The CV is to wide. Stock width is 59 inches and the CV is around 64. This regulates you to the use of major negative backspace modern metric wheels to fit in the wells. Unless the billet bling look is what you are looking for?. This also means you need to hunt for a correct rear to match the width as a stock nine inch is way to short. The stock CV 8.8 is way to wide with tires attached to fit under the wells of the bed.

Also depending on the wheel combination you choose it can limit how low you can go as the tires may rub on the fender tops or edges.

Another aspect is just how much aftermarket support does the CV have? No one makes anything for them other than stock parts. No shops are installing any. If it was the Schnizz there would be shops everywhere installing them bagging and offering drop spindles. I hear crickets in that regard......

Welding all the cross members in place may help with some of the flex but it will still be there in the frame and a matter of time untill failure.

Look up a plane called the de Havilland Comet, this commercial jet( one of the first in service) had a small issue early on with aluminum and flex from pressurization of the cabin. Basic same principal Rigid structure meets non rigid structure and the engineering failure and mayhem it caused.

Garbz

 

If the x member was made new out of steel and narrowed to 59" or as close to that number as possible it would be fine to use? I have the capability of making a new x member out of steel just wondering if it's worth the effort.

 

Narrowing it will cause adverse affects. Bump steer and other evils happen when geometry is changed. you also have to narrow the rack possibly reducing the turn radius You could do it and keep the pattern But it is still a suspension with no aftermarket support.

It is better to purchase a engineered kit like no Limits wide ride that is beefed to take the weight of heavier trucks and early cars.

Garbz

 

Now y'all got me scarred, every time my cabin pressurizes I start to freak out. Really though I've thought about failure a lot since doin it to my truck. So far so good, its them really hard pot holes that worry me. I fear the lower control arm snappin right off some times. Ive got about 10,000 miles on it though and no signs of damage yet.

 

You are about the only one with any real world mileage on one. Normal driving? Or like it is stolen? Cracks at the juncture of the base and spring pocket is where I think they would first appear.

Garbz
from the Droid

 

We built a new frame, narrowed the CV aluminum crossmember and power rack. I'll let you know how it turns out.

 

 

Looks nice Tom!

 

I think I'll do a wood x-member with my CV upgrade also! Just busting *****...looks good keep the pics coming.

 

Garbz, got my interest peaked, could you provide at least three statements from these designers, and info needed to confirm the statement, that claim this won't work, FYI if they are associated with any other kit or method then I will naturally assume there is bias. What is your design background and training? In my experience engineers don't state there is a problem and this won't work, instead they identify the problems and issues and provide possible solutions.

 

sgreen,
not defending anyone here, but I do not believe Garbz is saying it will not work, just saying by using cast aluminum vs another metal could potentially create a problem.
Also, depends on which engineer you are talking about. Design engineers just throw something together they think will work, mechanical engineers make it work, and quality engineers tell the rest of us what is wrong with it and how to make it work properly.
If no one believes me on this, all you have to do is pull the front differential on an 2002 trailblazer or try to do any work on any of the new vehicles from the big three.
And because I know someone is gonna ask, I graduated U of M in 2001 with a bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering

 

I'm not attacking anyone either, but with the speed this swap is propagating if there is some professional/expert unbiased words of wisdom then I think this is a great forum to bring that to light. Would like to see it shared before too many destroy their trucks or worse cause bodily harm.

My statement regarding problem and solution applies to all of your examples. EE had a goal/problem to provide a solution (how do I get all this in the little tin box I was provided?), the ME sees flaws and therefore identifies a problem and possible solution (airflow, emi, fit in the confines we are limited to), the QC engineer sees possible problems regarding long term reliability or DFM and provides solutions. The underlying theme is team work and communication. Not until all the above solutions are proven in real world operations all are just theory. Not lecturing but this is from a Product Engineer starting his 31st year in the business, which includes some designs I still am not allowed to discuss. so please accept this as it is intended, with the best concerns for the hobby.

 

I too am/was looking at the cv swap and was considering getting an interceptor to swap out my 240 for the 4.6 along with the front suspension. I'm a bit worried now and think this is a great thread. I'd love to hear from a few more guys out there that have done the swap since it seems so popular. Garbz you make some really good points and I don't want to even try to refute anything you said. I guess my question is, is it going to be a problem in daily driving under normal loads, no big blocks, no heavy hauling? Thanks for all the info out there you guys all make my dream of restoring my ol 65 possible!

 

On the subject of frame flex, there tens of thousands of early model street rods that have had their frames boxed for 20, 30 and some cases 40 years with out fatigue (a number of which I have built and drove).
The stock Ford Model A frame will flex at least twice as much as a 60's Ford truck.
To sucessfully install the CV you only have eliminate the flex from the frame where X-member is bolted, not the whole length of the truck. If earlier posts were true when you put a tube rear section with 4-link on any ladder type frame it would fail, and time has proven that to be false.
And if you want a rigid well handling truck then box the whole frame. Early broncos had an enirely boxed frame and they were only 1/8th inch thick steel, with out breaking when. I assume the Early Bronco got a box frame in 66' because of the Uni and it's failure.
I have been driving my 65' with a CV for a short while, but I will be observing it for any alum failure. During the install I used all the orginal CV structural tubes for mounting into the truck.
And about the alleged added weight on the front suspension, I had to modify the front coils to get the front lower arms back to the same angle as they were in the car orginally. The CV clip was actually at the top of the suspension travel, so the truck was lighter on the front suspension than the car was. And I know that varies with the engine of choice, mine is running a 302/AOD.
I remember when mustang II first started being used people said they would never catch on as a suspension choice.........
And some people still think it won't work, and as with most things it all matters how it was installed and the proper mods were made to make it strong enough for the application.

 

It certainly would have had it been developed earlier in the war. By the time it saw operational use it was too late to save Hitler's....wait a minute, I may have accidentally looked up the Me-163 Komet.....