The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area The HiPo Shop chassis swap?

How would a 92 gmc shortbed fullsize chassis work under a 50 gmc 150? this is a rat rod and looking for donor for the chassis. I know the s-10 chassis works best but I found a sweet deal on the 92 (150 bucks).

I think the frame will be too wide to fit under the cab correctly, along with the track width. That's wh the S10 swap is so popular, it fits nicley under the cab, although the track width is a bit narrow.

I agree, a '92 is pretty wide. Take your tape measure to the front track width and you'll see that you'll raise the truck pretty high to clear the tires. Probably not the look you're after for a rat rod.

A dakota frame is a better fit than the S-10 frame. Its the proper width, has the proper track width, and doesnt have the steering box to radiator interference problem. Knowing what I know now, I would not do an S-10 frame swap. Live and learn.

A full size will make the tires stick out past the fenders about 2.5" per side. You could swap out a big-bolt front clip and then get the 2" wider aftermarket fenders. This would run you about $200 for the clip and about $600 for the rear fenders.

What is wrong with your existing chassis that you want to change?

The biggest problem I see w/a Dakota suspension is the well known problem their brakes have w/the small rotors warping all the time..Joe

And the balljoints falling apart. Plus they're a real pain to get aligned properly and stay in place, especially with a V8.

The ball joint issue was rectified by a recall. Brakes can be upgraded, however it is still a better fit than the way too narrow S-10.

I have a V8 Durango and a friend of mine has a V8 Dakota. I did replace the rotors once because I wore out the pads pulling the boat and started grinding them. Had the ball joints replaced under warranty. My friend had his steering rack replaced as it was leaking and had the ball joints replaced at the same time. I have 180K on the Durango, and my friend has 150K on his Dakota.

New rotors and ball joints are easier to swallow than rear axle swaps, front wheel spacers and cooling system compromises to fit a less than ideal steering box location.

The "recall" didn't get all yaers of Dakota, and they just installed the same non-servicable balljoints that came from the factory. I've replaced plenty of "recall balljoints" over the years. Most failed at exactly the same mileage that the oe ones did.
I'm not saying the Dakota frame isn't a good solution, but I certainly would not trust the oe or recall balljoints. The brake issue really isnt that bad, along as you don't abuse them, and they're easily upgradable.
My biggest problem with the Dakota is the poor design of the upper control arm for alignment settings, which uses a slip shaft design rather than shims. If the bolts aren't torqued properly, they will come loose. They need to be at at least 100-150 ft/lbs to hold. Having a V engine, especially the V8, makes this extremely difficult on the right hand side due to the engine offset. This may be worse with a Chevy V8, as I beleive it is wider than the Chrysler V8. I do know a guy that was experimenting with using the '92-'04 Crown Victoria upper control arms on older MoPars. Never heard the final results, as he moved to Texas, but i recall that he said the cross shaft bolt spacing was the same, and that the balljoint stud was the main hangup. That may be something worth looking into if one was to use the Dakota chassis, as it would move the camber/caster adjustment to the balljoint, making it far easier to work with.
One more thing to bear in mind with the dakota, wheel availability is limited due to the odd bolt pattern. Later Dakotas use a small 6 lug, GM 6 lug wheels do not interchange. Early models use a 5 lug, with the common MoPar/Ford 5x4.5 bolt pattern.

It's a 3/4 ton lwb and I really want an updated suspension and brakes. I figured this would be the cheapest route and I like doing fab work so this would make it a fun project also. I had found an S-10 that had been sitting for years.....figured it wasn't going anywhere.....man wasn't trying to sell it......finally decided to go get it. Guess what? Sold it 2 days before.....So now I'm searching for the S-10 again.

Bill, the Dakota upper control arm alignment is EXACTLY like a M2 that the entire world is enamored with (except for maybe me). I agree if the bolts are not torqued that they will come loose. All bolts on suspension and rotating assemblies are supposed to be torqued. That is Mechanic 101. Maybe that part was just drilled into my head so many time over the past 40+ years. Torque value, torque sequence, then worry about socket size.

As for as the iron, I am almost positive that the Chrysler A and LA engines are slightly larger than the SBC. I know the sbc is shorter on height and length. I know that the B engines will fit in a Dakota chassis, so an SBC should without a problem.

A 6-bolt to 6-bolt adapter would solve the issue if you really want to run GM wheels. So would re-drilling the flanges.

Either way, the Dakota chassis fits the AD truck better than an S-10 chassis.

I don't like the M2 front end either. Most '70s Chrysler and Ford passenger cars use the same upper control arm setup. From almost 20 years experience working as an alignment mechanic, I can safely say it is a poor design.
On the passenger side, due to the offset of the engien, I beleive it's about 2.5" to the right to clear the steering shaft, it puts the RH exhaust manifold right on top of the control arm bolts. Makes things way too tight. It can be difficult to get a socket and torque wrench in there to properly tighten the bolts.
Another option to the bolt pattern would be to swap the rotors and rear axle shafts/brake drums to the early Dakota 5 lug, which has the common 5x4.5 pattern.

I'm actually one of the few under car mechanics in my area that will actually torque suspension and brake components. Most of the "mechanics" in my area either do the "2 grunt" method, or ram it down with the impact gun, including a few young guys I work with. Can't seem to pound it into their heads about proper torque.

Bill, a good mechanic needs his torque wrench gone through at least once a year, with calibrations every 6 months.

I have had people fired for not using a torque wrench, and they didnt work for me. The mechanic argued with me stating you dont need to use a torque wrench on a flywheel and coupler, that his experience was enough to know how tight the bolts should be. I indicated that if the rotating assemblies were not torqued correctly, I would have him fired. Went straight to HR and the CFO to fill out the proper paperwork. During the startup and pre-delivery testing, the coupler fasteners came loose, and destroyed $100K worth of parts and delayed a project for 12 weeks. He was promptly escorted to his truck with his tools.

There are torque specs for a reason, as I am sure you know.

When you hit someone in their wallet, they will listen.