1971-onward C10 crossmember in 1958 ??

[PATINA_58]

I have heard of people useing later model C10 front end/crossmembers in 1950s pickups.

I have a 1958 3200 Apache and want to get rid of the I beam and upgrade on a realitively cheap budget to a disc brake/independent front end and i have heard about guys using 1971-onwards C10 front ends,Does the crossmember just bolt in or is it welded in? And is there or was there any issues with the crossmember?

Really appreciate any info

[raycow]

The crossmembers are basically similar from 63-87 (disc brakes started in 71), and they do bolt in. This would certainly be a cheap/easy way to get an IFS in a TF truck if it would work, but I have never heard of anyone actually doing this before. It couldn't hurt to take some measurements at least to see if the frame rail spacing is the same.

Ray

[dwcsr]

This will give you the in's and out of that swap.
http://www.thehollisterroadcompany.com/C10ifs.html

Its not a bolt in deal. You either narrow the frame to accept the cross member as I did or clip it like a camaro clip

[raycow]

After reading dwcar's post, I see I worded mine badly. I didn't mean to imply that the swap was a bolt-in. In fact, I had no idea if it was practical at all. What I actually meant to say was that the crossmembers were bolted in on the trucks they originally came in, rather than being welded.

In any event, I am glad to hear that someone has tried it, although the degree of fab skill required would definitely seem to explain why this swap is as scarce as it is. This clearly closer to a full clip job rather than just a crossmember swap, and for the amount of work involved, I don't see where it offers any advantages over the more common Camaro/Nova clip other than maybe raw material availability or cost.

Ray

[dwcsr]

It offers no advantages other than I had the parts. Clipping with a C10 frame section would be easier than what I did. It was more of can I do it than the results. I've had people tell me it can't be done and I must have photo shopped the pictures and when they have seen the actual frame the still say I didn't use a task force frame and a c10 suspension. The try real hard to see a camaro clip in there some where. But in the end I would not do it again.

[fabguy]

Hi all, Here is a pic of mine. I have a 58' 1/2 ton factory rear frame that was clipped with a C-10 front clip, not a Xmember add on. It really is no harder than doing a camaro or other frame clip. The advantage I think is the ride (if bagged) and the fact that if you look under a camaro front clipped truck the engine oil pan is the same or lower than the clip itself. On a C-10 frame the oil pan is higher by an average of 3" to 3-1/2''.
I like it, and I am going to do it to my 55.2 burban as soon as I dig into that ride and find a factory frame to set it on. Here is a pic of the frame. Here is a link to the build I just started http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=430844 You do have to look at your track width, but these problems can be simply fixed by some parts from "porterbuilt" he is a member here on the site. If you are gonna bagg it as I am doing now, there are a few advantages doing that too.

[yossarian19]

Has anyone considered sectioning the C10 cross member? It looks like a bandsaw, some plate steel & a welder could successfully narrow the C10 suspension to TF measurements. I haven't gotten a tape measure out & started plotting yet, though - I forgot my tape when I went to the bone yard today.
Might be easier than grafting frame sections or narrowing the TF.

[meter swinger]

Originally Posted by yossarian19

Has anyone considered sectioning the C10 cross member? It looks like a bandsaw, some plate steel & a welder could successfully narrow the C10 suspension to TF measurements. I haven't gotten a tape measure out & started plotting yet, though - I forgot my tape when I went to the bone yard today.
Might be easier than grafting frame sections or narrowing the TF.

Hit the 73-87 side of the forum. Those guys are skilled at modding the crossmember.
As stated earlier nate porter is making a bolt on unit now for 55-59 truck using c-10 paraphanelia. It is a bit pricey but it is a work of art.
A friend of mine has 56 on a 81 frame. The track width is a problem in the front. If you ran the cpp modular spindles which narrow the track by 3/4" per side and used narrowed A-arms you would get close. But then the "budget" thing has gone out the window.
If you want the wheels inside the fenders it will be niether cheap nor easy as dwcsr said he would not do it again.
The porterbuilt unit fixes the design "flaws" of the factory unit, its bolt on, its beatiful but its not cheap, but you get what you pay for.
I have two 73-87 trucks right now and ive always loved the ride. The thing that has kept me from tearing down my beater 78 and putting the front end under my 59 is the work and the cost ti get the front track narrowed enough.
If you wanted a higher ride height this would not be as much of an issue. And if you wanted it high like a 4x4 you can put 90's c1500 lift spindles on a 73-87 truck with a ball joint and lower A arm swap.

With all the guys on here doing corvette swaps and I saw a c4 vette front assembly on CL complete for 900. Its looking really tempting. And less work than a C10 unit.
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device

[mr48chev]

Originally Posted by yossarian19

Has anyone considered sectioning the C10 cross member? It looks like a bandsaw, some plate steel & a welder could successfully narrow the C10 suspension to TF measurements. I haven't gotten a tape measure out & started plotting yet, though - I forgot my tape when I went to the bone yard today.
Might be easier than grafting frame sections or narrowing the TF.

I'm real late to this party but the issue as was pointed out with the narrowed Task force frame is that the later C-10 frames are several inches narrower where they cross the "axle" line between the front wheels than a Task force frame. To use a C-10 crossmember on a Taskforce frame without modifying the frame you would have to widen the crossmember several inches rather than narrow it. That would put the front wheels way outside of the fender line.

[yossarian19]

Originally Posted by mr48chev

I'm real late to this party but the issue as was pointed out with the narrowed Task force frame is that the later C-10 frames are several inches narrower where they cross the "axle" line between the front wheels than a Task force frame. To use a C-10 crossmember on a Taskforce frame without modifying the frame you would have to widen the crossmember several inches rather than narrow it. That would put the front wheels way outside of the fender line.

OH!
I'm glad you mentioned this - I haven't ever eyeballed these parts and got confused about the width relationships.

So, to use the C10 cross member without modding the TF frame you'd have to use after market narrowing control arms / spindles on a wider member. You'd keep the C10 strength but lose the low-buck benefit. Interesting.

[made2drag]

cool idea's

[crossfire84]

this is my 50 with a 1985 c-10 front saddle.
check out my build thread, good luck with your project.