narrowing track width of 73-87 ifs 7 inches

[onehot69stepside]

My neighbor has a 49 3/4 ton longbed chevy, and he wants me to build a chassis for it. He has a 73-87 crossmember and arms. The track width of it needs to be narrowed 7 inches for the wheels to tuck into the fenders. I've seen a crossmember sectioned a few inches and the center link sectioned the same amount and then sleeved with plug welds. I wanted to section the width of the crossmember and center link 3 inches. Then I wanted to build arms to narrow the c-arm geometry 2 inches, and then trim down the tie rods to adjust those in 2 inches as well. That would remove... 2- 3 -2... 7 inches. Once i have the front geometry narrowed, I would go ahead and build new frame rails like valleycustom did. It seems theoretical to me.

Any opinions on this would be great. thanks.

[bodydropped]

use a mustang 2 frt clip would be the easist way to do that its alot smaller and cleaner

[onehot69stepside]

mustang kits, and clips are out of the picture. I am not worried about the work of it or the look, I want to build it. I've built control arms for my truck that are still in service so im not worried about strength either.

I just want to know your opinions on the geometry ya know... Will i change it to make it ride like **** any? Theoretically it would all be the same right?

[smbrouss70]

If you shorten the a-arms the balljoints are that much closer to the pivot points on the crossmember, which in my mind would create an exagerrated arc and change the way the suspension reacts to damn near everything. Now, I don't know if it would make it better or worse but it would have to change something. Then again, alot of the suspension and chassis companies sell narrowed control arms for camaro's and nova's and such, so is it bad or good?... Damn it, Now I went and confused myself.

[smbrouss70]

Btw, to the board. Nice avatar, got any bigger pics of your truck?

[onehot69stepside]

my car domain is this... http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2326547
my myspace also has some pics, including some photoshopped ones of it layed all the way out in the back as well... http://www.myspace.com/6totheboomshakalaka9

That is good that you point out the ball joint situation to me. If i was to bag it They would bind up sooner. And yes, they do sell narrowed control arms for camaro clips and i thought that was iffy because camaro control arms are really narrow as they are stock. But if they work I dont see why I couldnt do it on a 73-87 ifs. The suspension is pretty much the same concept. And 73-87 control arms are a little wider than camaro arms.

Ive also seen if custom narrow the control arms on a 64 suburban so they could tuck big wheels into the hood. They took about an inch out of the arms and tie rod assemblies. They just narrowed and reinforced the arms though. Pictures are on their website... http://www.ifcustom.com/projects/pro...20suburban.htm
The pictures of the arms are towards the bottom.

[smbrouss70]

Now that you mention that suburban,I do remember it. I would be a little weary of doing 2 inches out of each one though. But hey, Columbus took a chance right?

Your truck looks good, where did you get the suicide hood hinges? or did you make them?

[dwcsr]

go over to www.rbsobsolete.com they have a bolt on clip that uses impala parts. After having done what you want to do on my 58 the next one will be the rbsobsolete clip.

You won't get 7 inches out of that front end without creating prblems that you can't correct with alingment. At most you can get 4" then you will have trouble with wheel offset and turning radius will be slightly less that a half football field.

[qksilver]

If you are going to build new frame rails why not build a new cross member using the vertical plates from the 73- cross member. Take all the width out and use factory or tubular style a arms.
I am not a fabricator but always use as many factory parts as possible because of the money the factory spent designing it. if you made a narrow cross member you would only have to make a short center link and keep the factory travel, anti squat and geometry so it could be aligned propery and not have bump steer.
I was doing a cross member swap today 87 on a 67 and was thinking of your post. Saw how where the upper a-arm mounts are flat plate and where the lower arms mount, it could be cut away and then reinforced like those k frames you see for the late model Mustangs, Camaros and some Mopars.
I have wondered why that it hasn't been done sooner because of all the lowered trucks that have clearance problems with the cross members.
If you built them factory width tubular style you could make a mint! And send me a percentage LOL
Good luck, just some thoughts

[onehot69stepside]

Oh my god! I just spent over half an hour typing this loooong asss post and when i went to post, i had to log in. arrrrhhgrrrrrrrrrrr. oh well, its mee meez time, ill post it tomorrow.

[dwcsr]

I've had that happen. I usually do my long posts in word then cut and paste

[68C15]

FWIW a 78-87 G body (cutlass, grand prix, regal monte carlo) chassis has a track width 7" narrower that a 73-87 truck. and they ride and handle great.

[bagged74]

rear steer camaro/nova from the early to mid 70s works great on those trucks too........if you wanna clip it, which he said he didnt want to do.