Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crossbreed...Dakota and Forward Look?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    What chaps my ass is when you have a quiet exhaust but they can't find a mufler or something that looks like a muffler. Had an inspector refuse the truck because of this and then tells me if a cop looks under there and doesn't see one, he's going to come back on him. Asked him who in their right mind is going to look for no muffler when the damn thing is this quiet. Took it to another station and went through with no problem. Damn stoopid law says all vehicles have to have a muffler in place....aholes.

    Gary, I suppose you are going to stay with the 96 and older frame? Things changed some on the 97 and is the year they dropped the Timken bearings....

    Comment


    • #17
      I don't have enough info about all the differences, so I'm not sure which year would work out the best. The only factory drawing I have of a Dakota frame is a '92. I have another from a collision repair book, but it doesn't specify the year and it doesn't show much detail, but it appears to be substantially different than the '92. I want to find more factory drawings before I begin a search for a donor truck.

      I did learn that the Dakota rear end is not a bolt-in with the '56 frame, but a '66-'70 B-body is, and I was lucky enough to find one of them locally. I don't even have to move the spring perches.

      Here's a sketch overlay of the two frames. The Plymouth is in blue and the Dakota in black.

      ---------- Post added at 08:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 AM ----------

      Last edited by GaryS; 01-01-2011, 09:08 AM.
      My book store: http://www.wings-press.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        I thought the 66 and 676 was a different size from the 68-70 B-Body. I put a 68 8 3/4" in my 81 Imperial and a 73 B-Body in my 78 Magnum
        Visitors are encouraged to be Members, by registering.
        Members are encouraged to be Participants, by posting.
        Check out my Blog "Life & Times of an Old NSS Racer"

        Comment


        • #19
          Gary; I, don't suppose you have a sketch of the 41 Plymouth frame?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by hemibee68 View Post
            Gary; I, don't suppose you have a sketch of the 41 Plymouth frame?
            No, I don't, but I've been searching hundreds of threads on many forums, and I recall seeing a '41 Plymouth frame FSM sketch. I just wish I could remember where I saw it!

            If I run across it again, I'll be sure to send you a link.

            ---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

            Originally posted by BK View Post
            I thought the 66 and 676 was a different size from the 68-70 B-Body. I put a 68 8 3/4" in my 81 Imperial and a 73 B-Body in my 78 Magnum
            The info I have shows '62-'70 B-body to have 59.20" track and 44" perch spacing. '71-'79 B-body has a 63.40' track and 47.30" between spring perches.

            The '65 and older are of the design that requires a puller to remove the brake drums. Last time I did a brake job on one like that, I swore I would never do it again. As a matter of fact, I swore a whole lot more than that!
            My book store: http://www.wings-press.com/

            Comment


            • #21
              The 66-67 B rears average about 1/2" shorter than the 68-70 rears and that's measured at the bearing flange. I've measured a couple that were 3/4" shorter and I've measured many of them. It's not much but a bit shorter none the less.....

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BK View Post
                I thought the 66 and 676 was a different size from the 68-70 B-Body. I put a 68 8 3/4" in my 81 Imperial and a 73 B-Body in my 78 Magnum
                Yeah. The '65-'67 are narrower but they all still had 8-3/4"s and the same perches. '64-down had weird axles IIRC. '68-70 had the same perches and only a bit more width, but starting '69 a lot of B bodies got 8.25"s and other axles besides 8-3/4"s. '71 it was widened beyond being usable in small cars and by '73 the perch-perch distance was larger.

                '66 and '67s are common and the 8-3/4 is standard.
                '67 Dart 270 4 door '72 340(9.5:1), 727, 8-3/4", A/C, original interior, big bolt discs

                '77 Aspen SE 2 door '77 318, 998,8-1/4",A/C, Cruise control car,power discs,power steering

                Comment


                • #23
                  great project! Love to see the progress.

                  FYI I put a 66 b body rear in my Cuda as it is shorter and fit my rims. Agreed the 66-67 rear is shorter than the 68-70

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    A full frame swap is really the best way to go.......that is unless you dont have the fab skills..............Usually the only real lmportant factors are wheelbase and bolt pattern the rest is just steel that can be altered easy enough..........My 49 Plymouth is getting an S10 frame (which I already have) with a ford 9 inch and the front drilled for 4.5 inch bolt pattern.......I could care less if its a GM frame because it fits the criteria and will be a huge improvement over the 62 year old crap under there now and its inexpensive...........on the other hand I'm looking for a volare stub to go under the 55 Dodge pickup but if I cant find one or decide it wont fit properly its getting an early Dakota frame.....the Dak frames are more easily used for pickups because the are narrow..............

                    What about going with a Volare/Aspen stub?
                    Eastern Washington desert rat......The dry side of the state

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ronnysplymouth View Post
                      What about going with a Volare/Aspen stub?
                      I considered that, but I recall talking to a guy who put one in a '55 station wagon and he wasn't very satisfied with the swap. Besides, I'd like to take advantage of R&P steering and the more modern suspension and parts availability. Most importantly, I can't find anyone who has done the Dakota swap, and I love unique cars.

                      ---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ----------

                      Here's what I have to start with. The sheetmetal is surprisingly solid, but everything else is pretty sad.


                      ---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

                      The interior had been overrun with squirrels and I found a bushel of acorns inside the sagging headliner.


                      ---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

                      After removing the headliner and a ton of crap, I found the dash, and it was badly rusted. All the instruments are rusted and corroded internally and will have to be scrapped.


                      ---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

                      Teardown started.
                      My book store: http://www.wings-press.com/

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ronnysplymouth View Post
                        A full frame swap is really the best way to go.......that is unless you dont have the fab skills..............Usually the only real lmportant factors are wheelbase and bolt pattern the rest is just steel that can be altered easy enough..........My 49 Plymouth is getting an S10 frame (which I already have) with a ford 9 inch and the front drilled for 4.5 inch bolt pattern.......I could care less if its a GM frame because it fits the criteria and will be a huge improvement over the 62 year old crap under there now and its inexpensive...........on the other hand I'm looking for a volare stub to go under the 55 Dodge pickup but if I cant find one or decide it wont fit properly its getting an early Dakota frame.....the Dak frames are more easily used for pickups because the are narrow..............

                        What about going with a Volare/Aspen stub?
                        A Diplomat, Fifth Avenue, LeBaron, or Gran Fury would more likely be a more cost effective, readily available way to go. Same sub frame, track width, brakes, motor mounts, accessories, etc. If you want torsion bars it is a good way to go. But it is plenty more work.

                        It makes perfect sense to do a Dak frame swap. You want to run a later model drivetrain, they came with them. It had a full frame just as they do. It'd still swap to IFS.
                        '67 Dart 270 4 door '72 340(9.5:1), 727, 8-3/4", A/C, original interior, big bolt discs

                        '77 Aspen SE 2 door '77 318, 998,8-1/4",A/C, Cruise control car,power discs,power steering

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Didn't Ron Podsiadly do something that used a Dakota frame? I think his user name is moparron?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cranky View Post
                            Didn't Ron Podsiadly do something that used a Dakota frame? I think his user name is moparron?
                            He has a web page somewhere if you google it may be able to find it

                            That car looks pretty solid to me

                            ---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------

                            Hey Gary what about a Mustang II .....rack and pinion and readily available parts and kits
                            Eastern Washington desert rat......The dry side of the state

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I think RadMan....no longer on this site, did the Volare clip welded to the notched stock frame. I looked into it and didn't like the results.

                              Mark at Texas Thunder said the Mustang II really wasn't strong enough for street use in such a heavy car, of course I was putting a big block in mine. It might work for a small block.
                              His car wasn't that fast, I caught him on the return road and passed him in the pits.
                              2006 Dodge 2500 CTD


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Does the Dakota and the Durango have the same chassis?
                                Visitors are encouraged to be Members, by registering.
                                Members are encouraged to be Participants, by posting.
                                Check out my Blog "Life & Times of an Old NSS Racer"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X