|
|
Re: B-Body 67 versus 68-70 Rear Frame Rails
[Re: TWS]
#1236910
05/21/12 01:19 PM
05/21/12 01:19 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,043
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,043
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
OK, thanks for the info. We have some original 67 coronet rear frame rails / pans for sale, and someone with a 69 coronet needs the frame rails...comparing side by side not practical, and don't want him to get stuck with something he can't use.
The trunk pan would not be the same between the 2 years , the 67 has a sunken spare well , 69 does not .
|
|
|
Re: B-Body 67 versus 68-70 Rear Frame Rails
[Re: JohnRR]
#1236912
05/21/12 08:16 PM
05/21/12 08:16 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 96
New Jersey
myrddin
member
|
member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 96
New Jersey
|
Quote:
Pay attention to dodge and plymouth rails though , not sure on some models how the difference in the wheelbase was accomplished .
Front spring hanger is were the difference is. At least thats what I have always understood.
|
|
|
Re: B-Body 67 versus 68-70 Rear Frame Rails
[Re: myrddin]
#1236913
05/21/12 08:47 PM
05/21/12 08:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,043
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,043
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Pay attention to dodge and plymouth rails though , not sure on some models how the difference in the wheelbase was accomplished .
Front spring hanger is were the difference is. At least thats what I have always understood.
yes this is trus but there is also a different front spring hanger mount for the 2 makes ... one for dodge and one for plymouth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its been a while, but I think the rear shackle hole is in a different location on a dodge as opposed to a plymouth. Never had a 67 to compare with a 68-70 though. 