47-55.1 Using a Ford Explorer Subframe

[Thadious]

So, I've gone the S10 route before with my old 49 chev shortbox. I ended up using an extended cab shortbox and shortening it, so welding frames isn't really much of an issue for me.

The biggest issue that I had going that route was the fact of having to use spacers on the front end and my extreme reluctance to do so. Knowing that an explorer 8.8 rear is about 6" wider and a good candidate for a rear end swap, the thought of using a full explorer rolling chassis is definitely appealing. Using a 4x2 front end makes it simple and with the rack and pinion steering, an additional bonus.

Of course the wheelbase is two short and so the chassis will need to be stretched although the width is pretty close to the S10 and I think the cab will still straddle it. What I'm pondering is the use of two Explorer frames and grafting the two together to get the additional length and reinforcing the joint with a plate "C" channel doubler.

Has anyone else tried this? Any experience that they would like to share or thoughts on this?

If I do go this path, it's something I do intend to document for the swap and what I find/fab.

Cheers!
Ted.

[mr48chev]

An Explorer frame is going to be too short and the short box is 107, long box is 113.9 Extended cab like my 92 4x4 is 125.0 Frame is stout.

A better choice might be A Dodge Dakota longbed late enough to have 5 lugs. The late 80's early 90's have an odd size six lug (matches Viper) that you can't get wheels for.

Stout frame, A frame suspension and factory rack and pinion steering The long bed has a 125 inch wheelbase.

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by Thadious

So, I've gone the S10 route before with my old 49 chev shortbox. I ended up using an extended cab shortbox and shortening it, so welding frames isn't really much of an issue for me.

The biggest issue that I had going that route was the fact of having to use spacers on the front end and my extreme reluctance to do so. Knowing that an explorer 8.8 rear is about 6" wider and a good candidate for a rear end swap, the thought of using a full explorer rolling chassis is definitely appealing. Using a 4x2 front end makes it simple and with the rack and pinion steering, an additional bonus.

Of course the wheelbase is two short and so the chassis will need to be stretched although the width is pretty close to the S10 and I think the cab will still straddle it. What I'm pondering is the use of two Explorer frames and grafting the two together to get the additional length and reinforcing the joint with a plate "C" channel doubler.

Has anyone else tried this? Any experience that they would like to share or thoughts on this?

If I do go this path, it's something I do intend to document for the swap and what I find/fab.

Cheers!
Ted.

explorer isnt THAT much shorter, 114 vs 116. if you got some setback plates for the axle you could split the diff left over between the from and rear wheels and even move the bed up a scootch. i didnt know the explorers came in short box, long box, and ext cab like the rangers but I think mr48 might have just mistaken one for the other.

the biggest problem with ford products is front suspension geometery, the uppers are really short compared to the lowers, that leads to some wacky camber swings when you lower it, but s10 isnt perfect there either, at extreme drop they toe in pretty weird. older ranger/explorers are a real tragedy with the i beam. avoid those.

but if you are just doing a static build, and will set ride height by setting cab height to chassis, you should be ok. rack steering is nice, no front sheetmetal mods that way.

there was a guy who put one on an aviator which is just a fancy explorer, you can search the project section for "aviator" and find it. he never drove it, it burnt up before he could, but he was pretty far along on it.

plowing your own road isnt the easiest way but it can be pretty satisfying. I cant point to more than that one swap, so you may be asking for advice or a "go ahead" from people who have no stake in the outcome. be aware of that. others will suggest alternatives that they havent tried or have tried and havent finished. be well aware of that too.

for what its worth, I have done 11 of the s10 swaps and used spacers on almost every one, so have a lot of guys here and elsewhere. if there was a problem with using spacers, you would have heard about it.

[Thadious]

The intention with the Explorer was to cut the frame off of one, using the front end, at a straight section in the rails and the back section of another, using the rear end, at the same straight section so as to create an overlap in used lengths to get the additional length required.

With that being said, if the dakota (found a local one for a reasonable price) has a good frame and a better front end width (at least between the S10 and Explorer) it may be a better way to go. I'll do a bit of searching on the site as I believe someone has already done this (I am not looking to re-invent the wheel here!).

Then, since I've been looking at an 8.8 limited slip, does a Dakota has a comparable rear to the fords? Bolt pattern? (I know lots of the big trucks share the same pattern, not sure of the little ones yet... research!)

Thanks for the tips thus far!!

Cheers!
Ted.

[edgeleycanuck]

Don't know a thing about the explorer frames. However I put my truck on a first generation dakota frame. The front track width is wider than the s10 and gives rack and pinion steering. I used a disc brake explorer rear also. The dakotas started with a 5 lug wheel (same as ford) but changed to six lug in early 90s. Swapping the spindle to 5 lug is just nuts and bolts. I've put over a thousand miles on my truck in the last two months after years of work, and it's not complete yet but on the road and enjoying it tremendously!
I'll say this, there have been so many s10 swaps there is a ton of support available from builders out there which is huge, will keep the build going!
Also I believe front control arms are available to increase your track width with an s 10 frame
The dakota worked out well for me but.....not many builds out there to learn from. So there was many(understatement)hours spent trial fitting everything!
The steering column and steering shaft kicked my butt for a long time getting the angles to a minimum and providing manifold clearance, but it did work out and I feel the steering geometry is very good. This required off setting the engine 15/16" to the passenger side, the factory dakota setup had the engine offset slightly over one inch so I'm ok with my set up.
Another thing, I really don't know anything about lowering the dakota suspension but there is 2 inch lowering spindles available.
And mine is one inch longer frame than what most 1/2 ton builds shoot for because I used the bed floor from a 2000 extended cab pickup and didn't want to alter the factory bed floor (my truck was originally a 9 foot bed).
My truck rides rather stiff, it is a short wheelbase vehicle but I think the suspension is rather stiff, I may research this issue over time.
I have learned this....when putting this trucks together, one does have to accept some compromises, just don't compromise on the important things like brakes and steering!

[mr48chev]

The 92 Dakota that I bought as a front suspension and steering donor had the 6 lug and a real wimpy rear axle because it had a 4 banger in it. It was a short box truck.
I was going to run one of Industrial Chassis's Dakota Crossmembers for and AD frame but he quit making and selling parts for a while but is now at it after they moved to a different shop in with Phenix street rods. I think the one he sells now is bolt in but the price went from 6 something to 9 something for the crossmember alone. It is as stout as the Golden Gate Bridge though. According to Steve at Industrial chassis you don't have to swap spindles to change from six lug to 5 lug and with a caliper bracket they sell you can go to 12 inch rotors that come on the Chrysler big cars.

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by Thadious

The intention with the Explorer was to cut the frame off of one, using the front end, at a straight section in the rails and the back section of another, using the rear end, at the same straight section so as to create an overlap in used lengths to get the additional length required.

With that being said, if the dakota (found a local one for a reasonable price) has a good frame and a better front end width (at least between the S10 and Explorer) it may be a better way to go. I'll do a bit of searching on the site as I believe someone has already done this (I am not looking to re-invent the wheel here!).

Then, since I've been looking at an 8.8 limited slip, does a Dakota has a comparable rear to the fords? Bolt pattern? (I know lots of the big trucks share the same pattern, not sure of the little ones yet... research!)

Thanks for the tips thus far!!

Cheers!
Ted.

yeah i dont think you would need to cut anything on an explorer, you can buy 1" setback plates and scoot the bed up a hair and be super close to centered on both wheels in the wheelarch.

a dakota will definitely need cut down or lengthened, 131 or 112.

edgeley they do sell control arms to extend the s10 track width but they are hardly worth it, 1000 bucks and you have to deal with that guy who sells them, life is way too short for that hassle.

[mr48chev]

You never see a two wheel drive Explorer around here as there is no market for them in this area. 2 wheel drive Rangers aren't as common as 4 wheel drive either. One thing to consider with Ranger or Explorer 2 wheel drive is that if you want it low it is going to be expensive to lower it. They use a smaller version of the Ford twin I beam that is the pits to lower.

[paulspickupparts]

Originally Posted by joedoh

yeah i dont think you would need to cut anything on an explorer, you can buy 1" setback plates and scoot the bed up a hair and be super close to centered on both wheels in the wheelarch.

a dakota will definitely need cut down or lengthened, 131 or 112.

edgeley they do sell control arms to extend the s10 track width but they are hardly worth it, 1000 bucks and you have to deal with that guy who sells them, life is way too short for that hassle.

I shortened a 91 Dodge Dakota to 118 . I simply cut the existing welds where the open part of the frame slides into the box . Cut off 13 and slid forward . This was the first I did so had a local machinist weld it for me. The next one I will weld my self. Dakota pickups came in three wheelbases 112 124 131 . The truck I found was extended cab short box so the 131 version . So took out 13 inches to 118 . That seems to be what the S10 guys are using for wheelbase . Hope they are right or can use axle plates to move the rear axle.

I build my own cab mounts. Kind of a Henry Panza style. I will be able to go up or down 6 inches after I see where it sets and forward and back 1 1/2 inches each way to make sure my front wheel centers in the fender opening. All of this can be done by changing a few bolts. Hoping to get it at the right height without much trans tunnel work . Will see. I bought my top plates new and bought tubing from the local scrap yard. $40 in my finished (4) cab mounts .

Because mine is a 91 it is six lug . You can simply order an earlier / hub rotor from an 87-89 . If you want to retain the rear you can redrill the axles to match your front hubs ore get a Ford 8.8 which shares the same bolt pattern as the front . I believe you can interchange the early Dakota 5 bolt axles shafts in the 6 lug housing but have not actually tried that.

I do not have my engine (SBC for now) mounted yet but am going to try to center it rather than offset the engine as Dodge did . I think I can modify the right motor mount but may have to build my own left mount depending where the steering shaft ends up.

The reason I am using this is I bought a $225 not running Dakota at a farm auction . New fuel pump front brakes and two new front tires , water pump , backflush the heater core. Bought most of the parts of fleabay on the cheap if you know your part # . I figure I have about $500 in it but quite a bit of labor .

Reason for this swap was this is one of the nicest riding driving pickups to drive down the road . Pretty sure the rack and pinion has something to do with that . I had access to S10 frames but did not want to run front wheel spacers or deep front offset or spend big bucks on extended arms. Dakota has little bigger payload but that did not really concern me .

Tons of support on S10 builds. Dakota you are on your own.

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by paulspickupparts

The truck I found was extended cab short box so the 131 version . So took out 13 inches to 118 . That seems to be what the S10 guys are using for wheelbase . Hope they are right or can use axle plates to move the rear axle.

the longbed s10 is 118, and guys use them because they dont really have to shorten them. they can eat up the extra 2" with caster shims and moving the bed back slightly some just put the bed on and leave the rear wheel back too far which I dont really recommend but it still is done. but AD shortbed trucks are ~116 from teh factory. I say "around" 116 because it is generally accepted that the factory AD alignment is a little bit too far back in the front wheel arch. lately I have been buying ext cab 123 and taking out 6.5" to make it 116.5. but for me this is mostly because when you lower an s10 the front wheels move back in the wheelarch so the extra .5 helps keep them centered.

axle plates are available in 3/4-1.5", any more than that isnt something I recommend.

[paulspickupparts]

Thanks for the info . If I can ask how far back from the front axle do you place the front cab mount hole. I have a couple stock frames I can get that measurement but wonder if it stays the same when you lower the body . Thanks

[Thadious]

You look like you are in the same boat I'm in. Trying my damndest to not use spacers in the front. I know lots are using them, but I just don't prefer them. My choice.

With lots of fab skills and the machinery (and time) to pull it off I'd like my stock track width to be a lot closer this time and only have to make up the difference in rim offsets.

I'm doing a SBC 91 TPI 350 in mine as well with an NV3500.

Looks like the Explorer option may be superceded by the Dakota. Never mind the fact that a 4x2 explorer is hard to find... Now... to source a 2wd Dakota with an LSD rear end (pref 9.25 corp).

[paulspickupparts]

Ted , I apologize if I helped take this away from the original topic which was using a Ford frame . I think the ranger and or explorer frames are really something to look into . I would like find one without a cab on it sometime and spend some time with a tape measure. If you find the right donor truck the rear end would already be in place .

On the Dakota side I was able to find one that was done on an AD truck . The front wheel offset was shallow but still looked nice with a custom wheel . It had a nice stance to it and was also running a sbc . I was just looking at online photos of it as it was for sale so not build photos . The owner was using a Camaro rear which allowed a nice rear dish wheel . An 8.8 should be close in width to the Camaro . And the option of drum or disc. I will find out as we have a salvage yard close that has several to choose from . The stock Dakota rear looks a little wide but will not know until I set the box on mine.

I did a brake job on my driver Dakota this weekend but I forgot to get the outside front hub to hub measurents when I had both front rims off . Ugh . It is the 5 lugg version. If you want it let me know and I will zing off the rims and get you a measurement.

[Thadious]

No worries. I'm not particularly set on any subframe at this time as I believe that pretty much all rolling chassis have their pro's and con's and if rebuilt properly would service the truck for it's lifetime.

What I am concerned for is a setup that would allow the ride height that I'm looking for, a wheelbase and track width that works closer to the original (with a reasonable allowance for tire rim offsets to adjust accordingly).

With that being said, I've been looking at a couple 99-00ish dakotas in the local area and seeing if I can find one that's a 2wd but with an LSD rear (this would keep the bolt patterns the same and a stock track width with the added bonus of a easy reminder of parts requirements down the road (vice an explorer rear end (insert year), a front brake setup from a dakota (insert year), etc... you get my drift!). K.I.S.S.

I would believe that a 9.25" LSD corp rear end would hold up to a SBC TPI 350 just as well as an 8.8, just with less aftermarket options...

If you feel the inkling, I'd love the WMS measurements from the Dakota, assuming that it hasn't changed over the years. The other measurement that would mean the most is the distance from the floor to the center of the front and rear hubs and the distance to the top of the frame under the cab door. These subtracted from each other would give me a rough estimate of what can be worked out for ride height with the right set of wheels under it. If you have a measurement of outside of wheel to outside of wheel, tire size, rim size and an idea of how well yours fit. Any thoughts on the design or setup you might have would be greatly appreciated!

[paulspickupparts]

Originally Posted by Thadious

No worries. I'm not particularly set on any subframe at this time as I believe that pretty much all rolling chassis have their pro's and con's and if rebuilt properly would service the truck for it's lifetime.

What I am concerned for is a setup that would allow the ride height that I'm looking for, a wheelbase and track width that works closer to the original (with a reasonable allowance for tire rim offsets to adjust accordingly).

With that being said, I've been looking at a couple 99-00ish dakotas in the local area and seeing if I can find one that's a 2wd but with an LSD rear (this would keep the bolt patterns the same and a stock track width with the added bonus of a easy reminder of parts requirements down the road (vice an explorer rear end (insert year), a front brake setup from a dakota (insert year), etc... you get my drift!). K.I.S.S.

I would believe that a 9.25" LSD corp rear end would hold up to a SBC TPI 350 just as well as an 8.8, just with less aftermarket options...

If you feel the inkling, I'd love the WMS measurements from the Dakota, assuming that it hasn't changed over the years. The other measurement that would mean the most is the distance from the floor to the center of the front and rear hubs and the distance to the top of the frame under the cab door. These subtracted from each other would give me a rough estimate of what can be worked out for ride height with the right set of wheels under it. If you have a measurement of outside of wheel to outside of wheel, tire size, rim size and an idea of how well yours fit. Any thoughts on the design or setup you might have would be greatly appreciated!

Here are a few measurements. This is a first gen 88 Dakota with 5 bolt hubs so not sure if later generations are the same width .

The front WMS is 61 1/2 inches .

I think the stock I beam axle on 47-53 half tons WMS is about 58 to 58 1/2 inches . The stock rims are in quite a bit so the added width should be just ok.

On the Dakota frame I am using currently has 215 / 75 15 inch tires on the front . The hub center to floor is 12 3/4 inches

On the rear I currently have a 225 / 75 15 tires . Axle center to floor is 13 inches. End goal is kind of old school leaving the 215 on the front and changing the rear to 235 / 75 15 inch tires . Kind of for appearance but everyone has their own preference on tire size. It is a good idea to have the size you want to run mounted in mock up to establish the wheel in opening height you want .

The Dakota frames have a stepdown under the door area on the top of the frame. The front of the frame under the door in the boxed area is 13 3/4 inches from top of frame to floor . The rear of the frame under the door is 14 3/4 from top of frame to floor. I currently have a few hundred pounds of parts in the box so there may be some slight sag figured into these numbers but will be close. The bottom of the frame is straight with no steps in it until you get to the rear and it then kicks up over the axle. I will using the bottom of the frame for reference in mounting my cab mounts to assure equal height.

I will have a raised bed floor to work with . How much height I lose will be determined by how low I set the cab. I do not want to use drop spindles if I do not have to . Bell Tech makes a 2 inch drop for those that want them lower .

[Kermitt47]

Here is a You Tube video of a 53 Chev PU on a 2004 Explorer frame and a Gen V Chevy engine. Looks like the builder left the rear independant suspension and removed the front differential. Looks like a fun ride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj078sfLnhs

[MiraclePieCo]

Although I built an AD with an S10 frame, those wheel spacers always seemed hokey to me. Yeah, they worked, but when I started work on my panel truck, the first thing I did was pull out the spacers the PO had installed and get suspension components and a wheel-tire combination that fit without band-aids. May be only visceral, but it just feels better to me. I don't know about the chassis in question, but if it has the right wheelbase and track width as is, I say Go For It!

[Thadious]

Originally Posted by Kermitt47

Here is a You Tube video of a 53 Chev PU on a 2004 Explorer frame and a Gen V Chevy engine. Looks like the builder left the rear independant suspension and removed the front differential. Looks like a fun ride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj078sfLnhs

It's interesting to see the whole setup that this guy uses and that it is certainly doable and actually looks right. I have the option, right now, of picking up an 03 Eddie Bauer Explorer (that has the IRS posi rear) for about $300-400. He's got it on there and never had to extend the frame. Finding a 2WD explorer up here is next to impossible (everyone opts for 4wd in the snowy areas) but just gutting the front dif and drive axles makes it pretty simple...

The gears, they be grinding in my head!

[joedoh]

document your project in the projects section! I will love to read about it.

[dsraven]

hey thadious, is it possible that a 2wd front wheel bearing hub could be bolted up in place of the 4wd hub? then delete all the 4x4 stuff and you have an instant 2wd front end? if not you could simply lop the end off the axle so all you have left is the stub that holds the wheel bearing together. just some thoughts, can't say I have worked on a 2wd explorer so not sure what their front wheel bearing hub looks like. a machine shop could make the outer axle stub look proper or they could easily make a new retainer that looks like it belongs if you do finish the build part and wanna spruce up the little things.

[dsraven]

using the front half of one truck and the rear half of another truck would make sense if you need to get the wheelbase exact. one thing to do, though, is ask around to find out if guys move the axle ahead or back for a particular ride height, so the front wheel looks right in the fender opening. same for the rear wheel fender opening. you could mock it up but ensure you use the tire size you will end up with so you get the right look.
if cutting the frame consider doing a cut that looks like a step. there is more weld to hold things together that way. then fish plate it.

[vintovka]

Do know an 84 k10 works ok.

[Thadious]

Originally Posted by dsraven

using the front half of one truck and the rear half of another truck would make sense if you need to get the wheelbase exact. one thing to do, though, is ask around to find out if guys move the axle ahead or back for a particular ride height, so the front wheel looks right in the fender opening. same for the rear wheel fender opening. you could mock it up but ensure you use the tire size you will end up with so you get the right look.
if cutting the frame consider doing a cut that looks like a step. there is more weld to hold things together that way. then fish plate it.

I've been looking at the 95-02 Explorers with the solid rear but also have a solid lead on the 03 with the IRS, LSD and 3.73s in it. I'm looking to go that route so moving the axle isn't going to be possible. However, a frame extension wouldn't be difficult. Essentially, remove the wheels, level out the cut section of the frame and support everything. Locate and cut at an appropriate straight section, insert long internal brace, weld one end, slip on the extension section, weld the other... if done right, the joint will be stronger than the original frame. Correct length, better track width and fill IFS and IRS with a "posi" rear. Should also make the rad easier to fit and rack and pinion steering.

Don't worry, I'll be posting my progress in the build section and also a link in the signature block.... once I get started!

Hoping to pick up the donor Exploder today. Worked out a deal with the guy for $350 cdn.

Cheers!
Ted.

[vintovka]

Anyone build on a Dodge 1500 with the 3.0 diesel v6?

[dsraven]

Post up some pics of your project truck so we can see what you have to work with. Could be that the floor and firewall from the donor could save you time repairing your original steel plus you get cab body mounts, seats, console, carpet, etc that fits the floor. Would need to check width dimensions on the original and the donor, maybe workable?