D to w swap
02-21-2018, 06:41 PM
#2
Registered User
Big issue is front crossmember and spring mounts . I have measurements to build custom front crossmember . RamChargerCentral.com member Jungle , bulits custom steering box mounts , front spring mounts , after that I think it’s home run time
The following users liked this post:
mknittle (02-21-2018)
02-21-2018, 07:41 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Land of the Toxic Avenger
Posts: 6,769
Received 1,637 Likes
on
1,112 Posts
Review both of their build threads and make the call on your comfort level.
Me? I'd go easy peasy and transfer all my junk over to a factory 4x4 frame.
02-21-2018, 09:09 PM
#4
Registered User
Thread Starter
Mark Mknittle did his conversion. TC Thrashingcows did his conversion. Bothe had their technical difficulties. Drilling holes in frame in inaccessible areas looked to be the biggest gripe.
Review both of their build threads and make the call on your comfort level.
Me? I'd go easy peasy and transfer all my junk over to a factory 4x4 frame.
Review both of their build threads and make the call on your comfort level.
Me? I'd go easy peasy and transfer all my junk over to a factory 4x4 frame.
02-22-2018, 03:43 AM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Trending Topics
02-22-2018, 06:48 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Land of the Toxic Avenger
Posts: 6,769
Received 1,637 Likes
on
1,112 Posts
02-22-2018, 11:07 AM
#10
Registered User
02-22-2018, 02:29 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Land of the Toxic Avenger
Posts: 6,769
Received 1,637 Likes
on
1,112 Posts
I'm not an expert, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night either.
Oliver's RC was built by wheelieking/ MOPAR dude, and he mentioned the frames in the diesels were thicker when he built the truck. I've heard other members quote the thicker frame theory on this site many times.
If I'm wrong, that's okay, but I swear Papecat mentioned Terry Elders and the frames being made thicker to deal with the excess weight and torque of the lump.
Maybe I smoked too much hash that day.
Can anyone verify this? I'd be much happier knowing I wasn't spewing lies and untruths.
Lol
Oliver's RC was built by wheelieking/ MOPAR dude, and he mentioned the frames in the diesels were thicker when he built the truck. I've heard other members quote the thicker frame theory on this site many times.
If I'm wrong, that's okay, but I swear Papecat mentioned Terry Elders and the frames being made thicker to deal with the excess weight and torque of the lump.
Maybe I smoked too much hash that day.
Can anyone verify this? I'd be much happier knowing I wasn't spewing lies and untruths.
Lol
02-22-2018, 02:44 PM
#12
Registered User
The thickness of the metal used in the frame varies from 2wd/ 4x4 and also 150/250/350 frames differences as well as in cab and bed configuration.
The long wheel base Cab Chassis 1st gen trucks being some of the thickest metal along with the crew that where .210 or .250 thick.
The frame height also varies over the years.
I have seen many 6 inch tall frames, a few 7 inch tall frames and the '92-'93 ex cab long beds had a special 8 inch tall frame.
The RC frame on my '89 is about .158, the '89 w-250 frame used on the front half is just under .200 inches thick, off the top of my head.
Pass that hash over here T-man....
The long wheel base Cab Chassis 1st gen trucks being some of the thickest metal along with the crew that where .210 or .250 thick.
The frame height also varies over the years.
I have seen many 6 inch tall frames, a few 7 inch tall frames and the '92-'93 ex cab long beds had a special 8 inch tall frame.
The RC frame on my '89 is about .158, the '89 w-250 frame used on the front half is just under .200 inches thick, off the top of my head.
Pass that hash over here T-man....
02-22-2018, 02:47 PM
#13
Registered User
02-22-2018, 03:04 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Land of the Toxic Avenger
Posts: 6,769
Received 1,637 Likes
on
1,112 Posts
Semantics is a dirty word.
To be clear, thickness (what I was speaking of) is the actual thickness of the metal itself. The height of the frames changed (tall vs shorter) and I was under the impression that 92/93 had thicker metal frames.
To be clear, thickness (what I was speaking of) is the actual thickness of the metal itself. The height of the frames changed (tall vs shorter) and I was under the impression that 92/93 had thicker metal frames.
02-22-2018, 03:06 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Land of the Toxic Avenger
Posts: 6,769
Received 1,637 Likes
on
1,112 Posts
The thickness of the metal used in the frame varies from 2wd/ 4x4 and also 150/250/350 frames differences as well as in cab and bed configuration.
The long wheel base Cab Chassis 1st gen trucks being some of the thickest metal along with the crew that where .210 or .250 thick.
The frame width also varies over the years.
I have seen many 6 inch tall frames, a few 7 inch tall frames and the '92-'93 ex cab long beds had a special 8 inch tall frame.
The RC frame on my '89 is about .158, the '89 w-250 frame used on the front half is just under .200 inches thick, off the top of my head.
Pass that hash over here T-man....
The long wheel base Cab Chassis 1st gen trucks being some of the thickest metal along with the crew that where .210 or .250 thick.
The frame width also varies over the years.
I have seen many 6 inch tall frames, a few 7 inch tall frames and the '92-'93 ex cab long beds had a special 8 inch tall frame.
The RC frame on my '89 is about .158, the '89 w-250 frame used on the front half is just under .200 inches thick, off the top of my head.
Pass that hash over here T-man....
These statistics are what I recall previously reading.
Thanks Ollie