| |
Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
3 members (tclederman, TUTS 59, 1 invisible),
132
guests, and
1
robot. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics128,113 Posts1,056,279 Members48,439 | | Most Online14,466 Apr 26th, 2026 | | AD Chevy Trucks Over 6,000 pictures Brad Allen has an awesome collection of Chevrolet factory pictures that he has set up from film strips. Check them out!
Lots of work on Brad's part ... pure enjoyment (and references) for you!
| | THANKS!
For helping keep this great
old truck web site
on the Internet for over 30 years! and not clogged down with Ads! Again, thanks! | | | | Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 18 New Guy | | New Guy Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 18 | I have a 92 ex cab truck that i drive year round. I want to put a 64 body on this truck, where would I start? are the frame widths and lengths close enough to work?? thanks ed
ed s.
it's better to beg forgivness, than to ask permission.....
| | | | | Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,152 Cruising in the Passing Lane | | Cruising in the Passing Lane Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,152 | You'll probably want to start with your tape measure.
First thing you'll find is that your '92 wheelbase is longer than the '64 even if it's a short box truck. An x-cab long box has a wheelbase of 155, I'm not sure what the short box is, but more than 130 inches.
I would not be surprised if the '92 also has a wider track width than the '64 but I don't actually know that one. I do know the four wheel driver versions are quite wide.
1955 1st GMC Suburban | 1954 GMC 250 trailer puller project | 1954 GMC 250 Hydra-Matic | 1954 Chevy 3100 . 1947 Chevy COE | and more... It's true. I really don't do anything but browse the Internet looking for trouble... | | | | | Joined: May 2006 Posts: 8,351 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: May 2006 Posts: 8,351 | 1992 Shortbed extended cab 1500 series 1/2 ton., Wheelbase-141.4", width- 2wd-76.8, 4x4-77.1. I don't have the exact frame dimensions handy, but I can tell you that the frame is rather wide at the center, and the rear section has a definite taper to it, narroing to approx 34" at the bumper mounts. Think of it a the reverse of the '47-'54 3100 trucks.
Bill Burmeister | | | | | Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,152 Cruising in the Passing Lane | | Cruising in the Passing Lane Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,152 | I'd bet the wheel base on the '64 is more like 125 to 130. You'll need to shorten the '92 wheelbase so make it work.
I'm not sure the width of the '64 but those numbers may not be so far different that they cannot be made to work.
1955 1st GMC Suburban | 1954 GMC 250 trailer puller project | 1954 GMC 250 Hydra-Matic | 1954 Chevy 3100 . 1947 Chevy COE | and more... It's true. I really don't do anything but browse the Internet looking for trouble... | | | | | Joined: May 2006 Posts: 8,351 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: May 2006 Posts: 8,351 | The '64s came in either 115 or 127 inch wheelbases in 1/2 ton, 127 for 3/4 ton, 133 for 1 ton, and there was also a 157 inch wheelbase 1 ton chassis cab and stake bed. Widths are 63.1 front, 61 rear for 1/2 ton.
Last edited by LONGBOX55; 12/31/2009 1:19 AM.
Bill Burmeister | | | | | Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 18 New Guy | | New Guy Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 18 | thank you for the information, i will look at a more standard option instead.
ed s.
it's better to beg forgivness, than to ask permission.....
| | | | | Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 355 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 355 | well beyond even the difference in wheel base your going to run into major probs with the frame curvature the bed area is a particular hassel most have told me if your going to do a frame swap of that type its far better to go with a blazer frame
1937 1/2 ton
| | |
| |
| |