Newer Chassis under a 56 F-100

[redlightning]

Here is one on ebay.It says he used a 69 chevelle. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1954-...QQcmdZViewItem Here is the number if the link does not work. 4607122616

[53lover]

The short wheelbase standard cab Dakota, and the Durango have a 111.9" wheelbase, which is close to perfect for these trucks, and the frame rails are board straight. This should make for a relatively easy swap. I mean, if you can use the front steering and suspension componants with the I.C. crossmember, why can't you use the whole chasis?

[F1CORY]

I am using a 92-96 Dakota on my 55..Just got the motor mounts for a 4.6 done.. cab fits near perfect...just depends on if your willing to raise the bed floor cause the frame kick up,"mine will be on airride so it helps out"...and the hundred bucks i paid for it...pretty good

[havi]

Common under IH pickups as well. (old thread revival, lol)

[AXracer]

biggest deficit to the Dorango/Dakota chassis is that it rides and handles like a... well... truck, So you really haven't gained much over a rebuilt stocker.

[fatfenders]

Originally Posted by AXracer

biggest deficit to the Dorango/Dakota chassis is that it rides and handles like a... well... truck, So you really haven't gained much over a rebuilt stocker.

And no further improvements could possibly be made to the ride and handling of a Dakota chassis? Did you really just say that Mister Autocross Man?

Wow this thread is old. And I see I already posted my two cents.

[AXracer]

Originally Posted by fatfenders

And no further improvements could possibly be made to the ride and handling of a Dakota chassis? Did you really just say that Mister Autocross Man?

Wow this thread is old. And I see I already posted my two cents.

Hi D. glad to see you are still lurking around!
Yes, improvement likely could be made (dropped spindles, respringing etc), but since there is little aftermarket demand for handling bits, it would be much more expensive than putting a better designed setup (Jag, Art Morrison, Heidt) on the stock frame, and wouldn't have to give up bed depth. Raising the bed floor makes it look like a flatbed with metal sides IMHO. The OEM Dakota suspension geometry was never designed for good handling, so short of replacing the spindles and A arms with ones from a better suspension and relocating the A arm pivots, you are really limited by the geometry itself. Except for Neons of certain few years when Mopar decided to go after the road racer/AX market, there are virtually no Mopar products seriously AXing. Mopar was always about going fast in a straight line.

[53lover]

Seems everyone has an opinion. My goal is not to make a 50+ year old farm truck corner like gran prix racer, but to build a nice truck with classic styling and a modern chasis and drive train. People were building rods long before all the magazines told us we had to have a 3grand ifs and four link rear. Take a cue from those who came before us and think outside the box.

[AXracer]

I LOVE a vehicle that handles like a grand prix racer, I race one most weekends, but since I do not ever drive on the street like it is a racetrack, I too don't need that handling capability. My truck has a 2" dropped beam axle, softened and lowered leaf springs with reversed eye mains, Toyota PS box in front. In the rear I have a Ford 9" on lowered springs with reversed eyes. The front brakes are disc and the rears drum. Shocks are new all the way around with air shocks in the rear for towing. I am very satisfied with the ride and handling on the street, it's as good/better than my 2008 GMC Sierra 1500. Of course I can't make it jump up and down like a mexican jumping bean or look like I broke all the springs and am awaiting a tow truck when I park it, but I'm not in it when it's parked either, so that time is not as important to me as when I am driving it.
Racing is however the proving grounds for new and improved technology and tests it's safety and durability. The new as well as the historical technology is pretty heavily documented, unlike OEM design (which is often compromised by the manufacturer's bean counters) you can easily find info on what the effect each change has on the whole. One of my friends, a mutitime National champion AXer and suspension guru once said "each part of the suspension you change is a potential rope to hang yourself with. When you start making changes and throwing parts at it without understanding and testing the relationships you are throwing yourself into a roomfull of ropes".
I don't say that the goal of every truck owner should be to build a truck that would beat a Ferrari on a road race course. I know and have experienced what happens when you start making even seemingly minor suspension changes to otherwise well designed suspensions, and how ugly a poorly designed suspension can be, so I am only trying to warn people that the pitfalls are many.
That which appears the simplist is often the most critical and complex. You wouldn't even consider trying to build an engine from a pile of mismatched and unidentified parts from a number of different engines, or just tear into an automatic tranny and start making modifications and adding homebuilt parts to "improve" it when you have never even seen the insides of one before or have any idea how it works. Then what is it that makes people think they can design or re-engineer a suspension and steering system without the slightest idea how everything works and start building their own critical components, when a misstep or failure of a part could be life threatening?

[telefunkken]

if a few of you want to see a correct (imo) frame swap, check out a build on pirate 4x 4, '57' pickup on a '93' 4x4 frame. goes by the name OKEY57 in the ford only section. the craftsmanship is off the hook and the truck looks like it will be very well in proportion.

[Scot]

Ax,
What is your opinion of the r&p units on a solid axle?

[AXracer]

I have no first hand experience with the beam axle R&P unit, but I'm somewhat put off by the design and execution. I really dislike the slip jointed column shaft and adding all that unsprung weight to the axle. I don't see it as an improvement or fix for a problem, but rather being market driven. If you are going to spend that much just for the R&P conversion (especially if a disk brake conversion is also in the plans), you might as well spend a few hundred more and do a full IFS. The Toyota box conversion fixes most any steering problem or dislike anyone might have with the OEM steering box without any significant alteration of the otherwise perfectly good design for significantly less money.

[StevenJohn]

I'm brand new around here, but have been lurking for the last couple of weeks since I bought my '55 F250.

Going back to one of the original trains of this post this F250 is actually sitting on a '77 C10 frame, and I have to say it looks pretty good (and stock there) I just checked the specs on Wikipedia and that makes sense WB is 117.5 ( 118 on the F250's 8ft bed) and the track widths are 65.8 and 62.7. To be honest I didn't think I'd be a fan of this hodgepodge, but I have to admit the 350 engine, power steering and brakes with this body works out OK, and the price was right too. I'm not sure if this is common knowledge, or just the good investigation of the guy I bought the truck from, but either way I thought I'd add it too the conversation.

I'll see if I can figure out how to post a couple pics from my gallery.

Steven