So I have read almost every post about 4x4 conversions and I am still wanton for more info. I have a 59 F100 longbed and I want/need to convert it to 4x4 in order to get full use out of it year round (I live in Alaska). I don't plan on doing any rock climbing or anything, so I am considering swaping in an IFS. anyone have any thoughts on this? pro vs cons? I am not opposed to a solid axle. I would however like to keep my truck at around the stock height. Any info/input is greatly appreciated. and yes I do realize that this is a very time and $ consuming idea
Thanks
Jason

 

Jason,
I don't know about swapping in a newer IFS, but anything is possible. YOu would need to make tons of measurements of both your truck and the donor to see if it would work.

Back in high school my brother and I made a 4x4 out of a 1960 F-100 short bed. We used the running gear from a 1975 F-100 4x4 that my brother had wrecked. Mounting the engine, tranny, and t-case wasn't too bad. We bought a universal engine mount kit for the engien mounts. We made our own crossmember and tranny mounts.
For the front suspension we took all of the spring pockets, etc from the 1975 and bolted them onto the 1960 frame and then bolted it all together.

Take careful measurements!! When we got all done we had the front axle approx 1" too far forward and had to redo everything to make it look right.

Good luck with it! The "refrigerator" years look great as 4x4's

Bobby

 

I think a body swap would be your best option Second best option would be a solid axle swap, but that would mean a lift. After that you've got a serious project.

 

I just found this on Ebay, check it out; ebay item #180042987602

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1959-...QQcmdZViewItem

Bobby

 

This is something I do.....

If you are going to run a Ford engine, find a 66-78 F-250 4 x 4 and use the front end and rear end and tranny and transfer case. I would highly recommend using the 360 engine most of them (through about 73) have. You need to use the later engine and transmission mounts. This way you will have 8 lug wheels which are current today, and be able to use modern tires with them as the wheels are all 16" and at least 6" wide. Do not use an IFS. The solid axles allow much more flexibility across rough terrain. The rear end will be a Dana 60 full floater with strong axles. The transmission will most likely be a BW T-18 4 speed hooked to a divorced transfer case. This, for a Ford left side drive shaft is good.

The other way is far easier. Use a Jeep Cherokee/Wagoneer full size front end complete from about 73-79. It is 68" wide which is perfect for the older truck cab. It uses leaf springs, and has a saginaw power steering box with a horizontal tie rod which adapts easily. You can also use the Jeep steering column which gives you a tilt wheel and is a GM style with connection via u-joints to the steering box. This front end is offset to the passenger side like a GM truck. You then use a 700R4 4 speed auto or a manual 4 speed GM tranny and a Chevy 350 and transfer case. I would also use a Ford F-250 rear as before. The Jeep front end uses hubs with 6 bolts like a Chevy which are easily redrilled to 8 lugs. The starters on a Chevy sit higher than a Ford and easily clear the drive shaft. Having the driveshaft on the passenger side leaves the left side clear around the oil filter, the steering box, clutch linkage, etc. When I do these on slant cabs and 56s, it leaves the floor pedals clear. The advantage of a Chevy engine is that you can build one cheaper than any other engine, and you can use late model Chevy engines with the same bell housing. With Fords, each engine type uses a different bell housing, and the Ford 351 M and 400s have too low compression and won't run with iron heads. The 429/460s are no longer made and aren't good on gas, and the new engines are not only complex and expensive, but down on power and mileage. The 351 W is a good engine but costs twice what a Chevy costs to build and there are no good stock heads for a 351W. Due to availability of the good 4 speed automatic and transfer cases in Chevys up to 92, you can use virtually anything.......You can also use a Chevy 4 x 4 front end, but they are wider than a '59 cab unless you go back quite a ways. Besides, the Jeep front end also has nice GM disc brakes.

I am currently redoing my '56 Flatbed with a Chevy engine and 700R-4 and GM361 transfer case, Dana 60 rear, Jeep front. The Chevy 350 will have Fuel Injection. I will retain my floor pedal for brakes using two master cylinders, one for the front, one for the rear, no power booster needed. When I get further along, I will post all the pictures on my web site. This truck is being built to tow a 3200 lb travel trailer, to drive in mud and snow, and to be able to haul a car trailer with auto or truck on it, and get 18-20 mpg with adequate power. It also is a pretty '56 with a great flatbed on it.

Regards,

Alanco

 

There are good stock heads for the 351W. There are the GT-40's on the 94-95 Mustang Cobras and 95-96 5.0 Explorers. They require slightly different headers though.

 

Here's the point: Virtually every pre 90s Ford Truck engine has too much deck height, and has lower than advertised compression ratio. This is why they are generally gas hogs. It costs a lot of money to get the compression ratio up: rebore, non-stock pistons, machining the deck, milling the heads. When I say there are no good heads for a 351W, I mean two things: port sizes and combustion chamber design. Iron heads will not run at sea level with 10:1 compression on regular gas. Aftermarket heads will add $1000 to a rebuild. You get a minimum of 50 more horsepower out of a 351W with just the heads. Using Aluminum heads allows even more compression ratio, up to 11:1. There is no 351 crate engine with aluminum heads. The GT40 heads are quite expensive and are hard to find besides. To put this in perspective, no drag racers in most classes can be competive with any engine with production heads. That's why aftermarket heads have come way down in price and why there are so many good breathing Chevy production heads for sale at bargain prices.

Chevys are easier to fit into a 4WD configuration due to the placement of the oil filter and the starter. They also use the same bell housing on all the engines, even the big block. This means engines of all years and transmissions of all years fit each other. This is important when it comes time to set up a 4WD with OD, there are a lot of 700R4s with transfer cases. Unlike the 351W which had only one good year (1969) as a 4 barrel engine and higher compression but was a 2 barrel engine otherwise, there are literally jillions of 350 Chevy 4 bolt main engines. Their combustion chamber design will allow 10:1 CR with iron heads at sea level, and there are a lot of "camel hump" heads available for a song with good ports and medium size combustion chambers. You can put a 350 together for under 1500 bucks that will put out 350 HP. You will strain to get 300HP out of a 351W unless you go with aftermarket heads. So we are talking a few things here for 4WD: 1. More compact engine. 2. Cheaper engine to build and will have higher HP and better mileage 3. 4WD with driveshaft on passenger side is a better design; everyone uses it but Ford. Fits way better on early Fords like 48-60 with narrower frames and cabs 4. 4 SP Auto OD and late transfer cases fit early engines. 5. More transmission/transfer case combinations available. 6. Jeep front ends have good brakes, steering, steering box and is a Dana 44, and is the right width.

So as not to be misunderstood, I liked the Ford Small Block engine which includes the 351W. Ford's production Clevelands were poorly designed due to their port sizes on the 4B, the poor oiling system, the blocks flexing. Their combustion chamber design did not work with unleaded gas. The 400 and 351M engines were developed from the Cleveland, and had the same problems. For trucks they only had 8:1 CR. They love gas..... The production FE engines which include the 360, 390 and up were good engines but quite heavy. The 300 six is an excellent truck engine and like the small block ford is a thinwall casting that is light. A 351 W can be built into a great engine, but it will cost. As delivered, it is torquey, dead at 4000 RPM but good for 250HP. Fair gas mileage, but too low compression ratio. A 302 Ford with the same head design will make as much HP but has to go to 5000 RPM to do it with less torque. (HP= Torque X RPM) There are times when torque is not enough and you need HP, like when you are hauling heavy or towing heavy. You need an engine that will not get hurt when run hard at higher RPM to output the HP. I have not mentioned the Y block engines, but they are not of interest as a high output engine. Their poor port design, high weight, poor oiling system, poor combustion chamber design (for unleaded gas), dooms them to the dinosaur category. They are not as good as the flathead, really, and Ford knew it right away and came up with the FE for 1958. When an engine run has only four years, it was not a success. Ford's misfortune was having GM engines to compete with, particularly the Chevy...........Ford built the Cleveland engines to compete with the Chevy, but did not pull it off with the cheapie production design......Clevelands (the Windsor front but the Cleveland rod length and deck height) race on as NASCAR engines, with good heads, good oiling system, a block which doesn't flex and good timing gears instead of chains.............. So the real point IMO, is what you can build that works the best for less bucks, not who built it. GMs weak point, by the way was their front and rear corporate axles, their cabs, particularly the door hinges..........

Regards

Alanco

 

Being above sea level we have no problem running iron heads. Aluminum heads are great on most engines. GM should have never put them on the Duramax.

I have to disagree on the driver side 4wd. 90% of all engines are offset to the passenger side for steering clearance. This allows more room for the axle carrier housing. 90's Jeeps and I think the new dodges also have driver side drops. On my 302 and 400 the oil filter is ahead of the axle center line so there is no clearance issues. How many serious offroaders will keep the underfloor pedals? Most of these trucks will have frame swaps instead of axle swaps. Also compare a 2wd frame to a 4wd frame. A 4wd frame is reinforced while the 2wd is not. Also compare a 70's highboy frame to a similar Chevy frame. The Ford frame is like 5 times as strong. Also due to the short wheelbase of these trucks you will have to use a double cardan U-joint but if you use a amboid axle from a Ford it's not required.

Yes, Chevy has more transmission compatibility but Ford also has good transfer case compatibility. You could take a 1996 BW 1356 and it will bolt in place of a NP 203 in a '73. Ford has kept the same transfer case transmission mount.

Ford has always designed there engines to have more torque than a comparable Chevy engine. The Chevy 350 is not perfect either. How about the side by side exhaust ports? There is a reason Ford never did that after the flathead V-8. Our '90 full size Chevy van cracked the block right there. It never towed or hauled anything heavy. There are also quite a few Chevy heads that are cracked there too. I have on good authority from an reputable engine builder that the 2 bolt mains on a 302 are stronger than a 4 bolt 350. I've never really been impressed with the 350 either. I've been in a '73 3/4 ton, 80 C-60, 83 Jimmy, 85 3/4 crew cab, 90 van, 98 1500. The only one that has impressed me is a '95 Camaro. I would like to see you get 18-20 mpg in a 4wd. The '85 3/4 crew cab only got 15, 90 van got 16 and the 95 Camero on a good day might hit 20. Our '91 F-250 Diesel 5spd 4wd will only do 20 mpg on the highway.

As you say "is what you can build that works the best for less bucks, not who built it." Where I live you only see old Fords still driving around. Most of the Chevy's are in the junkyard. I know a "pure Chevy" guy that has an actual pile made out of 70's Chevy trucks. Where I am, it's a lot cheaper to do it out of Ford parts.

 

I'm not looking to fan any flames, this is a perennial argument with no winners. But... 51, your Chevy van was most likely a 305, not a 350. That engine is Chevy's claim to shame. Camaros with MPFI eaily get into the mid-20's on the highway (I had 2). Back to topic now...

Bobby T, that eBay conversion is the cleanest I've ever seen! Snapping that one up could be the way to go, except for the fact it's nowhere near Alaska... I would trash that steering column, tho. Spoils everything. Maybe the guy can provide pictures of his conversion work? Could he be on FTE??

 

51Dueller

I was talking about old trucks being changed to 4WD. The F-100 frame is pretty light, but with the added crossmembers and with added side mounts on the engine, and the transmission crossmember, transfer case crossmember and skid plate it is pretty well beefed up. The engine does not need offsetting when it is small like a 350 or 302, or a 300 six. Ford may have tried to design engines to have a lot of torque, but they never accomplished it except with the 300 six. They never used the 351W in a truck, only the vans.

I was not real impressed with a lot of early Chevy trucks, except for their generally better running engines and generally better gas mileage. The cabs were weak and the frames were not all that great. But when we talk fuel injected engines, it changes around. First of all, the GM injection is a lot better due to a better computer, and far better wiring. The Ford wiring and plastic plugs are a bad joke. I work on both and don't like Ford Computer equipped vehicles, until 2000. They finally got them right....But basically Ford had junk in the late 70s through the 90s, a good 20 years of stuff I would not have. There are a lot of old Ford 4WDs out here but none run well and all are gas hogs. I helped a wood cutter build a 70 F250 4WD with my High Compression old 351W engine. No smog, Edelbrock Performer Manifold and Cam, World Iron Heads, headers, Roller timing chain, Cam Advanced for the altitude (6200'), Holley 550 4 barrel, Ford Electronic Ignition with better advance curve, limited vacuum advance at 8 degrees. It is a very good runner with at least 350 HP. But it does not have OD, but it doesn't drive long distances and is off road a lot.

My 01 Silverado 4WD 1500 gets 20mpg (highway). It has the 4L60-E 4 speed OD transmission with lock up torque converter. Axle gearing is 3.73. It has the 4.8 liter V-8. It is easily the best truck I have ever had. It is no match off road for my '56 F-250 with solid axles, or for my CJ-7. But since the F-250 with the 351W could not get more than 15mpg,(highway) and since the transfer case would not easily shift back and forth on the road between 2WD and 4H, I decided to go the 350 Chevy route with fuel injection and a 4 speed auto with lockup and OD just like the Silverado. Also the modern transfer case (yes, it has a chain and an aluminum case) which shifts very easily. With our cost of fuel out here being 30-40 cents more than in Reno or Vegas, fuel mileage is a big concern. All of the new GM trucks have the Vortec heads with high compression, and port fuel injection, and they get great mileage. The Ford Modular engines and the Dodges get less mileage. So, IMO, the GM running gear makes their trucks better, and we can use the new stuff in an old truck. And we know old Ford trucks are better, don't we? I love the 48-51 F-1s and F-2s. I love flatheads and we are going to go after the flathead stock truck record at Bonneville with a '53 cab on my old '56 F-100 frame. We have to beat 103 mph, and we are thinking we can go 110. Anyway, like one of the guys in the NorCal chapter says, Nothing lasts but Old Fords and Stone.....

Regards,

Alanco

 

ALBUQ F-1,
It was a 3/4 passenger van. It was available with the 305, 350, a diesel (I think it was the 6.5).

I didn't mean for my post to come off as an argument. I just meant for it to be a good debate. Sometimes it gets a little stale in here with what suspension/engine should I use. Alanco is a good intellegent guy and maybe sometimes I bug him a little bit. Don't they say the firewall on the 48-52 was made for the Chevy distributor? Fits my offset 302 great. BTW the 351W was used from '83 to 97 in the trucks.

 

I love a good debate and I admit I am not real knowledgeable about the later Ford Trucks that were made when I had given up on Ford Trucks due to their electrics and computers. At that time I had a 66 Bronco V-8 4 x 4 and a 75 Ford E-100 Van with a 460/C6 4 x 2, and a 63 Ford Falcon wih a built 289 and C4. I wrecked the Bronco and replaced it with a 78 Jeep Cherokee Chief and put a 401 into it (already had a TH400) This was the best snow vehicle ever, full time transfer case. For the next 13 years this was my vehicle, period. It went over 200,000 miles from me, alone. Snow, dirt, you name it. When I moved out here it wasn't a road vehicle, replaced it with the '56 F-250, then the Silverado. Ditto with the hot rod Falcon, replaced it with the Olds Cutlass road hot rod, Sold the Van., Sold the 63 Falcon Convertible and bought the wife a GrandAm. Now we both have good road vehicles, but I am updating the Olds to 4 SP with OD and a Ford 9" rear end.

Well, Ford should have used the 351W more than they did. It was a screwy way to accomodate a 1/2 " stroke increase over the 302. It had 1.1" more deck height than the 302 which made it taller and wider and with very long rods. (7.2") (Chevy 350s are 5.7") It has a good bore stroke ratio for a lower rpm engine. So it is perfect for a truck. If it had heads that promoted turbulence on it in the 70s and high compression it would have been a knockout engine. Its width and height make it not fit well in early Mustangs and Falcons. In contrast, the 351C had .7" more deck height than the 302, and the bore stroke ratio was ideal for a high rpm engine. This is what the NASCAR engine is, with this deck height and with Robert Yates heads. It is an excellent engine, but as manufactured was pretty much a dog. The combustion chambers weren't designed or ever modified for good results with unleaded fuels. This is why Ford killed it, although they did not have a winner with the 351M (the M means they took a 400 and modified it back to 351CID) They had to run the CR very low due to the heads. Now if you really want a 400 or a 351 M to be a good engine, you can, but you need the aluminum Edelbrock heads and forged pistons and custom rods and 10,5:1 CR. You also need a metering jet above two of the mains to the oil gallery feeding the hydraulic lifters, and a line behind the flywheel to fill the galleries. It is way easier to build a Chevy...............

Regards,

Alanco

 

help! I've been Hijacked! lol anyway I plan on using the 390 and the C6 that are already in the truck and probably the 9" in the rear as well. They all run/work great and I've heard that I can get a tcase to match the c6. As far as the frame goes I would like to swap in a 59-72 4x4 frame if (and thats a big if) I can find one due to the fact the they retained the same frame width through those years before they widened the rear in 73 (or so I've been told). Once I do find one I plan on going ahead with the full frame up restomod job and boxing in the frame,and converting the rear to a 4link, before I put it under the body. The hardest part that I am trying to figure out is how to do the conversion but keep it at a stock 2x4 ride height.. thus the IFS talk..

 

1. You can't keep it at 4 x 2 ride height if you have lowered the truck. This is partly because Ford ran their driveshaft down the wrong IMO side,
and also ran a front sump on the oil pan. Which they then had to convert to rear sump on their 4 x 4s. You may be able to raise your engine 2" and keep the front sump, but if you can't a 4 x 4 360 pan will work.
2. If you want the easiest conversion on a '59 which has a few problems with the narrow frame rails, and only a 68" wide front end you do it as follows:

• Use a Jeep Cherokee/Wagoneer full size front end, and steering and steering box.
• Get a 208 transfer case from a Chrysler with right side offset.
• Modify your C6 with a 4 x 4 output shaft and tailshaft.
• I think that you can get by without a front sump if you raise the engine about 2" There are front sump pans made for the 360 that will fit the engine. This of course means the front can't be real low.
• change the rear 9" ratio to what the front has. Cherokee/Wagoneer fronts are Dana 44 and ring and pinions are inexpensive.
• I have to add: Who wants a low front when you need ground clearance for snow and obstructions?

Your engine is so heavy, that you need some sandbags in the rear anyway.
I think a frame swap is much harder as the frames on 61 and later are wider and you would have a lot of cutting work to make the inner fender panels work and the radiator grill panels fit around the wider frame. The cab mounts would be different and would have to be fabricated although this is not too hard, but you should put the cab on without bolts at the correct height and mock up the front sheet metal first, to put the cab in the right place. If you do a frame swap, you will probably only find a long wheelbase 4 x 4 on an F250 as the F-100 shorty 4 x 4s up high were very desired. Many of the early F-100 4 x 4s did not have a 2 speed transfer case, but came with a granny 4SP. Putting your engine and tranny into a 360 equipped 4 x 4 would be easy. A 4 x 4 would also have the same ratios front and rear and would likely have power steering. In fact if it didn't have power steering, don't do it. Finally, even if you don't do a frame swap, buy the complete frame and use the parts. A Dana 60 as found in the F250s is a full floating rear end and very strong. The f-250s have 8 lug wheels with 6.5" bolt circle, again very strong.

Regards,

Alanco

P.S. You were not highjacked. You just haven't been through the difficulty in keeping Fords in Ford parts. Ford made many things and then dumped them for a new design, making backfitting impossible, or very hard. You also seem not to know why a IFS on an old truck with a dinosaur engine is such a bad idea. IFSs on 4 x 4s severely limit off road angularity. Or even why old 4 x 4s are so crappy as daily drivers with their bad gas mileage, poor cold starting, and shorter engine life in cold areas as compared to a new full size truck with a light engine and EFI, and shift on the fly and 4 speed autos with OD. I would also suggest that you use the technical areas in this forum to learn about how your Ford was put together as a 2WD and as a 4WD and how the later ones were. Also buy some service manuals for Fords on E-bay. Many of your questions are those you could have looked up.

 

The frames are the same 34" width front to back from 59-72 F-100 4x4 and 59 - early 77 on the F-250 4x4. In '73 is when Ford widened the rear frame rails on the F-100 4x4's and 2wd except the F-350's. A 59-early 77 F-250 front axle will be almost a bolt in to the stock 59 frame. The 73-77 axles will have a 2" wider track width than 59-72 axles. The 59-64 frames are identical except for maybe the cab mounts. In '65 they went to the coil sprung axles which is one of the best axle setups but it will require new body mounts.

The Jeep Cherokee/Wagoneer only used an open knuckle Dana 44 from 74-83 and it has a 6 lug bolt pattern. '84 and on used a Dana 30 which is junk unless it's under a 1/4 ton.