BUSY BOLTERS Are you one? The Shop Area
continues to pull in the most views on the Stovebolt. In August alone there were over 22,000 views in those 13 forums.
| | Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| |
7 members (qdub, Steelonsteel, joetravjr, klhansen, mick53, Guitplayer, 1 invisible),
576
guests, and
1
robot. | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | Forums66 Topics126,780 Posts1,039,294 Members48,100 | Most Online2,175 Jul 21st, 2025 | | | Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 42 Apprentice | Apprentice Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 42 | I think I already know the answer, but here goes.... I was told when buying this truck that it was on a '76 chevy frame. After looking at it closely, I believe it is the original frame with a '76 chevy rear end, and cross member/suspension. If you look at the following pics, could you tell me what you think. It seems to me that the cab mounts and spring mounts are not '76 style, and the factory rivets that hold the cab mounts on are intact. I didn't think it was possible to mount a suspension from another truck without cutting the frame, and these frame rails appear uncut. Lastly, I really don't like the way it is lowered (I believe it's on drop spindles), and I'd like the wheels under the fender wells in front. Basically, I want it to look like it came from the factory with the tall skinny tires, sitting up higher----but with a MUCH better ride than the original suspension. Is there a way to do this? Will a mustang II suspension with regular spindles keep the ride height original yet give a good ride? Could I graft on an S10 frame in front? ALso, since it appears the original rear springs are in the truck. WHy does the modern rear end sit farther back in the fender well? Sorry for all the questions---eager to learn. Here's the pics: http://inlinethumb19.webshots.com/43730/2355125590104021666S600x600Q85.jpghttp://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/43125/2903632920104021666S600x600Q85.jpghttp://inlinethumb49.webshots.com/21680/2069016390104021666S600x600Q85.jpgThanks, Jason
Last edited by 58evinrude; 08/07/2009 3:46 AM. Reason: forgot links
| | | | Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 173 Shop Shark | Shop Shark Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 173 | Perhaps it's me, but I don't see the link to the pics...
1947, 1950, & 1952 Chevrolet 1/2 ton 1952 GMC 450 series Cab Over Engine 1946 Chevrolet 2 Ton
| | | | Joined: May 2006 Posts: 8,351 'Bolter | 'Bolter Joined: May 2006 Posts: 8,351 | Ummm, pix?? It is possible to mount the suspension, there's several here that have done it. Noce thing about the '70s Chevy trucks suspension is that the entire crossmember can be removed from the frame intact, without cutting the frame itself. As far as getting the ride hight up, if the current suspension is working alright, you could go with a set of stock spindles and possibley a set of stock replacement springs to get the ride back up. Going Mustang 2 will most likly make it even lower, rather than raise it. Same goes for the S-10 swap. On the rearend, it probably wasn't centered correctly on the spring perches, especially if it was converted from spring under to spring over. It should be noted, the factory rearend was not centered in the opening on the AD trucks originally. They were roughly 2 1/2" forward of center.
Bill Burmeister | | | | Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 42 Apprentice | Apprentice Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 42 | Sorry guys, I had to edit my post. I'm not really very good at the url thing. I think it's fixed now. Thanks for your time, Jason | | | | Joined: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,201 Shop Shark | Shop Shark Joined: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,201 | The 53 frame is basically straight from front to rear with a slight hump over the rear axle and tapers inward to the front . The front axle had no hump over it. The 76 frame will have a hump over both axles. here is a picture, the frame in the background is a 53 3/4 ton and the frame in the foreground is a 73 3/4 ton. | | | | Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 42 Apprentice | Apprentice Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 42 | Thanks monster, I couldn't see the link but your description was very clear, and I'm even more certain my frame is still '53 vintage.
I'm guessing by the responses above that the only way to make it look stock as far as ride height is to be stock? No way to get a stock ride height and drive decent? Thanks for your responses, Jason | | | | Joined: Feb 2000 Posts: 769 Shop Shark | Shop Shark Joined: Feb 2000 Posts: 769 | 58er
The pictures are of a 53 frame that has had the newer front suspension added. | | | | Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 42 Apprentice | Apprentice Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 42 | | | |
| |