Frame swap 1951 studebaker truck

on your 1950 you can use fatman tables they have 2 inch wider then the s-10
http://www.fatmanfab.com/catalogpage.php?page=34

 

Hmm, never woulda guessed that the truck wasn't on a newer frame.

But never the less, you can still run the 2R on a later dually frame. A full size Chevy is the same width at the front fenders whether its a dually, 1/2, or 3/4 ton model. There are a couple guys I know of over on STT that have M5 bodies on '73-'87 GM truck chassis. They use Class Glass Perf fiberglass fenders that are 2" wider than stock to cover the tires.

I want to do a similar project to yours someday. I have an '81 F350 flatbed that needs a new cab, & I'd like to find a 2R to swap onto it just for kicks.

 

If you were going for more of a pickup look, the Dakota might be a better swap than an S10.

 

What exactly makes the S-10 frame a weak frame? I understand what you wanna do, and I respect it but I'm just curious.

 

From the smiley face at the end of his post, I'd guess it was a joke. Comparing a one ton chassis to an S10 is kinda funny.

 

You do realize that 73-87 1 ton frame is just c-channel with a handful of cross members. an S-10 frame is boxed from the front frame horns to mid way thru the cab and is very easily boxed. The big differences are the suspension and you can change that with stiffer springs. But then again what do I know I've only built about 30 vehicles using the S-10 frame.

 

You may consider finding someone parting out a newer step van. Same track width as a 1 ton pickup but w/longer wheel base. A guy locally sells the driving frame for $1800 with usually less than 80k miles.

 

Dakota if your wheelbase is 112. Early standard cabs are 112 and nearly identical in track width.

 

I think my friend did this with a 54 stude and some kinda chevy 4wd frame. He just took it off that and put it on an s-10 frame. An its still ugly.

 

LOL- never thought I'd see someone throwing a temper tantrum over an offhanded remark about an S10 on the HAMB. You go, girl.

 

Look, no one is throwing a temper tantrum over this. I respect what the guy wants to do. Like I said I was just wondering!

 

that look good
but what will be the best frame 1987-1996 or 1997-2004 ?

of what i find the truck is 61 inch of front track width so that is almost the same as R5

and the frame is stronger then a s-10

 

i think that i will change my plans if a dakota frame fits good on a r5
because after looking at this truck i m in love with it ( low rider)

 

You probably want 96 or earlier. You also have to consider the wheel lug pattern of the Dakota. I think it's 90 and newer has funky small 6 lug which would make finding wheels tough. The 90 and earlier are the same 5 lug as the Ford - 5 on 4 1/2. If you need more that 112" for wheel base, you can go with the extra cab or long bed then shorten it. I'm looking at a 95 now for my 47 Stude. The rotors can be changed to the 5 lug then I guess find an older rear end or have the 6 lug redrilled if you wanted 5 lug..

 

the 6 bolt is from 1994
so it better to find a 1987-1993 to keep the frame as is

and it should be easy to find a older donor truck cheap

i will start to look at those frame to see how they are

 

mine sits really low. I have stock frame with a camaro clip, hopefully this year i can get 4 link install.

 

mine was 3/4 ton, now its on a 96 chevy caprice

 

You have pics of that?

 

pics

 

Like the stance. I would have thought the caprice frame to be too wide. Did you use the chevy floor/firewall?
Maybe I shouldn't have sold my 95 roadmaster

 

ha ha, its almost to skiny for the fenders! yes caprice floor, firewall, abs brakes, powersterring, ac/ heater, rides like a grandma's car

 

Hello All,

Great thread, just what I was looking for. I am just about to start my project, a 53 Studebaker 1/2 ton farm truck. I'm in the process of looking for a 2001 to 2003 S-10 donor frame.

In my research so far I have seen various frame swaps, mustang II kits, and camaro clips that turned out good and some not so good.

Anyone have more pics that shows their progress or additional info they can share about their S-10 frame swap?

Regards,

 

What model year camaro front clip? That is important.

 

How did you get it that low in the rear ? Also what year camaro front clip?

 

And looks like Grandmas..............never mind

 

go to my albums on the hamb and see how i did mine. sits on a 87 one ton dually. you will need the big truck fenders to pull it off and notch the firewall for a big block.

 

this one has 79 firebird front and rear

 

I put my 1949 R5 on a 2001 Dodge Dakota. ( Photos of swap: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roadk...ref=ts#!/album.php?aid=228022&id=310837050827 )

I am shopping for a new donor car now... I recently moved cross country and only brought the Studebaker body. I am looking for a mid '70 Jaguar this time around.

 

I have used an 85 S-10 4x4 chassis and it seems to set pretty well. the only real issue i've had is the bed has to be modified as the long bed is to long and the short bed is to short so i'm making a just right bed for mine.
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/album.php?albumid=24594

 

I have had my '53 R-5 since 1964. When I was 16 I rebuilt and swapped a '61 merc 390, FM3, and a 9" rear end. 12 mpg and burn the tires to the ground.
Between then and now a lot has happened. It has seen a '63 econoline straight axle with mustang discs, a '64 galaxy frame graft, and an'81 LTD frame graft (not too bad actually). I then put it on a '76 F-150 4X4 frame but the track is too wide and it started to look like some sort of Billy Bob rig so that never got finished. Many other jobs, wives, houses and projects always managed to put off doing my baby right but time is running out and if I don't get moving on it, I'll be too old and decrepit to finish it.
The Studebaker is deceptive in that it looks like a mid size truck but it's sort of not. The cab is narrow like Ford ranger narrow or back seat of a '61 merc narrow but the track is wide. 61 or 62 inches wide. The wheelbase is 112" so it makes a tight stable package. The aforementioned parts were from battle cruisers so that should guide your frame choice. I have decided on a '97 or newer Dakota frame and front suspension. There was a major re-design then and the frame has 50% more torsional rigidity, the suspension has better articulation and a tighter turning radius. The track was also bumped to 61". Might have to section it for wheelbase but no big deal. I'll either swap the rotors to the 5 lug or adapt some '98 crown vic P.I. 12" rotors and calipers. I will then graft a '97 T-bird IRS rear suspension with 10' discs, and an 8.8 3.27 locker diff. That has a 62" track. I'll either run my trusty 300" Ford 6 or a Mercedes 300 turbo diesel with a 4 spd auto. I want it as a daily driver with outstanding handling & braking with an engine that I can afford to feed. I've done a veg-oil conversion on a VW so that's why the diesel.