Subframing a '49 1/2 ton

[MMM...BRAINS...]

OK, been searching and reading like crazy on this subject. i know its been covered a gajabillion times, but here it is again!

I really want to subframe my '49. I know alot of people say that an after market "IFS kit" is best for these trucks, but i don't have that kind of budget in mind at all, ever.
Price diff for me is, i can pick up a late 70s/early 80s camaro/malibu/monte/whatever (whole car) for $400-$600.
there's a whole lot i can pull from a car like that for my use (engine, trans, seats, etc) can't beat a price like that.

I'm building a driver, not a show truck. just want some pep and decent handling. my fab skills are fine for this as well.
anyways,....
Ive read that the camaros/novas work well in some cases and have read that they're too wide in others?
Heard some saying a Monte has a more appropriate track width than camaros/novas? (i figured a monte was bigger than a camaro?)

I'm not interested in a s-10 frame swap either.

I looking for answers from people who have done the swap on an AD truck and any advice on track widths/other donar vehicles (besides camaro)
Or a list of track widths from other cars/trucks.
And what problems people have run into with "whatever" donar car.

Anything will help. Im ready to gut something and start transplanting!!!!
Just trying to do my research first!
Thanks,
Chris

[MMM...BRAINS...]

for anyone else wondering, i did ust find this. (let me know if you see something incorrect on it)

GM Car
122.0, 58.31,59.25 - 37 Buick Special
126.0, 58.31,59.25 - 37 Buick Century
NA,,,, 59.1, 58.8 -- 68-74 Buick Apollo
NA,,,, 59.0, 58.8 -- 78-86 Buick Century
111.0, 59.1, 59.7 -- 75 Buick Skylark
115.0, 58.5, 60.0 -- 55-57 Chevy
108.1, 58.7, 60.5 -- 67-69 Chevy Camaro (other source shows 1081/590/589)
108.1, 60.4, 61.0 -- 70 Chevy Camaro
NA,,,, 61.3, 60.5 -- 76-80 Chevy Camaro Z-28, Pontiac Trans Am TA
101.1, 60.7, N/A, -- 93-02 Chevy Camaro
101.0, 60.7, 60.6 -- 86 Chevy Camaro IROC Z
101.1, 60.7, 60.7 -- 98 Chevy Camaro
112.3, 63.7, 64.1 -- 99 Chevy Camaro LS, LT
112.3, 63.7, 63.7 -- 99 Chevy Camaro SS
119.0, 62.5, 62.4 -- 65-70 Chevy Caprice
121.5, NA,,, NA,, -- 71-76 Chevy Caprice coupe/sedan
125.0, NA,,, 64.5 -- 71-76 Chevy Caprice station wagon
116.0, NA,,, NA,, -- 77-90 Chevy Caprice
115.9, 61.8, 60.7 -- 91-96 Chevy Caprice
102.0, NA,,, NA,, -- 54 Chevy Corvette
NA,,,, 58.7, 59.5 -- 68-83 Chevy Corvette
NA,,,, 59.6, 60.4 -- 84-95 Chevy Corvette
108.0, 58.5, 58.8 -- 78-88 Chevy Monte Carlo, Malibu, El Camino(117.1 wheelbase), Olds Cutlass, Pontiac Grand Prix
111.0,59.8, 59.6 -- 68-74 Chevy Nova
097.0, 54.7, 53.6 -- 71-77 Chevy Vega, 73-77 Pontiac Astre, 75-80 Chevy Monza, Buick Skyhawk, Olds Starfire, 76-80 Pontiac Sunbird
NA,,,, 58.9, 59.0 -- 78-86 Pontiac Grand Prix
115.0, NA,,, NA,, -- 66 Pontiac GTO
NA,,,, 59.9, 59.6 -- 68-74 Pontiac GTO
112.25, 57.5, 59.0 -- 39 Chevy knee action
112.25, 56.375, 59.0 -- 39 Chevy I beam
116.0, 57.6, 60.0 -- 42-48 Chevy

GM Truck
106.5, 64.5, 63.0 -- 73-91 Chevy Blazer 2WD
106.5, 65.75, 62.75--73-91 Chevy Blazer 4WD
131.5, 65.8, 62.7 -- 73-87 Chevy C-10, K-10
131.5, 65.8, 62.7 -- 73-87 Chevy C-20, K-20, C30
164.5, 65.8, 62.7 -- 73-91 Chevy C-30 Crew Cab
129.5, 65.8, 62.7 -- 73-91 Chevy Suburban
114.5, NA,,, NA,, -- 55 Chevy 2nd Series (1955 1st series was same as 54)
116.0, 59.5, NA,, -- 47-54 Chevy AD 1/2 ton
125.25,NA,,,,NA,, -- 47-54 Chevy AD 3/4 ton
137.0, NA,,, NA,, -- 47-54 Chevy AD 1 ton
144.0, NA,,, NA,, -- 02 Chevy Silverado 1500 4WD
102.4, NA,,, NA,, -- 72-80 Chevy LUV w/std cab and 731" box Unequal length A-arms with torsion bars was std front suspension on LUV
104.3, NA,,, NA,, -- 81-82 Chevy LUV w std cab and 731" box Unequal length A-arms with torsion bars was std front suspension on LUV
117.9, NA,,, NA,, -- 78-82 Chevy LUV w std cab and 901" box Unequal length A-arms with torsion bars was std front suspension on LUV
100.5, 54.5, 54.7 -- 83-01 Chevy S-10 Blazer 2-dr, 83-01 GMC Jimmy 2-dr
107.0, 54.5, 54.7 -- 90-01 Chevy S-10 Blazer 4-dr, 90-01 GMC Jimmy 4-dr
108.3, 54.5, 54.7 -- 82-93 Chevy S-10 reg cab, 73" box, 82-93 GMC reg cab, 73" box STOCK Malibu and El Camino drop spindles are bolt-on
117.9, 54.5, 54.7 -- 82-93 Chevy S-10 reg cab, 89" box, 82-93 GMC reg cab, 89" box
122.9, 54.5, 54.7 -- 83-? Chevy S-10 ext cab, 83-?? GMC ext cab
135.0, 67.8, 67.8 -- 08 Chevy Express Cargo 1500 Work Van

[MMM...BRAINS...]

some more info. well, i've answered myself on the numbers game, but still wanna hear from those of you that have done it.

[cajundragger]

sounds to me like you do infact want to use an s-10 setup. that is by far the most cost effective swap.


they make a complete bolt on kit to mount the body...

[Houston54]

Having done the G-body subframe to my 54 I can provide a first hand point of view for you on that option and provide my knowledge on the other common options as follows:

1. G-body: The only major issue with using this set up is the interference between the radiator core support and the steering box. The solution I used was to section the core support around the box which also required modifying the radiator mounting in a manner to kick the bottom of the radiator forward enough to clear the steering box. The performance of this set up has been great as I now have 31K miles on it. That being said if I were to do it again I would use an IFS kit. There are examples out there for around $1,300. When you look at the cost of the kit versus the cost of obtaining, installing, and refurbing a G-body front end the difference is minimal. Very minimal. The use of an IFS kit increases the value of your truck and is a quicker installation. When using this suspension you will want to change the coil springs to stiffen the ride quality or your truck will be wobbling through turns like an old lady on her way home from lunch at the country club. One thing to remember about G-body suspension is to not use one from a 1979 model year. The spindles were changed in 1980 and the wheel bearings for the 79 version are not inexpensive. All the other parts interchange with other years. Another criticalpoint on this modification is that if you do not get the core support orientation back to it original location you will have alignment issues with your front sheet metal. Again this is from a first person point of view. Your experience may differ.

2. S-10: I have not done one of these but a friend has or at least he has started. Unless you fabricate your own body mounts I do not see any cost advantage going this route. The cost of the kits out there are in the neighborhood of the lower end IFS kits. The rear axle (2WD) is too narrow so that needs to be changed. The front width has been called too narrow but as it is the same as the G-body I do not understand the problem. Using rims with 3.75 BS should solve that problem. This method may have its champions but I am not one of them

3. 2nd Gen F-body (Camaro/Firebird): I considered this suspension early in my 54 project and talked to at least 8 people at car shows who had this under the AD truck. Only one of them said they would do this again. The one who did not had his truck set up with a high ride height. The others were lowered a reasonable about. The complaint was tire/fender clearance issues which limited the wheel selection and tire width options. As I try to learn from the mistakes of others I discarded this option for my 54 project.

4. Dodge Dakota: Although I have a heartfelt distain for any Chrysler built after of 1974 I have read articles on the use of the Dakota running gear for AD trucks (frame, axle, steering, engine, trans). The wheelbase and track width appear almost dead on and the cost of obtaining a donor should be minimal given the fact it is a Dodge. If I had an available donor I would look hard at doing this but I would never admit it was a Chrysler product to even my priest.

5. Nova Subframe: The only subframe I would use in an AD at this point would be a rear steer subframe from either a 1st generation F-body or early Nova. The exact year break point for the Nova body style rear steer is not clear to me but others can clarify that. This subframe would eliminate the core support/steering box interference issue but it limits the exhaust header options due to steering box issues. These are harder to locate but I see them at swaps for $250-$450 quite often. When using any used suspension system you will need to replace every ball joint, control arm rod and bushing, tie rod, centerlink, idler arm, pitman arm and steering box to achieve optimal performance and safety.

6. G-body Subframe: This is relatively new product which consists of a fabricated subframe stub onto which you mount your G-body suspension and steering components. This is a good alternative which I am sure provides great performance. However once you have purchased the subframe and all the other required parts you are at or above the cost of a budget IFS kit.

Whether you take any of this to heart is up to you. Enjoy your build and get it done. In short order you will be here offering your own first hand opinion and adding your own "If I had to do it again" perspective.

[MMM...BRAINS...]

Houston54, Thanks a bunch! you said what i needed/wanted to hear!
I do take "to heart", you've obviously been "through the rounds" with stuff like this so i DEFINATLEY want you advice!
That gives me some good ideas as to what i'm getting into here.
I have no issues with a IFS kit other than price. I'm looking to completely gut my truck. its got a tired olds 307 in it which is another reason i was looking at finding a complete donar vehicle in hopes of finding a decent motor to build (not to mention any other goodies i can rip off and the P.O. did some sh*te welding on the front frame with the
V8 install they did.
i agree on the s10 swap stuff. i can fab all the mounts, but that seems way for work than its worth, for me at least. (and ive heard and the front being "too narrow")

basically, it all comes down to....any of these options CAN work, just trying to find the best for the budget. I still feel i can do more for less $$$ with a front clip than an IFS kit.
(but i'm not counting my time and labor)

I'm going to seriously look at the g-body stuff and maybe the dakota stuff. although i'm not real big on the dakota idea, but if it works i'll look into it. Any idea on the year range of the dakota stuff?

I do plan on running it pretty low (not sure if i'll run bags or not) so that will come into play as well and what i can do with these parts/vehicles. not really looking to "lay frame" or anything like that tho.

anyways, thanks again! its greatly appreciated!

BTW, just realized you live in my neck of the "woods"! cool!

[Indian113]

I have a 74 Nova and it is a rear steer,I bought positive offset wheels for the front. I'm using 15x6 with 4 inch backspacing.

[cajundragger]

if your looking to be low, then a certain suspension can't be too narrow

[mr48chev]

This is a shot of my 48 taken in 1981 when I had a rear steer Camaro/Nova stub under it with 72 Monte Carlo disk brakes. It had 14x8 Crager Mach 8 wheels on it with F series tires I think. Firestone N-50 tires on the back at that time.

I didn't have any tire to fender clearance issues and that is the height it ran down the road at. I stubbed it the winter before and with 36 miles on the odometer and a fresh 350 under the hood headed from here in Toppenish to McGregor Tx 2600 miles away.

The same truck one year later in a family portrait. You could barely roll a beer can under the bumper.

[troy54gmc]

I have a 54 gmc that i did a front end swap on using a 1975 nova sub frame. The nova subs changed their steering box to the front in 1975 as mine was in the front. That didnt bother me cause im goin to put a power rack and pinion on it anyways. They are a little bit wider than the original frame on the ad trucks but you can line them up with a little massaging. As far as being to wide to slam the front down, yes if you run a wide tire in the front without the proper backspacing you will definatley get tire rub on the fender. i hope to solve this with airbags for adjustability for driving and parking needs and running a 8" tire with the proper backspacing up front. Hopefully this will solve the width problem. in my picture i have a set of 2007 dodge charger factory 17" wheels on it just for mockup. and without springs and bumpstops in, it sits pretty low. i also plan on putting drop spindles on it to get the bumper on the ground. im am still in the build process so i have not drove the truck yet to give any true progress. But like you i am on a shoestring budget and didnt have 1500 bucks for a mustang II frontend. i picked up the whole nova sub for under $100 bucks. I am now in the process of tubing the back half of the frame and putting a 4 link and bags on it with a 9" rearend. Any way ill add a couple of pictures for u, hope this helps. If not there are tons of guys on here that have way more knowledge than me that im sure will post info to help you out. Goodluck if you want more picts shoot me a e-mail i have tons of the front end install. Troy.

[troy54gmc]

Here are a couple of the rear frame work im doin now.

[MMM...BRAINS...]

wow! thanks alot guys! this helps alot! and yes i do want it low and am planning on bags...at some point

[63 & 64 Bowties]

Here's a 54 that I sold a couple years ago, unfinished. It had a Camaro clip and rear. With stock Camaro suspension it set at 54 stock ride height or maybe a little higher. There's no drivetrain in it in this pic.
Has anyone Zeed the clip to lower it? Seems like that would be the way to go.
The sheetmetal wasn't really a huge issue. Just a matter of building some supports.

[chevyrestoguy]

Check out kustombrad's build thread:
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=320546

He used a G-body clip and it worked out great. Plus it was super-cheap. You could find a complete runner G-body and use everything out of it.

Brad is building his truck on the cheap, and it is turning out great.

[mr48chev]

I did the subframe on my 48 similar to what Kustombrad did his stub swap and it worked well. I used an early Camaro/Nova rear steer stub. The only issue with that is that you have a bigger problem with steering column alignment than he did with the front steer unit.

His method is right on the money with what I have told a lot of people in the past in that he first set the frame level and at the ride height he wanted and then set the stub in place at pretty close to it's original ride height. And kept them parallel and level with each other. Nice job on that one with some great ideas that won't cost any extra to use.

[MMM...BRAINS...]

Thanks guys. I've been shopping craigslist like crazy looking for a donar. Found a '82 el camino complete for 500$ I'm gonna look at tomorrow.
Posted via Mobile Device