I'm looking at using the rolling chassis from a 93 D300 dualie for a project of mine. My question is; is the frame slightly narrower because of the dualie configuration? And if so, is it narrower just at the back or for the entire length? I don't have either kind nearby to measure them, and I have to act fast to get this dualie chassis.

Thanks!

I am not 100% sure but I think the frame's are the same, the dually diff was wider. Also it will probably have a 7.5-8"(height) frame instead of the 6" from halftons.

A cab and chassis will be longer then a normal truck, that is something to look for

i think the frames are the same width---the dually axle is almost the same width as a single wheel axle--just about 1 inch difference in the axle housings....and you know in that year you could get the single wheel and dually wheel in the one ton truck and the beds have the same mounting holes....

Frame width is the same, frame height and metal gauge will change.

I think the sweptline frames are COMPLETELY different than D series. You'll have to do more fabricating to get everything to fit right.

There was a frame change for Sweptlines around 1968.

My '64Dog has four engine mounts and the transmission hangs off the 70 lb cast iron bellhousing. The forward motor mounts are the same as later frames, but there is a beefy crossmember in place right back of the engine. The bellhousing has two mounting ears that attach to mounts on this crossmember. This crossmsmber is a major pain in the rear, because it is permanently attached and the engine/transmission can't be slipped in from the front. The crossmember and the firewall don't have enough vertical space to fit the transmission through. That's with the NP420.
I've seen here a frame from an auto trans early model and the big crossmember has a bunch cut out of it with an attachment to support the rear of the transmission at the traditional transmission mount.

My '71 donor truck has the later model frame, and the rear crossmember isn't nearly as beefy and bolts to the lower flanges of the frame rails.

From the beginning up to the very early 1965 models the longbed had a 122" rather than a 128" wheelbase.

So, even though the trucks look the same, there are differences that can eat your lunch on a build.

R.

on my 71 truck i used an 85 swb frame----i put an 85 stepside bed on it--(in the factory mounting holes)---the cab of the truck only located the front cab mounts on the correct position on the new frame--the rear cab and radiator support had to be made to fit---you will also have to notch into the dash to point your steering column at the new steering gear location---it may be possible to put 2 joints on the steering column---the cool thing is you can reuse the modern diesel frame tank and ditch the behind the seat tank----that will make your oversize relatives happy....ohoh---just went to check on the cab mounts---maybe wrong---i did this job maybe 10 years ago---it looks like the rear mounts on cab line up with the rear cab mounts of the new frame---but the width is different--i cut off the original frame cab mounts and put them on the newer frame....

Hmm. I stand by my post.

The original poster has already put a 66 on a newer frame. He was one of the 1st people to do so that I'm aware of.

I too would be interested in D100 Sweptline frame width as in rail to rail distance.

I'd like to do a late model Crown Vic front suspension swap. (like I don't have enough projects I'll never get to.)

Kevin

I replied to this yesterday but my post seems to have disappeared.

The diagram gets blurry before it gets large enough to read the numbers.

I don't know that it would be worth it to create a kit like you had been planning for years. You are replacing 50+ year old technology with 40+ year old technology. In many places you don't see 72-93 Dodge trucks on the roads much anymore. Finding good donor frames is going to get more difficult as time goes on. There are also bolt on options for disc brakes and CPP is working on a power steering setup. Many people have also moved on to Crown Victoria suspensions even though they require frame modification.

Maybe you should try making a kit that would use a 94-01 frames.

I don't think that the 94-up chassis are very compatible, but I get your point, and it's well worth considering. If I weren't doing a 3/4 ton, I'd be doing the Crown Vic swap as well. I considered the Dakota frame, but I think that the track was too narrow in the end. I can't recall now. I've given thought to doing a frame graft of the 93 front, but I'm not sure that my fab skills are up to that kind of challenge yet. Too easy to get something wrong and forever have drivability issues IMHO. I'd likely have to pay a good fab shop to do it, which negates the low buck aspect of it.

Food for thought. And I have plenty of time at work to over-think the snot out of it. LOL! Thanks Soop!