Hot Rods 47 ford p/u frame

i have a 42-47 ford p/u, i want to either put a s10, ranger, dakota frame on to it, i need advice and what is the stock wheel base?

 

.... Do you still have the stock frame?

 

Why not use the stock frame and run a mm2 up front.

Jake

 

When i got the truck there were no frame

 

Bet you will need a long bed standard cab frame if the 47 is a short bed.

Jake

 

that's where I was heading to. It's a whole lot more work to make any of those crap frames fit right ( which it'll never fit as good as the stock frame ). Mustang 2 frontends have more options avalible thatn you can count... they arn't very expensive....

 

I bet you can find an orignal frame. They arn't that pricey either .

 

im wanting independent susp.

 

Hi, I've been a member for a number of years but have not been very active. Since I've retired, I would love to get involved again. I live in Pennsylvania near Lancaster. I've been a member of The Vagabonds Rod and Custom Car Club out of Lancaster, Pa. for a number of years. Thanks, Bill Deremer

 

Correct, but what everybody is saying is that it will be many times easier to buy a MustangII kit and weld it to a stock frame to get where you want than put the whole works on a different frame. And they are completely 100% correct! Now, having owned one of these trucks, if I were to do mine again I would skip the MustangII and go directly to a Jag XJ6 or XJS front end. Better weight match and a lot easier install. But that's me, and I have been doing this stuff for almost 35 years.

The S-10 would be the most likely of the chassis you mentioned for replacement if you choose that route. You will have problems with the kinda weird Sway backed rails not sitting in the right location, and the steering box is way too far forward and will most likely occupy the same space as the grill. But, what you do have going for you with that chassis is the track width is correct to keep the tires under the fenderwells with common after market wheels. Fitting front sheet metal, cab and bed, running boards, hooking up steering and such will make you absolutely crazy though, and will always look like a truck on a different frame. They ALWAYS do...

Skip the Dakota right now. It's track is just flat WAY too wide, no matter what anybody is going to tell you. You may sneek the wheels under the fenderwells with the stock weirdo high backspace wheels, but the first time you go to put a wheel on it that you actually WANT to run you will find it very easy to check tread depth - 'cause they will be partially out side the fender wells!

Once again, I've owned one of these, and I also helped quite a bit with the developement of the very popular kits that put the Dakota front end in several later, wider fifties trucks. I do know from whence I speak, I promise. If you can find an original frame, go that route. Your life will be much easier.

 

I have seen the threads on here about the jag front ends buy reading these threads it does not look any easier to install than a mustang 2 kit and to me looks out of place. I am sure they work great.

They make so many more choices for the mm2 and they just look cleaner.

But like you said either of those on a stock frame beats the hell out of an s10 frankin truck.

Jake

 

A pic of both mm2 on Rynos truck

 

The jag on Titus truck

 

I still roll on the original frame. I would never consider trying to make another frame work.

 

Hate to dissagree, but I've put many, many MustangII kits under cars and trucks over the years, and a few Jag installs... The Jag is much easier in this case and much less expensive these days. I still would go with Mustang II under the same year Ford passenger car though.

 

Jag is much easier than Must II. The whole Jag crossmemeber and suspension assy is one piece that drops out of the donor Jag with four bolts. Plus the brake lines and steering connections of course. The *only* thing you need to do for the install is weld it in at the correct wheelbase location and caster angle, once you figure out if notching up into the stock frame or not. Wait, you also need to make the upper shock mount. But that is it. No disassembly required unless you are rebuilding the suspension.

For Must II you have to weld the crossmember in, then weld the spring hats, possibly clearance notch bottom of frame for the steering and weld reinforcement, and weld mounts for the radius rods if you go stock strut rod style Must II. Next assemble all of it. Does this sound easier???

I put Jaguar IFS and IRS out of a donor into my 52 GMC and it was very easy. I have also done Must II. Jaguar is the way for me on future projects. BTW, the Jag 4 wheel disc brakes are way better than any big brake Must II kit. Plus the Jag suspension is designed for a sedan that is more weight than the car/truck you are most likely putting it into. Not lighter weight. I am not saying Must II is not safe or unable to work. They do work fine. Just Jag is a lot easier and better.

 

heres mine with stock frame that has been shortened 6in narrowed 4in inthe rear and a front clip from a 69 marquisthat was narrowed. since you dont have a frame to start with you could us eiter mustang or jag front and fabricat e the frame out of 2x4 tubing

 

I have a s10 frame its a 89 2wd standerd cab and long bed what year would be best and do i need long bed?

 

Lol after you get the mm2 welded in it takes like 20 min to bolt it all up.But yea the jag is gona be less money as you are using junk yard parts.

So with the jag font end you need to call around try to find one then go pick it up make sure you have a truck for this then if its any good nothing bent up all parts there.Bring it home try to find the rite placement for it cut out the frame just enough what ever that Might be since its your first time you really don't know guess work.try to move the whole asembely around and get it in to place weld it up.Assuming its not beat bushings are good brakes are good ect since you just got it off a car with well over 100g ,if their not now starts the diss assembly buy new parts reassembly.

You can type it out as hard as you want to make it seam.

The mm2 looks cleaner and that is that and its ford style parts going back on a ford with what ever bolt pattern you want most common 5 on 4.5 ford pattern.

Just wondering what is the jag pattern?

I really don't care but to say doing a jag over a modern mm2 kit is ridiculous.You have to fab a bit on both.But with the mm2 kit you buy it for the truck you are putting it on line it up center of the wheel base in the front weld it no guess work.And regular springs air ride or coil overs will work on them.

Jake

 

The stock wheelbase is 112"

 

ok i researched the s10 wheelbase and i came across 108.3 in (reg. cab short bed)
117.9 in (reg. cab long bed)... would i need the 117.9

 

I think there is a Ranger chassis with 112" wb. My 40 is on an 86 Ranger chassis. It was from a short bed. I relocated the rear axle to give me the 112" An S-10 chassis is sweet because all the GM stuff that seems to find it's way into hot rods will bolt up to it. My truck has a glass cab and the floor is modeled after a Ranger so That the made the Ford chassis choice a no brainer. The other advantage of the Ford chassis is that it is nearly identical in width between the rails as an original 35-40 Ford frame. I think that if you were to use a S-10 chassis you may find the varying width a little difficult to deal with. In either case you would probably have to channel the body over the chassis to get it to sit right. I managed not to have to with my cab although I did have to cheat the bed floor up a little to keep the bed rails at the correct height. I have an album of my build over on Garage Journal but I don't know how to post a link to it here. Does any one know how to do that? BTW 40-47 Ford trucks use the same cab but the noses and beds were different.. 40-41 noses are the same. 38-41 beds are the same but the 41 tailgates lost the V-8 reference because they ran 4's 6's and 8's that year. I'm not positive but I think 42-47 beds are the same

 

Look in the Ford Jailbar Owners social pages, and I believe it's Verbal Kint use an 80's ranger frame that was less than an inch out on any dimension and it seems to work real well.

 

i found it im looking at it right now..
so do they sell lowering kits for rangers?

 

Are you in Fouke?

 

Yea they sell them but you have to buy lowered I beams that usually results in some serious negative camber.

Jake

 

Hey! I made a link that worked! Screw this hot rod stuff, I'm a web wizard!:http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165122

BTW 98 and up Ranger short beds were 111.5 so you have the wheeelbase nailed right there!
Not sure about the track but you can address a lot of that with wheel selection, that's how I did mine and the stance is perfect.

 

Jag bolt pattern is 5 on 4.75" same as Chev. In my local u-pullit yard last week there were 11 XJ6s to chose from so that isn't a problem either. 250.00 would take any of them on a full price day.

I have used Mustang II stuff lots over the years and help prototype some current kits various times and do love them. But in this situation the Jag would be a much better candidate. This series of Ford trucks and the F-1 series that followed are just a bit wide to run Mustang II stuff, so they need to be widened. Problem is when you start to change any perameters of the geometry in a front end stuff starts to go pear shaped very quickly, in this case roll center goes right out the window. It leaves these trucks tail light and very sensitive on the steering. That is honestly my main dislike of most kits out there today. The designers have no problems changing stuff compromising ride and handling.

 

Good points I do have a 1 in spacer on mine on each side.Mine will spend most of its time only 4 or 5 inches off the ground driving so the narrow and high thing does not come in to play in my situation.

 

I hate to get involved in this again, but I set up Verbal Kint's truck and he is finishing it. It works great for him as a shop truck. However, there are a few things to consider. Frame must be from a 83 to 88 Ranger long box. 1989 and newer has a crush zone built in right in the core support area. It is within an inch of being the same wheelbase. I used an International box on his truck from a long box, and we cut it down and relocated the fenders.You will have to build a new bed floor, depending on what height you want the box. Verbal Kint relocated it further down from where I had it. The box floor bolts through the stock Ranger box holes on rubber mounts. The back of the cab has to be cut under the seat to clear the frame rails. Makes a great storage compartment under the seat. Gas tank remains in stock Ranger location, but the fuel filler comes out in the box. The build time was less than two weeks and he drives the hell out of it. You will also need offset wheels to clear the inner fenders. Rides and drives just like a Ranger. The truck sits fairly low because of the way I mounted it on the frame. The mounts were made from channel iron welded to the frame with rubber biscuts under every mount, bolting through the stock Ford cab location. Very solid and easy to remove the cab, front clip and components for painting, or maintenance. The steering was the Ranger box with a rag joint hooked to the 46 column. The ranger pedals and power brakes bolted up to the 46 firewall quite nicely. Minor modifications allowed for the early Ford round pedals. The stock Ranger radiator mounted in with a newly designed mount. Minor trimming was required on the inner fenders. Running board and bumper brackets were easily made by Verbal Kint. The power is a Ranger 4 cyl with a 5 speed trans. Slightly under powered at the moment,but the engine is very tired. It will still haul a full dress Harley and get a cop's attention. It still makes over twenty three mpg. A turbo coupe motor is being built for it currently. Putting a small block in this frame is a tight fit, but I have a friend with a severely channeled 47 on a Ranger chassis that is doing this, biggest problem is the oil pump location. I have done 5 of these swaps using the Ranger chassis. The 37 to 40 International was designed for this swap. It requires no cab modifications at all. The 40's Chevy cabs work well on this frame with minor trimming on the rear of the cab. I personally would not use the S 10 chassis for anything but scrap iron. I know a lot of people like them, but they seem to be poorly designed to me. And I have crushed 5 of them so far, so I know what they look like and how they mount up. I ran a set of dropped I beams in my personal Ranger for years with no problems. You do have to get them aligned after installation. I recommend the Ranger chassis, because you can use so many factory parts. My brother builds a lot of cars in his shop and uses the MII suspension. He approved of this swap. I am currently getting ready to build another 47 that will be on a Ranger chassis, only I will be using the 2.9 v6 and a 5 spd.