Hot Rod Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A friend with this truck would like to upgrade it with a modern chassis but still intends to use it mostly as a truck. He is not looking to lower it in the weeds or IRS, etc. Is a stock chassis from a later truck the best option? Is one of the aftermarket chassis a better way to go? Cost is not a big factor here as in he will spend what it takes to get what he wants/needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,982 Posts
I built a 59 Once.
Used a front frame clip from an 80 gmc. Grafted the two frames togethor just ahead of the cab mount. The frames were almost identical. Same width but a 1/4 inch different in height. Kept the truck stock looking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
If its the same as a 63 , you can bolt in a 73 - 87 front cross member with a arms & steering box , their are even kits to show what's needed & an extra piece to bolt up the steering box , helped a friend with one can few years ago , really helped ride & handling .Changing to the modern steering column took a bit of fabricating , but overall , very easy job !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,982 Posts
About 1 1/2 inches wider.
Found and used some rims from a full size Buick that had more backspace.
Same 5x5 pattern.
these days there’s enough options for wheels to find some that fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
My son and I are building a 56 which I believe has the same body dimensions as a 58. We used a frame from an 89 Chevy pickup. They are cheap and essentially the same from 89-98.

Starting at the front, we notched the frame just ahead of the steering box so that the radiator support fit properly. Now it just sits in place.

The front wheels with the stock wheels fit just perfect in the wheel wells as far as being close to the fender and not requiring spacers.

We bought lowering spindles but didn't need them

Sitting the cab on the frame was a simple process with 4 mounts made from box tubing cut on an angle and welded to the side of the frame.

The rear of the frame is not parallel side to side. We got a longbed so we could cut it and shorten it and get the rear wheels where we wanted them.

We welded a crossmember/driveshft loop in right behind the cab before we cut it.

Sine the rear frame rails are not parallel, when we cut the frame we pulled the rails in and made them parallel. If you don't do that, the spring mounts at the front of the rear springs interferes with the little stepboards. We slotted the crossmember so the rear frame rails stuck through and welded them in place. Then we put some flat plate there to strengthen and dress up the fabrication.

The rear spring mounts can be relocated to lower the vehicle.

We also made a couple box tubing crossmembers and used an S10 Blazer fuel tank that we could mount at the rear. The 2 wheel drive/2 door Blazers have a rectangular tank that can be bought new for about $125 on line. Different year S10s had different fuel pumps, so if you check, you can find ones that take in tank electric pumps for whatever fuel system you want to use. That is important because the hole in the tank varies with the type of pump.

At this point you have a truck that uses almost all stock factory components that can be found at any Autozone and it rides pretty well too. You can use the stock emergency brake system fro the late model.

On ours, we upgraded to a 9" Ford rear end and incorporated a rear sway bar from a Saturn Vue. The Saturn SUV has a nice compact sway bar thats cheap at Pull-A-Part.


617905

617906
617908

617909

617910

617911
617912
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I would be hesitant to use ANY full size frame from any truck NEWER than the '58! Particularly because of the desire to get the truck low. An aftermarket frame (No-Limit, Roadster Shop, etc) is obviously going to net the BEST ultimate result! When I speed out frames from both shops, they were both over $20,000 with all suspension, options that I wanted.

When I built my '59, I went the "No-Limit Engineering way" of grafting a '70-'81 Camaro subframe. I used a '79 Camaro subframe. I run 2" McGauphys drop spindles, and dual rate Hotchkis lowering springs. My truck is low, but the cross member is pretty close to the ground. I have trouble NOW with turning lock to lock! If the front suspension were even 1/2" wider, it would cause all sorts of issues, and require weird offset wheels! I put my '53 GMC on an S10 frame. I felt originally that the S10 frame was too narrow for the '55-'59 trucks, but if I were starting over, I would consider going that route, just because it's simpler.
These trucks have a narrower track width than all of the newer full size trucks! Putting wider suspension under them causes all sorts of trouble when looking to make them sit low!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I believe that this '59 is on an S10 frame.
Tire Car Land vehicle Wheel Vehicle


Here's my '53 GMC on an S10 frame. It's the perfect candidates for these trucks. This truck sat LOW! I can't find any other photos on my phone. This truck had an adjustable wheelbase, from 112"-115". That's a long explanation for another time.
Motor vehicle Automotive tire Auto part Gas Automotive wheel system
 

·
the 'Duracell Project'
Joined
·
2,643 Posts
the frame that came under his 58 is the best frame to use. no body or bed mods to get the body mounted. my 58truk is on stock frame, with stock leaf spring suspension in back, 86 camaro rear axle w/ disc brakes flipped under the springs, a mild c-notch and fatman mustII ifs. it drives well at hwy speeds. ramjet 350, 700r4 and 3.73 rearend, i can get 21mph cruising at 70+mph with the ac running

Wheel Tire Car Vehicle Land vehicle
 

·
the 'Duracell Project'
Joined
·
2,643 Posts
s-10 is the wrong frame for the 55-59 task force trucks. the axles are too narrow. notice the empty wheel wells? vs 58truk above? this 59 probably has wheel spacers to boot, they just look wrong. no frame fits better than the 55-59 truck frame under 55-59 gm trucks.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
s-10 is the wrong frame for the 55-59 task force trucks. the axles are too narrow. notice the empty wheel wells? vs 58truk above? this 59 probably has wheel spacers to boot, they just look wrong. no frame fits better than the 55-59 truck frame under 55-59 gm trucks.

I understand what you are saying, but if someone is trying to go really low, you can't fill the wheel well with the full original track width, or else you get terrible rubbing on the fenders. That truck doesn't have wheel spacers. Spacers make them look about normal. They look like this with out spacers, with most common wheel backspacing options. The OP stated that the owner is trying to get the truck really low, hence me mentioning the S10 chassis. My '59 is quite low, and the original frame from the fire wall back. I am very limited on wheel backspacing and total wheel width.
 

·
the 'Duracell Project'
Joined
·
2,643 Posts
ad and task force are totally different widths. the s10 works for the ad trucks. 58truk is static and maybe 3" higher than that 59 you posted. it's the wrong frame for 55-59 trucks i don't care how much you want it not to be 🤦‍♂️
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I would not put an S10 frame under my TF truck. I stated that it is done often, by those wanting to go really low, to prevent issues with wheels/tires colliding with front fenders. It is an option, regardless of how much you want to argue about it, or want it to NOT be!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
ad and task force are totally different widths. the s10 works for the ad trucks. 58truk is static and maybe 3" higher than that 59 you posted. it's the wrong frame for 55-59 trucks i don't care how much you want it not to be 🤦‍♂️
Here's a great example of a build of a TF truck on an S10 chassis. If I'm not mistaken, Ogre, YOU even posted in that thread stating that you thought that the truck looked good! So, feel free to not act like I'm stupid, and giving erroneous advice! I'm stating that the S10 swap is a viable option, particularly for those looking to go really low with their trucks! Though, I will admit that I misread the OP's original post! I thought that he was saying that he WAS looking to go really low. I just re-read it and he said that the owner is NOT trying to go really low. That changes things. I would only consider an S10 swap if I were wanting to get the truck super low. I understand that you don't prefer it. Neither do I. But, it would have been a lot easier than my Camaro graft, and I would have had a lot less of a hard time getting the width of wheel/tire combo that I wanted under the front of my truck!

I will say that I would FAR prefer a Task Force truck be sitting on an S10 frame, than a C1500/Silverado frame, as those chassis have far too wide of a track width for these trucks, if staying 2wd, or lowering them. 4wd is another story. I would NEVER try to lower one of these trucks with a track width wider than a 2nd generation Camaro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
A Task Force and Advanced Design truck aren't too far off, regarding body width... both right at 76"! The track width of the AD trucks is about 60", whereas the TF trucks is roughly 60.75" and the S10 is right at 58". I've read different widths, from varying sources. I've always considered the AD trucks about an inch narrower. Track widths listed are for the front. The S10 rear track width is narrower, but with aftermarket wheels, that could be construed as a positive. Front track width is the real issue when lowering these trucks. I believe that the 2nd gen Camaro front track width is 61.3", or about 0.55" wider than stock Task Force track width. I've struggled getting the right wheel/tire combo under mine, and had to raise it up higher than I would like it in the front, in order to avoid lots of rubbing! I'm lowered, static and I wish that my track width was about 1.5" narrower than it is, with the 61.3" Camaro Subframe. The '79 Camaro 10 bolt rear axle works pretty well, and centers most typical backspacing wheels in the rear fenders quite well. But, I ended up tubbing my step side bed, to clear the wheels that I wanted to run.

Wheel Vehicle Rectangle Motor vehicle Tire
White Product Wheel Font Vehicle

Here's another good read on the S10 frame topic:
 

·
Registered
50s & 60s sedans, trucks & Harleys
Joined
·
8 Posts
I just caught this thread, and have been most happy with the mods I did with my '58 Chevy Stepside 26 years ago. I found an undamaged front clip on a '70 Chevelle, cut it off under the front firewall, leaving enough to trim and match it up to the original frame rails, and outfitted it with aftermarket tubular a-arms and coil-overs, and a heavy duty sway bar.

Of course later I decided to go prostreet, put in some dropped front Chevelle dropped spindles, and narrowed the rear frame rails, and narrowed a ford 9" and stuffed the bigest MT tires under it I could, love that truck and how those mods all turned out, I had good advice back then when I did it, and it was right on the money !

Look here for a peek:

I also needed to make it easy to change out the rear tires, so I put a hinged subframe under the bed with charged shocks balanced against that weight (depending on what I have inside the bed), so I can lift the bed and get easily at the tires....
Like when I change to slicks at our local drag strip....
Runds a solid and dependable 12.5 with slicks at the track

I need to give lotsa credit to Mike at Benchmark Fab and Finish in Corvallis, OR, we worked side by side getting this truck setup and then it was up to me to finish it and keep it going....
-WillyP
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top