

i'm still hard pressed to believe cross pipe. but the proof is there...

do you have the supporting documentation? like where that image was taken from?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Well I reinstalled mine last night along with the dual IC setup. I'm looking forward to the added cooling, but the whole time I was kicking my self in the arse thinking "I should have just installed a FMIC, this will be a PITA for every oil change." :banghead:


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

that is the only reason i left mine off...oil changes.

it doesnt make them impossible, but more of a PITA.

and i hate doing them in the first place...

i even bought a remote oil filter mount, and had the filter plumbed to be somewhere else more convenient. But all the freaking hoses and bends looked so bad i got rid of it.

now i just have an oil extractor, extract from the top of the car, and deal with the filter on the bottom....


----------



## LZ7W TT (Mar 1, 2005)

I'm guessing the dual IC setup is the tyrolsport setup? how "involved" was the install?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

LZ7W TT said:


> I'm guessing the dual IC setup is the tyrolsport setup? how "involved" was the install?


Actually, I was installing the OEM dual IC setup on my 180Q that only comes with a single SMIC. Tyrol's IC's should be simple remove and reinstall since they just replace the SMIC's and nothing else.


----------



## LZ7W TT (Mar 1, 2005)

Oh, OK.

I believe there's some trimming/cutting involved with the Tyrolsport ICs due to the increased size. I'm just not sure how much ;-)


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I'm chopping mine to build the mounting plates and take measurements. When he prototype is done, it'll go your way for testing (my car won't see any real driving until next summer).


Max? What happened to this?


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

LZ7W TT said:


> Oh, OK.
> 
> I believe there's some trimming/cutting involved with the Tyrolsport ICs due to the increased size. I'm just not sure how much ;-)


No cutting needed. Fitment is perfect!


----------

