Before I begin all the measurements and research, is anyone aware of a source that might have already cataloged which modern ch***is get you close to the 30's? I'm thinking about a 4x4 hotrod/restomod pickup vs. a street version. Thanks
Works for me. Hide it all and who's to know where the parts came from. So if someone went to the expense to having to fabricate all new frame rails, rear end, brakes, etc. to fit, rather than saving a bundle with a proved group, what's the problem.?
A buddy of mine put a 34 Dodge pickup on a Dodge Dakota frame . He drives it everywhere. Power brakes , power steering, a/c and heater .
I have a 49 Dodge sheet metal on a 94ish Dodge Dakota 4x4 frame. It works well, but everything has to be positioned exactly in the correct position. I have also built a 39 Dodge pickup on a 90 Dodge Dakota 2wd drive frame, the 30s bodies get pretty narrow from the firewall forward, and its a pain to get the front fenders to sit in the correct position. The wheel openings on most 30s stuff sits pretty far forward to match up with modern frames. ^ 49 Dodge on the Dakota 4x4. For the front fender wheel opening to fit correctly on this truck, I had to move the wheel openings on the fenders 2" back towards the doors. 39 Dodge on a Dakota 2 wd frame. Notice the frame rails outside of the grille? If I would have added the 39 fenders, I would have had to move the wheel opening back in the fender nearly 6", and it would have really looked much worse. On the orange truck, the motor is tight against the flat firewall, and the radiator is completely inside of the grill. This lower grill is fabricated, the OEM bottom 1/2 (bolts together at the stainless chrome) moves forward at the outer edges so that the bottom edge is straight across. The leading edges of the front fenders are flush with the bottom of the Dodge stainless, and the front fender wheel openings were about even with the current headlight position. Older 30s trucks have shorter noses.then the 39 has.
There lurks a 78 Chevy Malibu under the Plymouth. Why? Well, for tilt wheel, power disc brakes, power steering, wheels, Turbo 350 trans. behind the 354 Hemi, better parking brake setup, 5-inch channel -- all for $250.
The late 40s and newer old cars and trucks are easier to put modern frames under. The area from the firewall forward is often too short for modern frames, but often things can be moved far enough to make work. The 30s and older stuff is short from the front axle center line forward, and the front frames are often very narrow from the firewall forward for a modern frame to work, and look right. Both of my trucks shown have tilt wheel, power disc brakes, modern wheel choice, V8 motors, with EFI, over drive transmissions, and are channeled over the frame. I get it and I'm not in disagreement But, neither are mid 30s or older bodies, that early stuff is generally much smaller and they don't match up with modern frames very well.
**** Dean built a channeled 32 Ford coupe on a 70's Datsun ch***is. I owned a 73 Datsun pickup and those ch***is are a good match. even the factory torsion bar suspension looks OK. I have seen two 28 to 34 (can't remember which year) Ford trucks on Datsun Ch***is, one looked dumb because you have to move the motor back. I know of one, maybe two channeled 30's cars on heavily modified Toyota truck ch***is. one "A" roadster pickup and the other a 32-4 Ford truck. both 60's - 70's Datsun and 70's 80's Toyota trucks have a good set of rails for early 30's bodies.
I built this 40 Ford Pickup (with '37 p*** sheet metal) on one of those Datsun (1967) torsion bar ch***is. 302/C4/9 inch. Worked out great.
Pictures of the frame. how much was trimmed off the front of the frame to clear the front nose piece. That round hole was and is the Dakota's radiator support mounting holes. The front edge of the frame around the hole is against the inside of the noise piece sheet metal. The frame with the motor mounted, the motor and trans are on original replacement mounts. The rear of the frame, showing how much was cut off the end. The back end of the bed is even with the back end of the frame. Both the front and rear axles are unmodified early 90s Dakota 4x4 axles.
Thanks. I have a lot of pictures through the process of this build. I bought the rolling Dakota 4x4 ch***is (first couple of pics) along with the 49 Dodge truck sheet metal (just the metal, less the tailgate, nothing else except the ***le) as a package deal. The guy had jumped through all the hoops, that frame under that sheet metal was issued a State of MO ***le as a 49 Dodge pickup. A 96 5.2 magnum (318) V8 Dakota 4x4 with 44,000 miles and a rotted frame became the drive train and parts donor. From the time the donor truck arrived at my place and I started taking it apart, until the running driving truck that still needed body work (in red hand brushed primer) was licensed was 11 months. The truck was plated June 2022 and driven through the winter. The body work and paint followed the next spring. This was just before I bought 4 new tires and installed the rear wheels that matched the ones on the front. The body work nearing the end, as far as I was concerned! Its first outing with the new paint, the WI Hot rod 100 in May 2023. I have somewhere around 30,000 miles on it since that first red primer days. I'll have to look at my numbers to figure it out for sure, the original 96 Dakota cluster that started out at 44,500 miles died around 69,000 miles, and the new speedometer sits around 3100 miles. The truck is daily year around transportation, even with salted roads, and a sometimes loaded bed.
It so happens I've been doing the same research under a more radical design programme. Early '30's, most Japanese 1-ton pickup trucks are too wide in what would be the hood area to work complete and as kitted out from the factory. Frame horns are longer, higher, bulkier, and slightly further apart than you'd want. The ifs is not a thing of beauty, nor is any of the gubbins which mounts the ifs to the frame. From about the cowl back it should work, though. Something you might want to look at is a Toyota RK110/RK111 Stout frame. The Stout was a 1.5-ton version of the Hilux, and at least the ones we had in my part of the world had front beam axles on parallel leaf springs right up to the end of production in 2000: I doubt if they sold in huge numbers anywhere in the world, though. It gets a lot more interesting once you consider the possibility of moving the axles relative to the frame. My own speculations have involved moving the axles forwards, so that the frame's kick-outs are nearer the cowl area, and the engine as in the stock position relative to the frame sits behind the front axle. I have looked at an underslung rear axle ahead of the rear frame kick-up, but the most promise is shown by turning the frame back to front and pinching what becomes the front part to something approaching early Ford proportions. All this because the local regulatory situation simplifies a build if you've got a pre-1995 frame with a VIN stamped on it to start with.
I remember reading that. It caused me to go down a rabbit trail at the local junkyards! In the end, I just had to much other stuff on my plate at the time.
As Ned noted, Toyota trucks may be the closest thing, but stateside you may not find a fitting model. To the nay sayers ... Prewar Toyo 'A' engines were licensed 207ci Chevy Stovebolts. Pre-war/thru-war Toyota 'B' engines were metric'd 207 Stovebolts. Post-war Toyota updated the 'B' engine further launching Toyotas 'F' engine which was based on GMC 236/3.9 I6. Which was til'75 and then the similar 2F(4.2) from 75-~90. At a glance they look similar to a 235/261. These engines would probably only be found stateside under hood of an earlier inLand Cruiser, which in itself would be cost prohibitive to use as parts unless you could find a good ch***is/wrecked body variant for a very good price. Might be cheaper looking at an 80s/90s Jeep ch***is instead. Hilux/Tacomas had small 'R' 4 bangers and the V6s. Not the open room the FJ40s have.
The Jalopy Journal
