Anyone use Fat Man frames?

I purchased a Fat Man frame for my 37 Chevy coupe and I am wondering if anyone else has had problems with poor fit and empty promises from their sales staff as to how well everything fits. I was told my LS1 would fit with factory accessories with no problem. Wrong. They later admitted they only used a plastic mock up with no accessories for motor mount placement. That little goof cost me an extra $2400 for an aftermarket serpentine kit. Next the body doesn't sit flat on the frame. It set fine on the factory frame, but you can put your hand between the body and the rear two mounts. I was told that they (Fat Man) have never seen a body they didn't have to shim. Over 1" of shims? They claim they have sold "dozens" of these frames with no problems or complaints. No "I'm sorry you are having these problems" or "what could we do to help"? It's more like "well its yours now, make it work". Has anyone else had a similar experience?  

I bought a set of Camaro tubular A-frames from Fatman and had a similar experience. The first problem was that the steering limit stops were in the wrong location. The wheels would not be capable of turning even 5 degrees from straight down the road. When I called them, Brent told me I could cut the stops off and weld them in the correct location. The second problem is that the ball joint mounts won't hold grease. When you pump enough in to get the air bled from the housing and the ball lubricated, grease starts flowing out between the ball joint maounting plate and the frame mount. You can't generate enough grease pressure to drive it out the other side of the ball joint. They told me to use a thicker grease. Sorry, but any grease still comes out at the flange. I don't think much grease gets forced between the ball and seat in this case. Third, they installed the wrong pair of upper UCA bushings in one of the A-frames, so that there is about a 1/8" gap between each bushing inboard edge and the shaft shoulder (for a total 1/4" gap overall). When you begin tightening the shaft nuts, the ball joint mounting plate starts to bend well before the gaps between the bushings and shaft shoulders close up. This further opens the mount gap, so the ball joint may never get grease, and will expose the joint to water and dirt. When I called about this one, the sales guy said that they have lots of these A-frames in stock with the same "tiny gaps", and that nothing damaging would occur upon torquing up the nuts. He said that normal distortion during/after welding was the cause. Apparently he didn't look at the pictures I sent him, or read my description of the issue. Actually, on my A-arm, the welding distortion was minimal, but they just put an incorrect set of bushings in it. Upon measuring the length of the bushings, one arm's bushing length is about 3/32" shorter than the other arm's bushings. Obviously, the fix is to accept a return and install the correct (longer) bushings. I e-mailed the sales dude again and asked how much bending in the ball joint mount was acceptable, and how to deal with the extra gease gap, but no answer yet. Good luck with these guys. Like a lot of other businesses these days, customer focus is a little too fuzzy, since we customers are farther away than all of the money they are counting. I am sorry that I spent $800 for these A-arms, and will take my next purchase to a different vendor with a lot more interest in quality, consistency, and customer service.
Follow up.
I received some help from their purchasing manager (?). It would seem to me that having a bonafide tech rep providing some input could give people more confidence. He said that they don't use any torque specs on the cross shaft nuts - only that the nuts shouldn't be so tight that the arms don't move freely. The Camaro tech manual for that year calls out 75 lb-ft for the nuts when the car is on its wheels and suspension is in its normal resting height. When I told him about the grease leakage from the ball joint cap on the mounting flange, he thought I meant the dust boots. The poor guy is trying anyway, and was pleasant enough, but they don't seem to be staffed to handle technical feedback. I know that without torquing the nuts, the metal inner bushing sleeves will rotate on the cross shafts, and wear out without lubrication. Since these sleeves aren't bearings, they'll wear out pretty fast and the arms will probably start clunking. The motion is supposed to be transmitted through the rubber bushing isn't it? That's why the car needs to be at normal ride height before the shaft nuts are torqued, right? Somebody tell me if this is incorrect and I have to go back to school!  

To the first post Yes.

To the second post no you do not have to go back to school

Neither of you are alone in your experiences. Had a bad experience with one of their a 51 Merc clip. Totally unsafe as delivered. No help, just meaningless "sales talk"

I sincerely hope that they have enough pride to make it right for both of you to a point that you can come back here and give a positive follow up comment on their business practices.

Mike

www.Customikes.com  
It's only metal, It does not know if it is on a 50 Merc, or on a Lambo. Make it do what you want.

I have used several Fatman frames on projects and it is a hit and miss on getting bodies to fit, not because of the frame but cause of a 60 to 70 year old vehicles. You have to remember the manufacturing process was pretty crude compared to todays standards. I have made my own chassis for a 67-72 Chev Pickup and the bodymounts were in different spots on three frames that I measured. The wheelbase was even different on all three! I not trying to take up for Fatmans but if you only had a problem with it being too low in one spot you are doing good. Never the less, customer service should be better with not only Fatmans but everyone in the industry.  

Thanks for responding. I have always wondered - did Chevy build each body to fit each frame? I thought they at least had a jig or something even back then. My problem with the fit was as follows- each side has 6 mounting holes. With the 3rd and 4th bolted down with zero spacers, the 1st and 2nd had 1/2 and 3/8 shims respectively. The 5th over the axle will take almost an inch. Now my hood won't line up properly with the rad/grill support unless I either shim it or modify the hood. Maybe that IS normal for this frame, however it took 4 phone calls and pictures before they said "you have to shim it".  
My biggest gripe with them was my engine choice. Like I said, they told me my LS1 would fit w/factory accessories. I would had to notch both inside frame rails at the hat at least 1 1/2 inches per side to fit. Basically the flat out lied to me about that and offered no opoligies. There is no excuse for that. I didn't spend 8 grand to get piss poor service, and I won't again.  

I had one in my 40 Ford Std Coupe... Not at all happy with it.  Dollar for dollar I should have modified the original frame... Piss Poor Fit Holes missing...  No satisfaction with the manufacturer. Sometime education is expensive. Positively would not do business in the future.

My previous build was a 40 Merc using the original chassis... I used the progressive cross member up front and the balance was CHASSIS ENGINEERING.. I tossed out all literature related to FATMAN but would definately go right back to Chassis Engineering for my future needs..........