Anyone ever put a SBF in an S10 frame?

In the near future I plan to subframe my shoebox with an S10 frame I'm picking up. I know it seems ass backwards as they make bolt in kits for an SBC, but I'm sticking with a 302. I like my SBFs dammit! My question is has anyone done this? Oil pan? Headers? Any obscure info so I can start parts hunting if need be. I plan to Z it 2.5 inches just like in Shiny's (29EHV8) tech. Not sure how much that will affect. This is my first subframe and I'm open for any and all ideas.

 

Ditto

 

I look at it this way. For a very nominal fee and maybe a wknd or 2 worth of figuring, I get balljoints, discs, power steering, ease of parts availability, and all sorts of aftermarket options on the cheap. Compared to an MII (which I've only heard horror stories on in shoeboxes) or a Jamco setup, I save not only cash up front for original purchase, but also in parts down the road. I'm pretty much set on it, but I do appreciate the opinion and will chew it over as you 2 are not the first people to mention this to me. Thanks.

Anyone else?

 

Here's my take:

If it's all rebuilt, and ready to go, cool. If it's a used and wore out frame clip, you're not really coming out all that far ahead if you eventually have to replace the upper & lower ball joints, inner & outer tie rods, bearings, discs, calipers, hoses, steering box...anything else + realign stuff. Something to think about...I'm with you on the parts down the road idea.

 

I too, am with Ryan on this one.

In your position I'd be real interested to see what the geometry and layout of the original Ford stuff was verses the Chev stuff you intend to use, before I went to the trouble of doing a frame graft that also needed to be Zd in the process.

I'd almost bet a Mustang II setup on a crossmember designed specifically for a shoebox would easier to do, and less traumatic to the car. And if you are the one doing it, you won't have to deal with someone else's poor craftsmanship and engineering (subject of a recent HAMB post).

C4 Corvette pieces (uprights, aluminum control arms, steering rack, stabilizer bar, crossmember) are another option and the prices have gotten fairly reasonable if you buy everything as a unit.

Although I'm not advocating it, lose the stock front crossmember, box and Z the front rails enough, and you could probably stuff an aftermarket tubular late model Mustang K frame under there designed to handle like, well, a late model Mustang, and carry a small block Ford from the get go.

 

a couple of mentions here of a Mustang 11 setup on a shoebox not involving cutting off the front part of the frame. I'd be interested in hearing how a Mustang 11 front suspension can be mounted on an early 50's Ford frame that way. Anybody?

 

A buddy of mine has a 36 Ford on an S-10 chassis with a 302, so it can be done.

 

Got a 351W/C4 in an S-10 frame mounting a 1946 Ford in my shop and had a '40 Ford ute with an S10 chassis and 302W/C4 in there too. Both of these conversions were done by a former GM Development Engineer who really knows his stuff. But these are full frame swaps and required floor pan mods.

I would beware the cheap get in price only to get bitten when replacing the worn out junk. I have to concur with the Plan B advocates, besides, subframe and front clip jobs are soooo 1980s/1990s .....

 

i was going to clip my 51 with an s10 frame <i even bought the clip!. but i started looking and calling around and i think jamco is going to come up with newer less expensive solution that will get all of the benefits but less hassle. just my .02

 

i was going to buy an s10 clip but i think jamco is comming out with newer product that should be a lot less hassle than clipping the frame.

 

you know i have been toying around building a subframe and do the mustang II suspension on my 49 Ford but the argument that keeps popping up in my head is the same one you mentioned Ryan. it really does have a good design and you can get the ball joints and dropped spindles for it and why would i want to cut a perfectly good frame in half? i guess my big gripe about these cars is the steering box, after owning 15 or so shoeboxes between my dad and i to me that is the weak point to these cars. thats why i am leaning on putting a rack in it (i know not traditional) instead of the volvo steering box conversion, or the factory box.
but i will have to agree with the other post dont put a sub frame in thats just asking for problems down the road.

 

I see no problems with putting a ford motor in an S-10. Seen it before, I think you'll find it relatively easy. As for subframing with the S-10 clip, well that's your choice. As long as the width is good (you don't want them wheels stickin way out), go for it. Do quality work, good bracing, measure a bunch and you'll be just fine.

 

How do you figure that?

Stock shoebox steering boxes are sloppy junk, I dont think between the cars I actually did and the parts cars or ones I bought and just sold (8 in total 49-51) I have ever felt one that was tight. The gearing is meshed on an odd angle I believe which I hear is the cause. Brakes are small and under the floor single jar master is equally junk. Not to mention its STUPID design with the clutch pivot going through it.

You can upgrade brakes lets say, but will be into the parts $400 or so without having a booster and master, and at that will only have front discs. Then still the ass manual steering the car came with.

Then, Mustang 2, well, thats a ton of bread. Even though I would imagine your frontt sheetmetal mounts dont change, you are still going to have to 86 the crossmember and will be cutting/welding the original frame reguardless...and replacement parts I would be hard pressed to figure would cost less than 80s 2wd S10 counterparts. I will say though the only Mustang 2 Ive seen personally installed was a 53 Chevy a friend has, but I cant see it being much different workwise.

So, for maybe $300 or so you can buy a complete S10, scrap what you dont need to get all your money back (Free parts) and have a ready to install subframe with cheap replacement parts and tried and true configured suspension and steering.

 

Again, it's all about the geometry.

I can't say to the S10 stuff particularly, maybe it's the cat's meow, but I remember in the not so distant past when Camaro Subs (a true sub and not just the front of a frame hacked off) and Dodge Aspen K frames were all the rage. The Camaro has crappy geometry and Chrysler figured out using the torsion bars as locating links isn't such a hot idea, either. Can you band aid either one of things and make them better? Perhaps, but a frame graft is only slightly less extensive than a complete frame replacement and maybe you can get to where you want to be with a less invasive procedure. Or, if you're determined to toss everything ahead of the firewall away and go from scratch, why not do the needed research and start out with the best you can?

As far as the original Ford stuff, although it was Ford's first year of independent suspension, it's just as susceptible to upgrading as any other. Springs, shocks, bushings, big stabilizer bar, a better steering box, etc., all possible without the trama of a frame graft.

I would guess all we're trying to say here is, if the lack of "motor mount kit" is giving you pause, maybe you should consider a simpler option that could give you what you want.

 

after a quick look at my `95 S-10 with a 4.3 , i think the front sump of the oil pan on the SBF might cause some problems with the crossmember. i know you can get a rear sump pan for them. do some measuring before you commit

i'm working a a `49 ford woodie and used the Jim Weimer Rod Garage Mustang II IFS kit. 350/350 chevy .it went in well , but a lot of welding

 

forgot to mention....Fatman makes a mustang II stub also

what's nice about both of them is that they have the crossmember and mount for front saddle that the sheet metal bolts to. the front sheet metal went on real easy and fit great with the Rod Garage kit

 

Hey 3 window, I dont know what a rear sump 302 would be in, maybe a truck? But I do know a ton of applications had two sump, Foxbody Stang, Town Cars/Marquis, stuff like that. If you are familiar with those how do you think one of them would fit?

 

Rear sump only on first generation Bronco's, last original stuff in 1976. You can get aftermarket replacement pans and sumps to do the $$$$same thing.
At least with the MII crossmembers, the rack bolts to the x-member. The s-10, the steering box and idler arms both bolt to a position criital point at the inside of each framerail.
Scott's Hot Rods makes a very adjustable (alignment) IFS that you can choose to have the rack front or rear of the crossmember, beefy crossmember, very nice control arms. Again, $$$$$$$$!

 

Rear sump 302 pans were on Ford vans until 94

 

http://www.progressiveautomotive.com/sweet.htm

 

I just installed a 69 z28 clip in a 59 f100 with a 87 302 factory oil pan and used chevy motor mounts blocked up on 2x3 tubing. just had to notch the factory engine brackets to fit the 80s style chevy motor mounts.

 

I've had a couple of shoebox's with S-10 fronts. They work great! First one was butted in,sat a little under stock height. The second we staggered the thickness of the frame;sat right. The steering box gets in the grill area slightly,but not noticeable. You can't put in a POS mk11 without straight rails like a fatman clip. Its narrow enough you can turn it without scrubbing. GM frontend parts are cheap to do a rebuild too.

 

No but I did put a SBC in a Ranger frame that had a chevy body on it lol!

 

Very true, noted. I'm getting some new stuff with the frame, calipers, rotors, etc. But suspension stuff is not guaranteed. However I still think thast buying all new suspension parts knuckle to knuckle with balljoints would bring me in cheaper than any MII even woth the ourchase price of the S10.

Any more info?

$$$$, $$$$, and more $$$. All that stuff adds up. Go read Brickster's tech on a Volvo box in a shoebox. Like Unionvillehaunt mentioned they are the wekaest link in a shoebox's steering system. Then go look at Fatman or Jamco's disc kits and the prices. I could buy a subframed shoebox for that price.

I'm not asking for a "motor mount kit." Read my original post. I'm asking if the bastard will fit with oil pan, headers, and the like. Simpler most often means more expensive. I'd rather put more effort into the car than more $$$$.

So you used the 80s chevy bottom half and Ford top half?? Interesting. They fit widthwise in the factory Chevy locations?

 

Nice! From what Shiney says, it was the easiest, best fitting subframe he's done. And I get the impression he's done quite a few. The outside frame widths work together, the S10 happens to be a little thicker, maybe an inch or so it seems. The track width also works very well and doesn't give it the subframed look at all.

 

SBFs always have an oil pan sump of some kind up front, simply because that's where the oil pump is. The fact it hangs 3ish inches lower than the first main cap means the pan has to be able to clearance it.

Rear sump would be what they typically call "double sump" pans and come on all Fox-bodied (1980s pass car) Fords.

Center sump came on E150s for nearly all years it had a 302.

Front sump is generally early stuff that doesn't use a rack and pinion, like Mustang/Falcon.


I'm not against an S-10 chassis in an early car, but I would definitely measure the track width. I can't STAND seeing front-wheel drive offset wheels bolted on to keep from rubbing when you turn out of your driveway.

The S-10 suspension and drivetrain stuff is cheap and easy to get, so have at it. SBFs are so narrow that you don't have many clearance issues with exhaust, steering boxes, and master cylinders, and of course the distributor isn't back there getting in the way of the firewall. Fits fine in my '57 Plymouth.

 

Come again!!!?!?!??!!

Can you park it next to 57Joe's '57 Ford with a 383 Mopar in it?

 

I'm telling you, it's a great engine for swaps. It's little tiny, and you can run one from real mild to real crazy without spending a ton of money.

Clears the torsion bars no problem.

 

Yes they are, i talked to them last week......Tubular controlled arms. basically a all in one kit. Now I need to find a power steering box that will fit my 53?