The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area The HiPo Shop Frame swaps and problem solving

Hello,it's been awhile since I've visited here but was wondering if anyone here has swapped chassies using 67-72 chassie under an early to mid 50's body,and lowered it to the extent that the tires are tucked up into the fenders and had problems with tires rubbing and how did you solve the problem. What back spacing did you use.
As my name implies I'm part chev and part ford. It's a ford f100 panel truck on a 72 chev c10 frame. I'm asking these questions here as the chevy's and fords of those years would likely have the same tracking widths. What I'm trying to figure out is the size of rims and back spacing I'll have to use to get me turning. Thanks for all the quick responses.
John
If for some reason I've posted this in the wrong catagory please notify me

I've no idea the width of a '53 to '56 Ford F100. While it may be similar to a GM product the challenges in what you are doing really require exact measures.

A '54 Chevy 1/2-ton would be 72.62 inches across the front fenders and the track width (measured at the middle of the tire) is 57.03 inches. I'm taking these numbers from GM's published specifications so they should be pretty accurate.

I don't have easy access to similar documentation for a '72 but I do know that when people attempt to use the '72 type IFS under an Advance Design truck like the '54 the track is three or four inches too wide.

The solutions are offset wheels and narrowed control arms, or narrowing the whole IFS, which probably doesn't work well when you're using the '72 frame too.

I'd suggest you spend some time measuring before getting too deep into this project. You may find your Ford is enough wider than a Chevy that you don't have a problem. Otherwise I'd encourage you to consider another solution.

Too late for as far as getting too deep into this project,frame is done body getting very close to paint. I've just mated the body back to the frame which has been lowered and discovered just how close the tires are to the fenders. I know the problem will get solved once I find what size wheel and back spacing I need. I do thank you for your reply as they are not too plentifull....John
I'm actually surprised that with as many views this thread has had that there isn't more replies.

You might find more help on a Ford site. Most the guys here are only working on one truck and their knowledge is really limited to those few they have worked on. And your Ford isn't something they have much exposure to and therefore little knowledge to share...

I sure know very little about F-1 and F-100 Fords even though at one time I was a mechanic in a shop that serviced a fleet of F-600 and F-700 trucks.

Acckkkk my eyes are burning they used the "F" word ... go wash your mouths out :P

You get very little help talking about chevy stuff on a Ford site, and seeing as I am talking about a Chev frame has little to do about the body that is sitting on the frame. Just asked a simple question in hopes of getting an answer from someone who shares the same interests, meaning/ working on old iron regardless of which make.I see that there are some juvenile's on this site as well, refering to the post above this one, and no filters for them, shame. I thank you OldSub you have been a gentleman and appriciate you replies.

[/quote]

and inversely talking about f@#D on a Chevy site although we are much more tolerant of the unlearned than most sites.

As for the answer to your question there may not be anyone here who has done this so you will have to experiment and report back for more f@#D abuse when you figure it out.

There will be occurrences of juvenile behavior on almost any board and somethings it was just intended as humor and didn't come over that way.

Its true that these kind of places tend to form around shared interest and combining Ford bodies with GM underpinnings is not as popular as it once once, and GM with Ford running gear never did become popular.

There are some of us here who will offer what help we can, though we are mostly Chevy/GMC guys. A good board for mixing things up is Rodders Roundtable. Guys there play with everything and some are very knowledgable.

Thanks OldSub, I need to learn to use those winky smily icons.

lol yeah was ment as humor, lol guess the guy has no since of humor, you know chevy and ford devotees have a rivalry just like the army and navy or democrats and republicans lol sorry for the loss of a laugh on him

You mean I'm not allowed to say FORD, FORD, FORD, FORD, FORD, FORD, FORD, or even DODGE, DODGE, DODGE, DODGE, DODGE, DODGE, without someone getting their panties twisted.
OOOOOOOOH well
Hell maybe I'll put a AMC mtr/trans in a CHEVY
Oh and I have no brand loyality I have been known to own & drive just about anything and at one time owned a Linclon, Cadillac, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth and even an Opel all at the same time, who cares, not me...Joe

Joe the range of things you are allowed to say is pretty broad. The things its wise to say might be a little narrower....

The problem w/that is I normally only listen to the person who is in charge && that is ME!!!!!!!
If someone has a problem w/me saying Ford, Dodge, Plymouth, Mercury, AMC, or any other car name then they are the ones w/the problem not me. You see I am a lover of all makes & models unlike some narrow minded people who get PO'd over someone saying or talking about or even needing help with any brand or make of car/truck.

Heck our own fearless leader owns a (dare I say it, yes I will) DODGE.....Joe

Make your own judgments. I'm just here to watch, laugh and learn.

Me too, I just think it's silly for someone to get their panties in an up roar because someone asks for help about something other then a Chevy or GMC...

i dont know why people have problems with terminology chevy gmc ford dodge hell even subaru ive got one or more of each is see is just a project or just a car i love chevys but i got a ford f600 and a ranger am i bias no i just like cars and trucks in general owning 49 chevy deluxe
71 checy c10
68 gmc cheyenne super 30
84 ford ranger
88 f600
68 ford thunderbird
78/79 subaru brats
84 subaru station wagon 4x4
97/01 dodge rams
so i dont care its fun to work and play with my toys so i dont see why people have a problem with only ONE brand

sincerly joe

Mojave dont try to compare vehicle list with Joe (toomanytocount / zookeeper) He has enough for a used car lot.

The issue is that this is an old GM truck site. All the forum pages with exception to the Greasy Spoon are intended for GM truck related issues.

Cheford - your best bet would be custom frame to tuck the tires under a lowered vehicle. If your going that route, then I would use either a Jag IFS/IRS setup or a T-Bird / Explorer IFS/IRS setup (corvette is way too wide). The 72 frame you are intending on using will most likely have the wheels sticking past the fenders.

in all seriousness any frame swap you should check both how wide the original frame is and how long and find a frame that can either be modified or is same deminsions you also might wanna check where the motor placement rides with the new body on it there might be some firewall mods needed since ford has the distrubuter in the front of the engine.

If you had taken the time to read my question it was strickly a chevy/gmc question. I merely mentioned what I was building as an after thought and to why I'm listed as cheford. I can take humor as well as give it, I don't bash anyone on the ford site's if they were to ask a question about ch@#y stuff. It's to bad when a question is asked about ch@#y stuff you have to be told it would be better to go to another site.

and inversely talking about f@#D on a Chevy site although we are much more tolerant of the unlearned than most sites.

As for the answer to your question there may not be anyone here who has done this so you will have to experiment and report back for more f@#D abuse when you figure it out. [/quote]

Well since the width you are aiming for is Ford specific and you said Ford instead of a giving us a target measurement, the Ford context was an important detail if anyone was even going to try to answer.

Its too bad the F--- label puts so many people off, but I will continue to suggest that asking questions outside the primary area of interest of most participants will mean getting few helpful answers.

And its not because no one wants to help, but because few if any know the answers.

Have you tried Rodder's Roundtable? There was a guy there who talked about an F-1 on an S-10 a while back. I don't recall who it was, but that's the kind of guy who might have contacts who have the information you are seeking.

The last F-100 frame swap I remember looking at was actually Cadillac Northstar front stuff grafted to homemade rear stuff. I don't recall any meaningful details and they would not help much anyway if I did.

At least one regular participant here has been suggesting putting AD pickups on Dakota frames lately. I've not seen it done and it doesn't help you at all, but it does indicate some openness to non-GM sources of parts.

An often discussed power steering option in Toyota based and another example showing some openness to other sources.

I don't think you're going to get the help you need here, but I'd prefer to think its because we don't know, not because we're unwilling or put off by your Ford.

I think I did read and understand the question. In a nutshell you were asking what offset you would need on the GM wheels to keep the Ford fenders from rubbing the tires. Since we have no idea how close they are, how can we give you an appropriate answer? I think True Value sells tape measures. Don't take it so personal.

he might also check some of the classic trucks magazine tech articals on their website i can remember them doing several ford builds

Steve, you are right that I prefer a Dakota chassis under an AD than an S-10 chassis only because the track width is better suited than the S-10, it doesnt require 2" spacers which add unsprung mass, and there is no interference with the radiator and the steering. That is my preference. It has also been discussed on the HAMB and the 67-72 chevy site. I also prefer my crossmember with GM metric parts vs a Pinto based solution under a stock AD frame. I dont like clip jobs unless there are fish plates and gussets and it is done by a competent and skilled welder (preferably carrying an AWS card). I prefer dropped axles to IFS on old iron for looks and I prefer to make my own parts where it makes sense.

CheFord
As for a Ford F1 or F2 or F100, not sure on the body width. Track widths are different, not sure how different either (did a bit of looking, and everyone has been putting pinto suspensions under them). Here is what I know on track widths : an AD is about 58", an S-10 is 54.1, a GM Metric is 58.1" the Durango / Dakota is 60.8" (fills the wheel wells a bit) The 73-87 GM trucks are 63"

With a simple google search, I found a Ford site listing the following track widths: 1946-1952 Ford F1 is 58.5", 1953 - 1956 F100 is 59.5"

So, based on 3 minutes of typing and 3 minutes of searching - you now have information on track widths.

Since you only listed "50's Ford Body" we can not assume what it is (46-52, 53-56, or 57 and later) you have to have your fender width information, wheel width information, wheel offset, tire size and fender geometry information to know if you can lower the undisclosed Ford Body over a Chevy frame and get the tires tucked up. I would have to say, based on track width information, NO - wont fit. However for all I know, the front fenders on your particular Ford are 80" wide.

While some of us may know a thing or two about Fords here, and most of us know a bit about GM trucks, and considering this is a GM truck site, it is not that we are bashing any make, it is simply that we dont know, and have stated that, making reference to check elsewhere.

As FriedGreenTmater mentioned - grab a tape measure. Measure the outside of the tires on the chassis - we will call this measurement A, and measure the inside of the fenders on the body - measurement B. Simple math than dictates, if B>A, then it fits, if A>B, then it doesnt fit.

Who me??????????????
Do you think that's because I stopped counting at 300??????

http://tunertools.com/proddetail.asp?prod=PCY-01201

From another site a fellow sent me this link and thought I'd share with you seeing as you've been most helpful.

That's a cool tool.

The listing says 4- and 5-lug patterns and my current project is an 8-lug so I did some more searching. I could not find a 6- or 8-lug version, but did see that places like Jegs and Summit sell it too, and at least one of them had a much better price.

The approach to solving this problem that I've planned to use is a little different. I know what tires I want to use, and only need to determine the offset of the wheels and I guess confirm my tires can be made to fit.

My plan is to cut a circle from a piece of plywood that is the diameter of the tire (31.6 inches in my case) and drill and cut for the hub and lug nuts. That gives me the ability to check all clearances against zero offset and calculate from there.

I have scrap plywood I plan to use. The price of that tool is such it would almost be cheaper to buy it if I had to buy a sheet of 3/4 plywood to start with. Plus the tool would work for multiple projects while my plywood will only work for 8-lug hubs with 31.6 inch tall tires...

Nice find!

I use a piece of plywood cut to the tire profile - I use autocad to give me the cross section, plot it out on 11 x 17 paper, transfer it to wood, cut it out and mount it to a plywood ring.

However like you mentioned Steve, almost cheep enough to buy.

Here is the same one for under $80

http://horsepowerperformance.com/i-...5in-30in-wheel-diameter-4-and-5-lug.html

I actually own a copy of AutoCad, but its a floppy version and not being an engineer I've never learned to use it. I may not have a computer with a floppy drive any more either....

If I were working I'd have access to some big printers, but I don't see any reason a person can't use their drawing program of preference (Visio for me) to create a template that matches the hub portion, print it on a cheap inkjet, double check the measurements in case the inkjet isn't accurate, and then before cutting it out, use the center and a piece of string to draw the outer circumference.

But I'm still suffering tool envy for the guys that have this tool, even though I know it would not work on my project.

I also sometimes envy the guys with CAD programs and plotters, but quickly remember I don't want to invest my time in learning to use a CAD program.