New Idea For IFS?

[MBigDaddyM]

The reason the B & C is better is the width! Aspen, Volore and M body cars the wheels are considerably closer, not as wide, as the B or C. the C body frames are exactly the same width as the Sweptline frame, you can use the M body IFS and things will do ok, but you'll tell it in the handling of the truck in the cornering MBigDaddyM, there were a couple of early members who did the swap, they used coil over shocks, and no torsion bars

So my source is wrong about the 1/2 inch difference on the 73 & up B/R bodies? They have the same width as C bodies from 68 to the end of production? Which in turn is the same width as our trucks? Previously you said you could only confirm the frame width on C bodies being the same as the trucks from 1968-1971. -BD

[wideblock]

i would think that the big bodie cars are better for the swap out of simple wieght capacity. bigger brakes, bigger springs, bigger tortion bars and such for the heavier cars. the aspen or volare is a much lighter ride then our trucks i would think.

[MountainMoparRobin]

Your right, I only have seen the 68-71 suspension being used. there frames are the same width, your source has told you about the later years and he knows that so I can only believe what he told you to be true, My comments are only going by the fact that I seen pictures of truck owners (when Kris site was the only site) that used those years. Your source writes magazine articles and is around those cars and is telling you what he knows, I don't dispute that, but there has been members who went with the Volore etc. front ends and just like Wideblock said you can try and make up the difference with offset wheels, but the years of 68-71 C bodys frame's are the same width.

[MBigDaddyM]

Your right, I only have seen the 68-71 suspension being used. there frames are the same width, your source has told you about the later years and he knows that so I can only believe what he told you to be true, My comments are only going by the fact that I seen pictures of truck owners (when Kris site was the only site) that used those years. Your source writes magazine articles and is around those cars and is telling you what he knows, I don't dispute that, but there has been members who went with the Volore etc. front ends and just like Wideblock said you can try and make up the difference with offset wheels, but the years of 68-71 C bodys frame's are the same width.

Rick Ehrenberg stated that the C & B body brakes/suspension were better. That if the 1/2 inch difference is true it should drop right in minus the T-bars. And finally to use 72 and before T-bars. A guy parting A LOT of old Mopars here in Seattle told me about the 73 & up B/R bodies. Does any one have one they can measure? -BD

Again, here's a chart of body styles.
http://www.allpar.com/model/rwdbodies.html

[wideblock]

just measured

77 ny'er= tire center to tire center 64"
66d100= 65"
65 d200= 68"

the 77 and the 66 have the same exact wheels and tires, same offsets, size and all. i didnt crawl under the measure the frames, the ny'er is just too low and its wet out there.

[MountainMoparRobin]

wideblock, not the right measurement, outside of frame rail to outside of frame rail, and frame rail to tire could also work.
I think maybe the man was trying to say that the frame rails on the B was only 1/2" difference that the C body.

[wideblock]

track width was discussed as well. thats why i measured what i did. regaurdless of how the frame lines up, if the wheels stick out 5" its not gonna work. ill get a frame measurement on the 3 when it drys up a bit. but that requires crawling under the ny'er after jacking it up. just not gonna happen in the mud bro.

[MountainMoparRobin]

example you measured two trucks with the exact same frame rails and had a 3" difference, when you mount IFS you need the frame rail measurement for the crossmember, the distance from the frame to the tire is the only other significant measurement, my 70 is from frame to tire 17" the control arms should be the close to the same. Here is a C body I'm talking about, I think the frame is wider than your B body Charger???

[MBigDaddyM]

wideblock, not the right measurement, outside of frame rail to outside of frame rail, and frame rail to tire could also work.
I think maybe the man was trying to say that the frame rails on the B was only 1/2" difference that the C body.

What I meant was there is 1/2 inch difference between the 68-71 C-bodies/61-71 trucks and the 73 & later B/R-bodies.

If anyone has one of the cars below, Robin has listed the necessary measurements, could someone measure please? -BD

73 and up B/R bodies

Chrysler
Cordoba (1975-78)

Dodge
Charger (1973-78)
Coronet (1973-76)
Magnum (1978-78)
Monaco (1977-78 Except Royal Monaco)

Plymouth
Fury (1975-78 Except Gran Fury)
Road Runner (1973-75)
Satellite (1973-74)

[Snowdogg]

Robin, somone had told me about the swap in mind. He said he'd seen it done on fords but never a dodge.Uses a cordoba K member I saw one today, 1964-65 ford, SLAMED on the ground. Would like to see pics of one as it's done.

[MountainMoparRobin]

The frame rails are the same on the early C's and the only reason the C's are brought up is because the people who did it didn't want to make thier own crossmember, however, badeeds made his, and thats why he used the upper control arm from the Vette, because once you have the crossmember there are alot of choices on the upper and lower control arms, for the same distance from the frame to the spindle measurement would then be the only requirement to keep the same track width

[wideblock]

robin, the track width is only 1" different. the half ton has stock wheels and tires, same as the ny'er, my 200 has aftermarket wheels with a wider offset for bigger tires. something i didnt think of till now. so the extra 1.5" of offset per side explains the 3" difference in track. but, the 1/2" difference per side on the car versus truck wouldnt even be noticable.

[MBigDaddyM]

robin, the track width is only 1" different. the half ton has stock wheels and tires, same as the ny'er, my 200 has aftermarket wheels with a wider offset for bigger tires. something i didnt think of till now. so the extra 1.5" of offset per side explains the 3" difference in track. but, the 1/2" difference per side on the car versus truck wouldnt even be noticable.

So if a 77 New Yorker is a 1/2 inch different, when did the frame width of the C bodies change from the 68-71 frame? A logical guess would also be 73. Unless I'm misunderstanding the conversation a change was made somewhere between 72-77. It would be nice to know when so we know what years and models will work. BD

[wideblock]

thats just track width, frames may very well be the same. i havent been able to get uner the car to get a good measurment where youd be cutting. track width could be a shade narrower simply because of the independant suspension versus the straight axle.

[MountainMoparRobin]

There is no cutting Trey, this isn't a cut the frame and swap out, thats too labor intensive and too many measurements, and change in geometry, not to mention the headache of trying to get the motor to fit, the frame width is the important measurement, for the C body crossmember is rivited in, so they would be groud off and attatched to SWEPTLINE FRAME, NOT A FRAME CUT, then the mount for the upper control mount would be taken off the C body and welded on the Sweptline frame, this is by far the easiest way to do it, NO FRAME CUTTING, so the distance on the Sweptline frames are right around 33 inches, the track width will be fine, The frame measurement on the New Yorker can be done from the front of the car, outside rail to outside rail.
and I think you may be right on the change from wider frame to smaller frame on it changing around 73

[MBigDaddyM]

thats just track width, frames may very well be the same. i havent been able to get uner the car to get a good measurment where youd be cutting. track width could be a shade narrower simply because of the independant suspension versus the straight axle.

I am going to go measure my 65 today, Trey can you measure your New Yorker? -BD

[MountainMoparRobin]

MBigDaddyM
I believe a later C body is what Vance4 used on her 71, and they took the K member and added it to the Sweptline, She posted pictures, thats been 1 or 2 years now.

[soopernaut]

MBigDaddyM
I believe a later C body is what Vance4 used on her 71, and they took the K member and added it to the Sweptline, She posted pictures, thats been 1 or 2 years now.

I believe that was a M body.
... Fifth Avenue or something similar

[SUPRDUD]

Just for some perspective, my neighbor just put a Cordoba long, straight, torsion bar front end under my Grandpa's 60 Ferd that I sold him. To use the subframe you must either cut the top of the frame for the top a-frame ( this makes the truck ride high like a truck) or cut the bottom of the frame to fit the crossmember way up into the bottom of the frame to make a lowered truck and keep the front end in specs.

I have voluntered to put a Volare cross torsion bar front under a 58 Ferd frame. It is in my shop now. Just getting the parts together and doing my planning. It will be for a lowered truck and the frame will need to be cut from the bottom to darn-neared clear to the top. Search Google with "Volare Suspension Ford" keywords and you will find good photos of the cutting needed.

Ya, it's not a Dodge, but the trucks are very similar to compare what is needed to do the job. I see no way to install either suspension without hacking the frame one way or the other. It may not be a frame cut and splice, but there will defintely be major cutting and welding involved.

[MountainMoparRobin]

and thats why using a older C body or making your own crossemember just like badeeds did so you DO NOT CUT THE FRAME UP plus if you put the volare on our trucks the track width is too small, thats exactly why I say it is easier to add the crossmember and mounting for the upper control arm, only have to weld 2 parts in. Seems easier than all the cuttin etc. your refering to in the case of the ford or instead of all that cutting it seems to be a lot cheaper and easier to do the Mustang II from http://www.fatmanfab.com