Bullet nose Stude on a G body chassis. Doable?

Anyone ever do this swap? My main concern is steering box clearance. Any advice would be appreciated.

 

I have a G-body frame sitting in my yard. I could take a few pictures and measurements if they would help. Tell me what you want to see and I'll try to get it for you.

 

Thanks Oldsub. I have the frame specs in my ch***is book,(looks like a good fit, other than length) but it doesn't show the steering box. If you could measure from the ft. axle center line to the center of the box, that would really help.

 

Sure. The only question is will I make it home before dark...

What specs does your ch***is book include? I have an outline drawing of the frame with metric measurements, but nothing I'd call specs...

I'm emailing myself at home to help my aged memory.

 

Thanks! My books are old, and were missing a few. This one is KLM, and has both metric and standard measurments, under car view and datum. I can get specs for most newer stuff on line. Not sure how far back they go. I'll probably go ahead and buy the doner car I found either way. One of my kids needs a driver for a while, and this car has a 305, which is the motor I want to run in the Stude, regardless of what frame I end up using.

 

I laid a straighedge across the suspension at the zerks on the upper ball joints. Not exactly the axle centerline but very close. Nine inches from that line to the rear facing surface of the steering box, and nineteen from the line to the front of the steering box.

I took some photos of what I measured and can send them along if you like.

This was a '78 Monte Carlo with a 305 and a turbo 350. I still have the motor and transmission along with the frame and suspension.

Is it easy for you to scan the page with the measurements and email it to me?

 

Thanks Sub, PM your address, I'll copy the spec sheet and send it to you.

 

One thought--the G body depends on a strong body shell as its center structure; It has m***ive front and rear suspension sections connected by downright flimsy tin framerails. I would box or otherwise reinforce the rails if using them under an early body.

 

The g-body frame I have is boxed, but you are right that it seems flimsy. I've been considering ways to strengthen it.

 

The ch***is itself is not horrible. It has a very sizable cross member for the ****** too. Plus the stamping in the frame rail adds to the strength. The biggest problem with these ch***is - at least around here - is the rust to beat the band. The rear frame horns get very thin. Then the other thing is all the stock car guys are cutting them up for IMCA modifieds.
I have an 81 Malibu and it stands up just fine to the blown small block.
I have a buddy that just finsihed a Starlite Coupe. They put Mustang II and a Ford 8". Said he would not do it again. The MII was kinda tough - he does a lot of 40-48 with MII so I believe him.

 

Thanks for all the replys. I will have to lengthen the ch***is 12" so I was planing reinforce the side rails, or possibly replace them. This car is going to run a stock 305, and just be an everyday cruzer, so It should be plenty tuff enough.

 

Would the ch***is from an Ex-Cab S-10 or long box work any better? The only big difference is the parallel leaf vs. the coil/4bar of the G-Body.
Just thinking it may gain you the length. I have seen guys use the Caprice/Impala ch***is too but I think it would be too wide for what you are doing.

 

[ QUOTE ]
I will have to lengthen the ch***is 12" so I was planing reinforce the side rails, or possibly replace them.

[/ QUOTE ]

My plan has been to replace the side rails using the frame from the truck I'm planning to plant on this frame. I've been thinking of it as subframing both ends...

How do you plan to lengthen yours?

 

Oldsub, my books only went back to 79, so I'll send you a copy of the frame specs for the 79 Monte.
How I handle the rails depends on how the Stude floor fits the frame. Pretty good chance I'll replace the side rails with tube. Also possible I may use the doner cars floor, and maybe the even the firewall. I need to get the ch***is and the Stude body together, and go from there. The reason for the G body rather than the S-10 is that I want to use everything possible from one doner. Motor, (I like 305's), trans A/C plumbing etc. Either way(s-10 or G body), I'd have to change length, which is no big deal. I also like the G bodys rear suspension. The guy backed out of the sale last night, and I ended up buying Taurus for my daughter today(not my first choice either, but it was a good deal) so I'll have to wait till after Xmas to spend more money on the doner. Not a big deal, I got plenty of projects to work on!

 

'79 can't be too different than '78, I'll be happy to have those pages. Thanks!

Floor on my g-body was too rusty to be usable and would not have adapted to my truck very easily. Keep posting on this project. I'm interested in watching your progress!

 

After reading this thread, I have a question. I am looking to put a 48 stude car on a s-10 frame. The S-10 that I measured is a regular cab and their wheel bases are within one inch of the same and the width also matches up. Wouldn't this be the easier way to go vs. extending the frame on the g-body or am I missing something. My studebaker is just in the planning stage so I am just throwing some ideas around. Thanks. Neal

 

Hello Tinbender, am now building a 51 Stude convert for a friend. After checking a Motors manual seen that a 55 chev had same track and wheelbase. Stude frame was rusted bad, so a 55 more door chev was bought for 100 bucks and rest parted out for 150.
In order not to have nosebleeds i z'ed the frame seven inchesfrom toeboards to kickup at rear axle. This got me a low stance while using stock suspension rebuilt. No price to pay having cut springs or blocks regarding the ride.
The floor was roached in the Stude so a X member and body mounts were easily fabed as we go. Caddy 500 is engine , and i recessed firewall four inches to have lots of room around raditor area plus setback will help balance and handling. Had to trim inter fender panels to clear front A arms.
Fun project and not hard to do, maybe get some ideas from whats happing here in Little Egypt.

 

[ QUOTE ]
I also like the G bodys rear suspension.



[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. The El Caminos (78-87)are supposed to have longer 117" wheelbase & stronger frames.

 

I have done a lot of G body stuff and do not remember El Camino or anything else having a different wheel base. However, I hate to rely on my memory. I have the ch***is books from GM on 79 and 81. I will do some checking tonight at home and report back. If it will help anyone??

 

Thanks again for all the replys and help. The ch***is books we have at school are old and incomplete.I'd be interested in the specs on the El Camino. One of my books says the wagons are the same, so I would ***ume the El C. would be too. Although length is not much of an issue.Lengthening, or shortening a frame is no big deal. The most important thing for me is to find a complete running car with everything I want in one package. I have way to many things going on, so I need to do this one on the cheap! Hell,I really shouldn't even be building ANOTHER car at all

Wandering; nothing wrong with the S10, I just like the rear suspension in the G body. Plus they came with a V8.

 

[ QUOTE ]
If it will help anyone??

[/ QUOTE ]

It would help me. I've been following this post quite intently. I'd especially like to know the front and rear treads on the Malibu, Grand Prix, Cutl***, Skylark and El Camino. Other research I've done has indicated that the El Camino has a longer ch***is than the p***enger cars (including wagons).

Also, I believe that the g-bodies were the same from 1978 to 1983, but can someone double-check that?

One last thing; can someone elaborate on the difficulty of using a MII suspension? Were the problems exclusive to the Studebaker sheetmetal or because of the narrow track? Thanks.

 

The guy I know that did the MII in the Starlite Coupe said it just fit bad as far as mating to the stock ch***is. But he is comparing this to the 46-48 Fords that practically fall in place - his words.
I will dig out the books tonight at look at the G-body ch***is specs. Hell I can go to the garage a measure my Malibu but the data in the books has always been good.
I will update tonight.

 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the g-bodies were the same from 1978 to 1983, but can someone double-check that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was all the way to '87, but I could be wrong... Mine is a '78.

My reason for using the g-body was two-fold. First the front track is right for my '54 Chevy pickup project, though the S-10 is the same, and second, for this project I'd like the coil sprung four-link setup the the g-body has (this is suppose to be a driver for my wife).

I might use an S-10 frame for my Suburban project.

 

i just finish a 55 stude, that The customer bought a bolt on front suspension from some idiot in the North carolina. The kit took lots of re woking to get it to work OK. The front axle ceter line is way forward of where you would locate the engine. In all of the subframe swaps that I have done the steering box has always been a big issue. There usually becomes intereference with the radiator and core support and bumper brackets. I have just started using the Chris Alston street front ends under cars. It is a great set up. If you are capable of doing all the frame work that was discussed it should be just as easy deal. I like to modify the existing frame to the specs that I need for ride height instaed of trying to morf two extremely different cars togther. Then all the body mounts line up the door align out better and things just fit with alittle more organization. Well that is just my opinion and opinion are like noses evey one has one just some are bigger then others. Rodger

Still workin on the intro with pics.

 

Ironworks, you make good points, but keep in mind this is going to be an ultra low buck project. It's a 100 dollar 4 door. The whole idea behind the frame swap is to get everything I need in one cheap purchase. I'll have less money in this car than most street rodders put into their aftermarket front suspensions. The only reason I'm building it at all is to satisfy the wifes desire for a more family frendly car. All my other projects are two seaters. I'll save the big money for "my" rides. Don't get me wrong, your right if this was my dream car, but it's just a driver. It should still look pretty cool parked next to my Stude P/U though.

 

Tinbender- the G body is a tad wider than an S10 but I am not sure if the car would be narrow enough for a bullet stude...almost every thing Ive seen an S10 under was not a very good fit as the track width is too narrow to look right from the front.
I used a frame and floor of a Malibu wagon under my 60 Rambler American Sed delivery.it worked but had to change it to set low as I like.....
it turned out to be just wide enough to cause trouble....point being how wide is a stude???
also would a rack/pinion [mounted in front] solve the dilemma?

 

the only real difference between the 78 and later g-bodies was the front spindles... the snout is about a inch shorter on the 78 than the rest. I think the g-body would be good for swaps because you can get dropped spindles, and there's tons of springs avalible for the front, because they're shared a**** the g-body, S10, and camaros. You can make them handle as hard or soft as you want, you can get fast-steering boxes, tons of different sway bars... it's an easily modifed ch***is.

 

Choprods, I was hopeing you'd post. The Stude is 59". If memory serves the G bodies are 58" ??
I'll be running steel wheels with not to of wide tires. It'll have to sit low to make me happy, but I want to keep it real driveable, so it won't be stupid low like my P/U The rails should sit just inside the rockers, so if I have to, I can channel it without too much intrusion into the p***enger compartment.
From the measurements Sub gave me the steering will be fine. If not I'll get back to you about the rack conversion. I've heard that's pretty easy.

 

choprods made the whole floor swap look easy,and for those of you that didn't get to see the car it was killer.He's to modest about how good he is with a plasma cutter and welder.

 

I did learn this that was a suprise to me........when I measured the width of the Malibu track it appeared to be workable.
Then what I did not realize was this- when the DONOR ch***is was unloaded [as in no drivetrain]..it measured about what Tinbender suggested.
But after it is loaded and additionally LOWERED the track width was effectively increased by an amount that was not Viable in my case.
Picture the lower A arms as a peice that travels on and "ARC"-
At the unloaded stage the arms were pointing downwards at their outer ends thus they were a narrower width than AFTER they were loaded which caused a more HORIZONTAL plane -which would result in the ends being a WIDER distance apart resulting in the wider track .
My point here is that in the original track width of your donor car it may be a situation where the A arms are oriented in such a way that they are not as wide a track as would result AFTER they were installed in a LOWERED position on your older car. Im confusing me!