Register now to get rid of these ads!

49 – 54 Chevy car front end in a 50s Ford or Chevy 1/2 ton???

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by D-Russ, Aug 9, 2012.

  1. D-Russ
    Joined: Mar 15, 2006
    Posts: 1,749

    D-Russ
    Member

    I was reading the thread about raising the front end of a solid [rear] axle Vette and it got me thinking about the versatility and potential for 49 – 54 Chevy car front suspensions.

    They install as a complete unit, so I'm wondering if they would be a good inexpensive alternative to the standard Mustang II in a 48 – 55 Ford or Chevy 1/2 ton pickup.

    Any thoughts, opinions or experience with this swap?

    How wide is the Chevy car front end?
     
  2. R Pope
    Joined: Jan 23, 2006
    Posts: 3,309

    R Pope
    Member

    They used to get swapped into everything, before the Corvair came along, and of course the MII. Good if somewhat dated front end, king pins not ball joints and need grease regularly. Disc brake conversion kits are out there, actually in my opinion superior to MII in a heavier vehicle. They were in 'Vettes until 1963!
     
  3. Add 53-62 vett to the mix. I put a 49 chev unit in my 54 GMC up dated with 54 chev up rights and a disc brake conversion. vette springs and sway bar. I got mine free because the owner wanted Mustang ll for it's independent front suspension. go figure huh!!
    Dropped the front of my truck over 8 inches for a total cost of $450 for the disc brakes, the rest was given to me
    I have to add it was simple and fit perfect. I haven't really pushed it as alternate swap because it's not on the road. but it will surely be a better drive than a dual spring straight axle
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012
  4. 49ratfink
    Joined: Feb 8, 2004
    Posts: 24,888

    49ratfink
    Member
    from California

    based on what?
     
  5. 49ratfink
    Joined: Feb 8, 2004
    Posts: 24,888

    49ratfink
    Member
    from California

    How heavy is a 49–54 Chevy? I'd imagine it's heavier than a Mustang II or Pinto – I agree, the Chevy front end is probably better suited for a heavier vehicle like a 50s truck.


    people look at the Pinto and make incorrect ***umtions. smallblock powered 1949 - 1954 Chevrolet p***enger cars use 4 cylinder springs with MII. what does that tell you?

    MII uses the same ball joints as full size fords, they are bigger than Camaro ball joints used in clips people like to use to ruin thier cars.

    if your dislike of MII based suspensions is from the size and ****pyness of the original cars you need to do some research.
     
  6. D-Russ
    Joined: Mar 15, 2006
    Posts: 1,749

    D-Russ
    Member

    Uhhh, I'm doing research with this thread. :confused: So you could help by telling me how much your 49 Chevy weighs so I can compare it to the weight of a Mustang II and/or Pinto.

    To be clear, I have no issue with Mustang II suspension kits. I'm sure they work just peachy. I started this thread because I've just recently learned that 49–54 Chevy suspensions bolt in. So I'm investigating them as an alternative to the more modern MII or Dakota swaps for IFS. That's all.
     
  7. RayMiller
    Joined: Aug 9, 2005
    Posts: 463

    RayMiller
    Member

    I would say 4500 for an estimate on the weight.
     
  8. MEDDLER1
    Joined: Jun 1, 2006
    Posts: 1,590

    MEDDLER1
    Member

    Man I had never thought of using that suspension for those trucks but damn I will remember it for next time! Im keeping mine in my car, I feel it will be better in the long run anyhow and hell most people I talk to make the swap because of the steering. They do make kits that use astro van boxes for these suspensions as well as rack&pinion kits too. The next truck I do though may go this route.....
     
  9. I'd say more like 3500.
     
  10. D-Russ
    Joined: Mar 15, 2006
    Posts: 1,749

    D-Russ
    Member

    For comparison's sake, the Mustang II curb weight was curb weight was 2,650–2,900 pounds depending on body style and options.

    The Pinto weighed in at 2,015–2,270 pounds.

    So the much loved Mustang II front suspension was designed by Ford engineers for at least 1,740 pounds if you consider a 60/40 weight distribution.

    At the lightest weight quoted here in this thread for a 49 Chevy, using the same weight distribution, the 49–54 suspension was designed to carry 2,100 pounds.

    With that said, I didn't research the actual weight distribution for either donor car.
     
  11. Cabbie
    Joined: Aug 26, 2003
    Posts: 198

    Cabbie
    Member
    from DeLand, FL

    I have been told that the only difference between a corvette front end, and the regular car (Belair, 210, 150) were some Caster shims that go between the frame and the front end bolts like a little wedge. I wouldnt waste my time with a person claiming it was a corvette piece, instead buy one from a Belair guy for a quarter the price.
     
  12. 55 dude
    Joined: Jun 19, 2006
    Posts: 9,357

    55 dude
    Member

    we used to install them all the time and they work just fine. updated with disc's makes them safer i think.
     
  13. Mrmowerguy
    Joined: Jul 1, 2012
    Posts: 16

    Mrmowerguy
    Member

    What about the power steering aspect? I upgraded my 48 Chevy 1/2 ton to MII so I could have power steering. Is there a power steering upgrade that is affordable for the 49-53 Chevy car? Maybe I'll look at that for my '41 Chevy Sedan. I did my MII upgrade on the cheap and probably still have $700 in it and that was getting a free 77 Mustang II for free. BTW - A '77 MII with power steering uses ball joints with bigger studs and they cost twice what earlier or non power steering spindles use. Just be aware. I wasn't and I never read that in any magazine.
     
  14. D-Russ
    Joined: Mar 15, 2006
    Posts: 1,749

    D-Russ
    Member

    I know it sounds crazy, but I don't want power steering ... or power brakes. I'll retain the stock, big diameter steering wheel, so I don't think PS will be necessary (for me).

    Here's a thread from another forum on the swap I'm describing:

    http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=294935
     
  15. fastcar1953
    Joined: Oct 23, 2009
    Posts: 4,145

    fastcar1953
    Member

    search 54 chevy car ifs on 53 chevy truck. don't know how to link it here. i will bump it to top. hope it helps.
     
  16. D-Russ
    Joined: Mar 15, 2006
    Posts: 1,749

    D-Russ
    Member

  17. fastcar1953
    Joined: Oct 23, 2009
    Posts: 4,145

    fastcar1953
    Member

    some bad pics in my albums of front crossmember. may help. hard to read the yardstick for measurements.
     
  18. RayMiller
    Joined: Aug 9, 2005
    Posts: 463

    RayMiller
    Member

    Yea Richard your probably right that's why I put estimate. I know my 55 weighs 4000 with no interior so I weighed up. But I'd say 35 to 4 is good.
     
  19. MEDDLER1
    Joined: Jun 1, 2006
    Posts: 1,590

    MEDDLER1
    Member

    There is a kit that uses an astro van box that mounts to the top of the frame in the same fashion with brackets. you have to cut your column and bush the end and connect it with a new joint. This is the best way I have seen to do it in my opinion. I saw it on another forum a chevy one. Also there is a couple kits for rack & pinion too but it looks like they hang kinda low.
     
  20. I gave a '52 Biz coupe front to the s****per after being told nobody wanted them even for free. You can probably get one for s**** value. Post a want ad in the H.A.M.B. cl***ifieds.
     
  21. Lone Star Mopar
    Joined: Nov 2, 2005
    Posts: 4,213

    Lone Star Mopar
    Member


    yup, people just trash them around here, Iv'e got an extra one laying in the back yard. I'd bet a case of beer could buy one with no problem..
     
  22. SLAMIT
    Joined: Sep 9, 2002
    Posts: 929

    SLAMIT
    Member

    here are the wieghts of a 49 chevy. lighter than one would expect. I still think that I like the idea of the stock suspension best for a nostalgia sake but the MII based stuff is far superior in so many ways. If you can afford it that is the way to go. otherwise for a free core the chevy stuff is availiable. but rebuilding one can get pricey.
     

    Attached Files:

  23. el Scotto
    Joined: Mar 3, 2004
    Posts: 4,722

    el Scotto
    Member
    from Tracy, CA

    I'd though about this before when I had my '57 but never researched it too much. Sounds like a great alternative!!
     
  24. mopar362000
    Joined: Feb 14, 2008
    Posts: 100

    mopar362000
    Member

    Why would u buy a must ii crossmember.Get Elopaco post off here & make ur own.The engine sits forward in must/pinto than in the older vehicle.That takes wt. off the nose.U can build crossmember for less than 30 dollars.Jimmie King
     
  25. 49ratfink
    Joined: Feb 8, 2004
    Posts: 24,888

    49ratfink
    Member
    from California


    "nobody wanted them even for free".:confused:

    I parted a 52 and a 53. the only front suspension part that got s****ped was one crossmember. I sold each part individually, with the exception of the spindles which were sold as a pair. I even sold the used wheel bearings. on the 52 I kept track of how much I made, and remember counting up what the suspension alone went for. I got close to $300.00 out of just the 52...

    while you can for sure get them for free, I'll never be the guy giving one away.
     
  26. 49ratfink
    Joined: Feb 8, 2004
    Posts: 24,888

    49ratfink
    Member
    from California


    the Mustang/Pinto motor being further forward puts more weight on the nose.
     
  27. mopar362000
    Joined: Feb 14, 2008
    Posts: 100

    mopar362000
    Member

    Takes wt off the nose when u use it in the truck.Jimmie King
     
  28. gassersteve
    Joined: Mar 31, 2007
    Posts: 1,131

    gassersteve
    Member

    I got a set of hubs and drums for $40 from a 52 car. Easier than switching out the whole front end. Guess i am lazy
     
  29. I thought the 52-54 were the same, desired on early chev front ends due to better brakes. Are the 54 spindles different? Have a 48 Fleetline tudor that I am upgrading to 52-54 for the brakes and tube shocks. I believe 49 was the first year for tube shocks.
     
  30. the reasons that I switched to 54 raised spindles (52-54) was the extra inch drop with the later uprights and the self energising brakes.

    when I went looking to rebuild the brakes, drums shoes ect I discovered that for an extra 100 bucks I could install a disc kit. I didn't plan on disc's never had them on my last 200+ cars. never had double master cylinders in a couple million miles of accident free driving. but it seemed sensible dollar wise this time. I was given a power brake conversion to go with it.

    the snowball effect now I'm thinking I need power steering. getting to be a ***** in my old age lol.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.