Re: So will this fit a Dakota too? 1952 COE questions
[Re: RUMBLON]
#2271401
03/17/17 09:54 PM
03/17/17 09:54 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,649
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
amxautox
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
|
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,649
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
|
That would be cool to put on my class C motor home chassis. But no money to buy it.
Tom
"Everyone should believe in something; I believe I'll go fishing."
-Henry David Thoreau
Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths
author unknown
|
|
|
Re: So will this fit a Dakota too? 1952 COE questions
[Re: RUMBLON]
#2271453
03/17/17 11:20 PM
03/17/17 11:20 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 237
British Columbia, Canada
Old Ray
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 237
British Columbia, Canada
|
So, if a 52 Pilot house will fit well on a Dakota chassis, then will this fit just as well. I think the back of the cab could be extended with another cab as well. Thoughts? RUMBLON Cab forwards make for great projects, very cool when done right, but "fitting well" is somewhat of a subjective term, it means that the cab will fit over the frame, the mounting brackets will be nowhere close along with about 1000 other items. In this case the cab forward is designed for a bigger truck with large wheels to fit the fender opening. At least a one ton (Van) would be best or big wheels and tires but to fit a conventional frame the cab forward has the front wheels much more forward on the frame so frame shorting at the front would be required. Engine location changing, etc. Big project,......but cool. Look at cab forward pictures on google images. 
|
|
|
Re: So will this fit a Dakota too? 1952 COE questions
[Re: RUMBLON]
#2271474
03/17/17 11:49 PM
03/17/17 11:49 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,522
Freeport IL USA
poorboy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,522
Freeport IL USA
|
Old Ray is right on. Everything on a Dakota is set up for the cab to sit behind the motor, and everything on the COE is set up to sit on top of the motor. Things like the steering from the Dakota would have to turn straight up, and stuff like shift linkage and brake stuff would actually have to go forward rather then back like a Dakota is set up.
A COE fits much better on a class C (bus style) motor home chassis because those primarily have forward driver controls and are a full frame design that would work better as a hauler. The 1 ton van chassis could work because they are also set up with forward driver controls, but all Mopar B vans since the early 70s are unibody construction from the driver seat rearward. The rear portion of the van unibody frames are pretty heavy boxed steel, but they still rely on the van floor for structural strength, something that may be difficult to pull off with a COE cab that actually sits up off the frame 12" or more.
The cab on the COE is the same cab as was used on pickups with the exception of longer doors, you can see the cab filler made to cover the distance between the bottom of the cab and the extended height of the frame in the picture of the rear of the cab. If the doors were opened, you should be able to see the steps built under the cab so the cab occupants can climb up into the cab, the extended doors cover the steps. That cab is raised up and moved forward to clear the motor. The cab support mounts are pretty sturdy and quite unusual. The front sheet metal is unique to the COE, and the front fender extensions accommodate the larger tires, and wider tire spacing on the 2 ton or larger COE chassis.
They make cool projects, but make your life easier and put it on a motor home chassis, but not one with the van nose. Gene
|
|
|
Re: So will this fit a Dakota too? 1952 COE questions
[Re: poorboy]
#2271477
03/17/17 11:55 PM
03/17/17 11:55 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,649
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
amxautox
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
|
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,649
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
|
Old Ray is right on. Everything on a Dakota is set up for the cab to sit behind the motor, and everything on the COE is set up to sit on top of the motor. Things like the steering from the Dakota would have to turn straight up, and stuff like shift linkage and brake stuff would actually have to go forward rather then back like a Dakota is set up.
A COE fits much better on a class C (bus style) motor home chassis because those primarily have forward driver controls and are a full frame design that would work better as a hauler. The 1 ton van chassis could work because they are also set up with forward driver controls, but all Mopar B vans since the early 70s are unibody construction from the driver seat rearward. The rear portion of the van unibody frames are pretty heavy boxed steel, but they still rely on the van floor for structural strength, something that may be difficult to pull off with a COE cab that actually sits up off the frame 12" or more.
The cab on the COE is the same cab as was used on pickups with the exception of longer doors, you can see the cab filler made to cover the distance between the bottom of the cab and the extended height of the frame in the picture of the rear of the cab. If the doors were opened, you should be able to see the steps built under the cab so the cab occupants can climb up into the cab, the extended doors cover the steps. That cab is raised up and moved forward to clear the motor. The cab support mounts are pretty sturdy and quite unusual. The front sheet metal is unique to the COE, and the front fender extensions accommodate the larger tires, and wider tire spacing on the 2 ton or larger COE chassis.
They make cool projects, but make your life easier and put it on a motor home chassis, but not one with the van nose. Gene The 'bus' style motor home is a class A.  The van nose motor home is the class C.  Which is what I have, and am turning into a flat bed. 
Tom
"Everyone should believe in something; I believe I'll go fishing."
-Henry David Thoreau
Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths
author unknown
|
|
|
Re: So will this fit a Dakota too? 1952 COE questions
[Re: RUMBLON]
#2271669
03/18/17 11:38 AM
03/18/17 11:38 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Supercuda
About to go away
|
About to go away
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
|
Anything can be made to fit. Question is how much work will it take and is it more than you want to deal with?
They say there are no such thing as a stupid question.
They say there is always the exception that proves the rule.
Don't be the exception.
|
|
|
Re: So will this fit a Dakota too? 1952 COE questions
[Re: amxautox]
#2272694
03/20/17 12:37 AM
03/20/17 12:37 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,522
Freeport IL USA
poorboy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,522
Freeport IL USA
|
Old Ray is right on. Everything on a Dakota is set up for the cab to sit behind the motor, and everything on the COE is set up to sit on top of the motor. Things like the steering from the Dakota would have to turn straight up, and stuff like shift linkage and brake stuff would actually have to go forward rather then back like a Dakota is set up.
A COE fits much better on a class C (bus style) motor home chassis because those primarily have forward driver controls and are a full frame design that would work better as a hauler. The 1 ton van chassis could work because they are also set up with forward driver controls, but all Mopar B vans since the early 70s are unibody construction from the driver seat rearward. The rear portion of the van unibody frames are pretty heavy boxed steel, but they still rely on the van floor for structural strength, something that may be difficult to pull off with a COE cab that actually sits up off the frame 12" or more.
The cab on the COE is the same cab as was used on pickups with the exception of longer doors, you can see the cab filler made to cover the distance between the bottom of the cab and the extended height of the frame in the picture of the rear of the cab. If the doors were opened, you should be able to see the steps built under the cab so the cab occupants can climb up into the cab, the extended doors cover the steps. That cab is raised up and moved forward to clear the motor. The cab support mounts are pretty sturdy and quite unusual. The front sheet metal is unique to the COE, and the front fender extensions accommodate the larger tires, and wider tire spacing on the 2 ton or larger COE chassis.
They make cool projects, but make your life easier and put it on a motor home chassis, but not one with the van nose. Gene The 'bus' style motor home is a class A. The van nose motor home is the class C. Which is what I have, and am turning into a flat bed. OOPS! I've only been getting those two mixed up for 20 years! You can use that Van chassis as a flatbed if you want, just be sure you have a floor above the "frame" or reinforce the bed to add frame support between the front boxed steel subframe and the rear axle rear spring mount (and include the pivot point if the bed will tilt). Most van motor homes add a tube frame behind the van rear spring mounting box. That location is always very weak the last several feet of the van motor home frame is welded on the back side of a hollow non reinforced box. whatever flooring above that joint is all the vertical support the rear of the frame has. The section of the frame between the cab, and the rear axle isn't very strong if you remove the floor. I suggest you lay under your motor home and look at how the frame is constructed. Gene
Last edited by poorboy; 03/20/17 12:52 AM.
|
|
|
Re: So will this fit a Dakota too? 1952 COE questions
[Re: RUMBLON]
#2273424
03/21/17 12:56 AM
03/21/17 12:56 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,257
gulfport, ms, west mi
rowin4
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,257
gulfport, ms, west mi
|
I sold my COE last year. Didn't have time to do anything with it. My plan was to use a diesel powered ambulance similar to the class c motor home chassis .
it's ok to butt heads, just don't do it with a butthead
|
|
|
Re: So will this fit a Dakota too? 1952 COE questions
[Re: poorboy]
#2273970
03/21/17 10:52 PM
03/21/17 10:52 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,886
Lost and Spaced
bboogieart
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,886
Lost and Spaced
|
1st off let me say, That cab over cab is far freakin' out. I personally would not try to put it atop a regular type chassis. what ever you do I wish you luck and look forward to the build thread. I feel I have to address this as well; all Mopar B vans since the early 70s are unibody construction from the driver seat rearward. The rear portion of the van unibody frames are pretty heavy boxed steel, but they still rely on the van floor for structural strength.
Most van motor homes add a tube frame behind the van rear spring mounting box. That location is always very weak and the last several feet of the van motor home frame is welded on the back side of a hollow non reinforced box. This is very, very good advice. Once the box is removed there is nothing left to hold any weight. I was going to use a van motor home as a flatbed, until I started removing the "camper shell" and saw how the frame was just bolted behind a unibody floor. I sent the whole thing to the scrap yard. Better off finding an old '60s or '70s 5 ton truck. At least it will have a complete frame under it.
I have mechanical Aptitude.
I can screw up anything.
|
|
|
|
|
