camaro sub frame in 48 ford pu

[mrpaco69]

i want to install a camaro sub in my 48 ford pu will it fit and is it a good choice its an 80sub frame i already have it so i thought id use it any tips tricks or ideas would be helpful...........thanks people

[Aero46Chevy]

Mrpaco69 just noticed you are from my neck of the woods. Sorry for the delay in the relay soooooooo,,,,, welcome to the site. Was in your town yesterday with the little sandwich grabbers.
Now back to your regular programing.

[johnny37]

My opinion on Camaro subframes in those trucks is pretty well known... I'd never do it. They are too wide for the vehicle (track width wise) so you end up with little skinny wheels up front or else you have to go to custom backspace wheels to make them fit right in the fenders. Custom backspace means custom order means custom dough. You also have to cut off the frame just in front of the firewall, so you have to make new rad mounts, bumper mounts, inner fender mounts, and on. And God forbid whoever welds it in welds it in out of square. It's a world of hurt re-doing all of it. If it were mine, I'd use a mustang 2 based suspension. The track width is right, you don't have to cut the frame off at the firewall, you get rack and pinion steering, (not a saginaw box) and wheel choices are much easier. You can usually use the off the shelf backspace on most wheels, so you are way more likely to get the desired wheel diameter and width you want on the truck.

I've got Mustang 2 suspensions in both my 37 Chev sedan and my 52 Chev coupe. It's the only way I'd go.

[PG409]

Having done a couple of sub frame swaps, I suggest go Mustang 11.
IN BC now, a qualified frame shop has to inspect sub frame installations
and pass (or fail ) it.
For sure, it is way too wide.......and while seemingly cost effective at
first, it really is not.:)

[1Bad56]

Have too agree with the boys...go MII, do not subframe, not worth it these days. I would suggest, strongly, that you box the front end of your chassis for a little more strength.

[Chad]

Elpolako on the HAMB makes a Dakota based front end...Its better for these trucks.They use bigger breaks,you don't have to use rack extenders which shorten the life span of the rack....Plus they are built to carry more weight than a MII...just a few things to consider...Email him, he is the suspension guru over on the other board...he knows his stuff...I have learned quite a bit from him and I am pretty good at building suspension stuff...Elpolako (Steve) owns Industrial chassis

http://industrialchassisinc.com/ICMenu.swf

[johnny37]

Rack extenders are not needed on a 48 Ford p/u mustang 2 setup. For brakes, the Ford pattern rotors (5 on 4.5") are 11", the GM pattern ones (5 on 4.75") are 10.75. How much bigger are the Dakota ones? As for the weight, I don't buy it. On the Mustang 2's, the motor was pretty much right over the crossmember, so they were taking almost all the motor weight on those cars. In a hot rod application, the motor is set back form the crossmember, leaving the timing chain cover roughly over the crossmember. More weight is carried by the frame than the crossmember.

As for alternatives, I have heard of guys using Dakota, but have no experience. I have also seen guys use the complete frame and suspension from an S-10 and make new cab and box mounts. It works well, but a little more skill is needed to make it work. The stance is killer low that way too.

[Chad]

Look at the rated nose weight on a Mustang VS Dakota you will see what I mean...I am not saying a mustang II is no good because I build them myself, The Dakota is just a beefy unit.Everything is just stronger,spindles,rack,a arms etc....Any 48-52 ford I have built a Mustang II looks funny with a 56'' track width...Should be 58'' to make it look right,so their for 2'' rack extenders are needed,or you can use different tie rod end but the you run the risk of a little bit of bump steer....In the end its your money...But I have have done both MII and Dakota ,I happen to like the Dakota better...Everybody has their own way...

[Chad]

Here are some interesting posts...

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231116&showall=1

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=115209

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257826

[johnny37]

In the end its your money...But I have have done both MII and Dakota ,I happen to like the Dakota better...Everybody has their own way...

And thats what makes this hobby fun, and why questions asked are never stupid questions. Good info Chad, nice to have other points of view, especially when they are put forth in an organized and thought out way. I've done Mustang 2, but not Dakota, so I can't speak from the same experience. Maybe Dakota is the new wave. I remember when Pacer and Corvair front ends were the way to go. Mustang 2 took that over, maybe now Dakota will be the next big thing. :D:D

[Chad]

Oh man its funny you talk about pacer front ends...I re did a 37 ford truck a while ago with a pacer front end....We pulled the motor and put the jack under the pacer x member and it split right down the center,I have never seen anything like it....But for the Dakota front ends they a primarily used in trucks because of the wider track width that is needed to make them look right...They are really nice units....Nothing wrong with the tried and true MII either....Just thought I would tell ya's about the Dakota front ends....I have no association with Industrial chassis either LOL

[1Bad56]

There is Mustang II , and then there is H.D IFS with stronger tubular components. For the '56, I used the latter as the MII was way too light duty for the motor and the truck.
With the dakota, which is similar to the volare conversion, stick to a small block as the BB will caused problems with headers and steering linkage.

[tinmann]

mrpaco69 seems to have left the building......... a good discussion none-the-less. And I do agree that Camaro sub frame swaps are NOT the way to go for all the same reasons already discussed.

[mrpaco69]

Im still lurking about Tinman...just been taking all the info in if m2 are the way to go there sure seems to be some negativity about there durability ,i know the camaro swap is a lot of work, ive seen it done on a couple of local trucks the owners say other than basic bushing changes things have held up well,one dude is running tubular control arms and air bags,sucker sits low...but hey ive still got time to change my mind while i hunt around for parts this summer dont really plan on diggin in to to the big stuff til fall .....in the mean time i will ask lots of questions...and take in all the info and ideas i can from the motor heads here .....thanks

[1Bad56]

Mrpaco69....there is cheap s---, oops, inexpesnisve, and there is good stuff.
Quality costs money. A TCI H.D. IFS with adjustable coilovers was installed and there has been no problems with durability.

[v8deuce]

I have to agree with the other guys,I built two 48's with gm subs back in the 80's when that was the thing to do.The first one I used a 74 nova worked great just cut the p/u frame off about a foot or two behind the stock axle bump stops, laid the frame rails on top of the rear part of the subframe,nice low stance,rode good but looked a little funny with the steering box stuck out the grille!!!!!!The second one was a 69 camaro that worked better had a good ride and everything but the wheels were a problem,we even got into narrowing the sub,lots of work.If I were to do it again I think the mustang is the quickest and easiest,there is so much availible for them,air bags,control arms,etc but If you got the time and a few bucks that dodge one sounds cool:)

[Chad]

The dodge install is pretty basic...The only drawback is the cost but in the end is well worth it....IMO