In the process of researching my 1956 Dodge pickup for my 2001 Dakota chassis, I think two options are possible to swap a mid/late 50s Dodge pickup onto a modern chassis without altering the donot chassis wheelbase.

First is the late 90s to 2004 Durango which has a 115" WB. A long WB 50's Dodge pickup has a 116" WB. So if the 50s Dodge cab is set to align to the front wheel centerline in the fender opening, or up to 2" further back, and the fenders on the 50 box were repositioned slightly to align the fenders over the rear wheel centerline, the adjusted wheelbase of the 50s cab/box could fit on a non-modified Durango chassis with no frame length cutting/welding, possibly no driveshaft length change needed if the Durango engine does not change position to fit clear of the cab firewall. The running boards may have to repositioned slightly more rearward to mount to the rear fenders.

Second, use a short wheelbase (112") standard cab Dakota. Locate the 50s cab up to 2" further rearward on the Dakota chassis. Then reposition the fenders on the box 2" rearward, and the result is a 50 Dodge pickup wiht a 112" wheelbase. The running boards would have to move rearward a bit relative to the cab in order to bolt up to the fenders.

If the engine clears the 50s cab firewall and radiator position, I feel the front wheels centerline in the 50s front fender opening can be moved up to 2" forward to look better, and allow a slight wheelbase adjustment with no change to the chassis. I feel the stock 50s front wheel centerline in the fender opening is too far rearward to look right. That may be in part because of the old leaf spring suspension, which when fully loaded/compressed may slightly move the fron wheel centerline in the fender opening. But on a Dakota or Durango chassis, the front wheel centerline barely moves front or back from fully unloaded to fully compressed.

2 things to consider.

1) The distance from the front tire centerline to the back side of the nose on that 56 sheet metal is pretty tight, and that front Dakota crossmember and the sting pockets on that Dakota & Durango chassis sits pretty far forward. My concern would be keeping the front crossmember behind the sheet meal with the cab shifted 2" toward the rear.

2) Those large rear fenders on they 56 sit pretty far back on the bed sides already. Moving the fenders 2 more inches rearward is going to put the rear fenders very close to the back end of the bed. That might make the bed look really long.

Two inches doesn't sound like much, until you are looking at it in person.

Pictures are stock 54 sheet metal, the only difference between the 56 and the 54 trucks is the area around the windshield. That 54 was front frame clipped with the F,M,& J body subframe, with the stock 54 rear frame.

My 49 is a 4x4 and there are enough sheet metal differences between the 48-53 and the 54-56, its not an accurate comparison.

Good looking 54 Gene. I knew if I threw out that bait you'd take the hook. Good info and thanks. Just playing aorund with ideas in my head.

As you know, my 56 cab is planned to go on my 2001 Dakota chassis, using the firewall/floorpan into the 56 cab. My plan is to move the 56 cab back an inch, maybe two, to get the front wheel centerline placed better in the fender openings. If I recall, on your recent build you modified the front fenders to move the alignment to the front wheel centerline?

Yes, on my 49, I moved the wheel opening in the fenders towards the front about an inch and a half. That was required without moving the cab back. My motor sits right against the 49 cabs (Dakota) firewall. Then I used the bottom 1/2 of the Dakota radiator support to build my radiator support off of (I had to modify the top of the radiator support to clear the corners of the hood). My motor & trans, front axle brackets (which are also the motor mount brackets), and the radiator support are all on Dakota factory mounting brackets. I even had to trim the sheet metal on the top of the grille/nose piece to clear the radiator.

The Dakota radiator support on the 4x4 truck mounts to the frame just before the frame kicks outward for the front bumper mounting brackets. My Dakota frame is cut off about a 1/2" in front of the radiator support mounting holes in the frame, and I had to remove everything inside the nose piece to clear the end of the frame. There is no space to add an AC condenser in front of my radiator. If I fit a condenser, it would have to mount on the front sheet metal, and there isn't enough space to run AC hoses. Yes, it is that close. With everything in the location it needed to be in, the wheel opening in the fenders were in the wrong place, I had to move them forward to look right. That 1 1/2" was about as far forward as I could move my wheel openings in the fenders. Had I moved the cab back, the wheel openings in the fenders would have still been off, or I would have had to modify the nose piece to accept the farther forward wheel opening.

Essentially, the distance from the front of the radiator to the firewall on a Dakota is longer then the space between the firewall and the front nose piece on at least my 49.

Pictures:
1) This is a pic of the front end of a 92 Dakota 4x4 rolling frame. The circle in the extreme right side on the top of the frame is where the original Dakota radiator support bolted onto the frame. The 2 wheel drive frame is pretty much completely different, but what remains the same is the location of those mounting holes with a factory motor mounting system. Notice how close to that front mounting point this frame is cut off, That point on the frame is about a 1/4" away from the front sheet metal mounting pieces inside of the nose piece.

Pic 2) This was the point I had to change out the OEM Dakota radiator 9it was leaking between the plastic tank and the aluminum core). You are looking straight down at the upper surface of the Dakota radiator support bolted to the frame, with the 49s sheet metal bolted onto that radiator support. At this point the truck had around 3,000 miles, so this was a functioning setup. I should note here that everything you see (except the primmer sheet metal, is Dakota V8 4x4 factory stuff mounted on factory mounts. The round hole on the right side of the two round holes, and the oblong hole on the right side are the two holes where the radiator pins sat down into the rubber bushing to hold the bottom of the radiator in place. The radiator sat directly above that piece with the holes in it. There was about 3/4" of clearance between the fan clutch and the radiator core.
The red primmer pieces you see at the very bottom are the flanges that add support to the sheet metal openings on the nose piece. I had to trim those pieces to clear the radiator core on the outer edges.

Pic 3) The modified front fender before body work. Notice how close to the nose piece the wheel opening was moved to. That distance was about 3/4", but if I had really needed to, I might have gotten maybe another inch before I would have had to modify the nose. There is a flange on that front edge that bolts to a matching flange on the nose piece. Altering that matching dual flange mounting would have been a royal pita.

like I stated, there are differences between the 48-53 and the 54-56 sheet metal, and there is a difference between the 4x4 frame and a 2x4 frame. The 54 was nearly 20 years ago, and the last 2x4 Dakota was 12 years ago, and they were not both hear at the same time.

Someone did reference that the 97-2003 Dakota sheet metal was bolted to the same 88-96 chassis. According to him, the 2004 was an all new frame. I have no idea if that is fact or not. Honestly, I have not been under enough 97+ Dakotas to know.

Wow, tight tight. I do plan to take off the belt driven fan and go with electric fans mounted near to the radiator core. My Dakota chassis has the radiator, AC condensor, and the trans cooler to plan for mounting onto the front of the Dakota frame but fit within the 56 radiator core support. I have read the 8HP-70 trans runs hot by nature, so a trans cooler may be good to keep under the 56. This will be an interesting project to say the least.

When I had to change the radiator, I went with an aluminum crossflow radiator that had 4 rows in the core. That radiator was a lot smaller then the Dakota V8 radiator was, but it was also thicker (suppose to be able to cool 450 HP, I think that might be generous). The hood clearance was the biggest issue. I had to remove the factory fan and install an electric fan (on the motor side of the rad). Even the placement of that electric fan was close, its set off to one side of the crossflow radiator. The fan does cover the entire height of the aluminum radiator. That electric fan runs as soon as the coolant temp reaches 180, and never shuts off until you shut off the motor. On my truck, an additional trans cooler would have had to be placed somewhere under the truck. If you intend to drive your truck through the Green Bay winters, you are likely going to want to run that trans fluid through the radiator as well as an aftermarket cooler. My RE46 doesn't like to function correctly (poor upshift, and no OD) until the fluid gets above 120 degrees. If the ATF does not go through the radiator trans cooler, it may not reach 120 degrees on some winter days. Just another thing to add to the list.

Pic, or it didn't happen.
Pic 1) This is the new aluminum radiator sitting on top of the OEM Dakota V8 radiator. I was after the lower top of the radiator. The top corners on the OEM Dakota rad barely cleared the hood corners, and that was after modifying the top radiator supports.
Pic 2) This pretty much shows the differences in height between the two radiators. The reality was I would have likes to have had the two closer to being the same core size, changing from the vertical flow to the cross flow would have given me the clearance I needed, but this one was the only thing I could find that fit in the hole.
Pic 3) Radiator in place, clearance is still tight.
Pic 4) That hook on the left side is the hood latch. The sheet metal clearance on the other side of the radiator has the same clearance.

Gene, you always give me more to think about, even before I'm cutting my Dakota up. Never thought of making sure the trans fluid also heats up enough to work in cold weather.

How about a thermal bypass valve? When the trans is cold, the bypass valve will divert flow out of the trans right back into the trans. Then once the fluid hits a preset temp, the bypass valve opens and allows flow into the cooler as needed to not exceed the max temp set by the thermal sensor. Once fully hot the bypass valve is fully open and the temp sensor adjusts the bypass valve closed to direct just enough flow through the cooler to maintain an operating temperature range.

It is probably without good cause, but I don't like any kind of block or restriction in a transmission cooling line. I'm just a stubborn old man that likes simple stuff.

To me, any kind of restriction or block is just another thing that can fail. Several years ago Mopar put a flow blocking check ball in the cooler line that would stop the converter drain back. That little check ball in the one cooler line was responsible for more transmission failures then the converter drain back ever caused. In pretty short order, the check ball would "collect" enough stuff from the fluid flowing through it that it would stop the fluid flow through the trans cooler and cook the transmissions.

When I took my 96 Dakota with 44,000 miles on it cooler line apart, the passage was almost plugged solid, I have removed the check ball and the hose section it was in..I have no problem starting the truck and putting the trans in neutral for 30 seconds before I put it into gear to move on that first drive of the day.

If running the trans fluid through the radiator trans cooler solves the cold weather shift problem, I'm running the fluid through the trans cooler in the radiator. I like simple solutions.

Yeah, I can accept that viewpoint. I work for Parker in hydraulics and we produce a very good thermal bypass valve used by Deere, CNH and other large OEMs on their hydraulic fan drive systems on AG machines costing well over $500,000. So my bias is based on that application versus the tens of thousands more everyday vehicle application.

Like you, in the winter I can wait a minute after starting the pickup before putting it in gear to go. Reading up on the 8HP-70 trans I was kind of surprised that some report it running hot commonly. But also, ZF builds a better trans than the 545RFE. So maybe I'm thinking too deep about the application. I'll have the trans cooler from my Dakota so I'll plan to mount it in the 56 and make sure I have the option if needed.

A possible solution for an A/C condenser would be to use one fron an 05ish Ram 1500. They are quite compact and self contained with their own electric fan. They mounted at an angle between the rad and driver's headlight but could easily be remote mounted anywhere the fan can draw air to blow through it.

Kevin

Great idea. That could be an option, thanks.