Soooooo, I have a few 46 and 47 Dodge trucks. One happens to be a 1947 1.5 ton grain truck that I pulled out of a farmers shed. It had been parked since 1969.

Anyway, the point.... I also have a 73 Dodge van... well, sorta. It was a class C motorhome, the fella stripped the camper off and now its a flatbed 1 ton van with no roof, no back wall etc... But, its a 1 ton chassis with duals.

Now on to the question. Why not strip the front and rear suspension out of the van and weld it into the 47? Cant be any harder than dong a Volare front end can it? Disc brakes, power steering and all... am I missing something or should be an ok idea. No I have not done any measuring yet. I'll drag the van in here once I get my Challenger done.

Laine

Consider putting the truck cab and a flat deck on the motor home chassis,maybe less work, I think the motor home front axle might be located forward more then a regular truck.

Having done more then a few chassis swaps, I see a few things that may be an issue. Understand, these thoughts are all done without the benefit of doing any measuring, measurements could change everything. I find that if you can park the two chassis side by side, its much easier to see what might fit easily, and what won't fit so easy. Match up the front wheels and start measuring.

1) The "B" van chassis has a pretty wide front wheel track. It may be OK with the 1 1/2 ton truck front fenders, but I still suspect its going to put the tires right at the edge of the fenders. Tire to fender clearance becomes more of an issue if you want to lower the front end.

2) The "B" van has a pretty short nose, the distance from the front suspension to the steering column/firewall is very short, and that 47 is not. I suspect the van steering box is going to occupy the same location as the 47 frame you will probably have to use. I just did a 39-47 Dodge cab on a 90s Dakota frame, the van front end is a lot shorter and a lot wider then a Dakota front end. Now, if that 47 is a cab-over engine (COE) then the van chassis would probably work out well. Stretching that van suspension to fit that 1 1/2 ton 47 Dodge might be a real challenge. You might get away with just mounting the van suspension and crossmember to the 47, and come up with something different with the steering.

You might be farther ahead finding a modern one ton with a beam front axle to transplant onto your trucks springs (or move the modern springs as well as the axle). Another thought might be to measure a full size Ram of the front suspension.

The good news is I don't see much of an issue with the rear end. I'd swap in the modern springs and axle, and rear sway bar if one is present.

Again, don't take my word on it, do the side by side park, and measure.

As referenced from the post above, it is much easier to move the sheet metal to the new chassis, but then you loose the frame numbers, if that is important in your state (you may loose them in the parts swap as well). The frame numbers on that 47 Dodge are behind the front wheel on the drivers side. Gene

The Dodge van/motorhome is a unibody. So a frame swap to the van is not possible. Swapping the suspension into the truck frame however is what I plan to do. No I have not measured it yet but in theory it should work similar to doing a Volare front suspension. Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not certain yet how it is constructed. The Dodge van/motorhome is a unibody. So a frame swap to the van is not possible. Swapping the suspension into the truck chassis is maybe possible.

I put a 1953 Dodge 1.5 ton truck on a 98 Dakota chassis. Didn’t have the flat bed so I built one to fit the Dakota frame. It was an easy installation.

I have a Dakota chassis for my 1/2 ton 46. I also have a Mustang II IFS under My 3/4 ton 46. This is just an idea for my 1.5 ton.

The complete van chassis is unibody, but from the trans mount forward is (or was until at least 2003) a front subframe attached to the unibody back 1/2. That subframe mounts the suspension, steering box, and the motor/trans. Without dissecting that front frame, I don't see it attaching well to your 47 truck's frame.
The late 90s -2003 vans had a rust problem where the steering box bolts to the frame. Might be something you want to look at pretty close. Gene

A quick look and a quick track measure this morning. The width will be ok, right to the edges of the fenders on the 47, but that might be overcome with wheels.

The unibody van frame is considerably wider than the 47 frame. As mentioned, the front is basically a box frame from the trans cross member forward. So, maybe it could be grafted to the front of the truck frame. But, then would be the issue of engine placement.

The suspension basically bolts to the vans front frame. Maybe construct a front frame section for the 47 and bolt it up.

Maybe cut up the original frame and weld the vans in.

Maybe build a full frame from scratch that the van parts will attach to.

Most likely course of action: Remove engine/trans/rear end from the van and find a different vehicle and do a frame swap.

Then again, I like to be different and I love a challenge. Time will tell what I end up doing but, why waste a 32000 mile 1 ton suspension/engine/trans.

Laine.

Well now, if your really up for a challenge...

How about cutting just the van frame rails where the front suspension bolts to, and attaching those rails to the 47's original frame? You could attach those tails to the original 47 frame in what ever manner you saw fit, and you could control the track width to some extent. You would probably need to eliminate the steering box and tie rod assembly and install some kind of steering rack. Depending on weather or not the 47 will actually be used as a work truck caring loads would make the difference on if the correct steer (front steer or rear steer) rack could come from a car or a truck. You would be able to use the van upper & lower control arms, the van spindles, and the disc brakes. That would allow you to use the van master, booster, and the proportioning valve, if you also used the van rear axle assembly.

An Intrepid is a front steer rack, and a Cavalier is the same rack in a rear steer configuration, and both are over 4,000 lbs cars, so if the 47 wasn't actually going to haul much, either would work. Both these racks have the inner tie rod connections at the center of the rack. One could make a custom built center link and then add the tie rod assemblies to complete the steering, might even be able to use the van tie rod assemblies if you eliminate the van center link and what ever holds it in position.
I would definitely be using the van motor & trans.

Food for thought. Gene

I like the way you think Gene. Move to Nebraska, let’s get this thing done.

Laine

LOL! Move to IL, I've already done some of this stuff, long before it became popular. Gene

The truck has a frame like a thick gauge "c channel", does it not?
The van frame is more like sheet metal square tubing.
I don't see an easy way to make it work.
Of course anything is possible with enough thought and skill.
Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
Good luck and keep us posted.

Hm. Van front to a truck front. Can be done, sure. Anything is possible with a cutting torch and a welder. I remember the old gm van box trucks and the nova front subs. Lop them off and welded right up to the frame rails. Seems too many differences in the van front config, but why not.

I am a retired welder (as of 10-2018) by trade and a lot of what I did was repair frame rust, body, and suspension mounting points. I have to admit the last big Dodge van I was under was a 2002 (or a 2003) model year. I assure you that van had a front subframe very similar to the front frames on the 60s and 70s C body cars. The front frames bolt onto the unibody just behind the trans crossmember and are built from 1/8" steel.

The van chassis used for most motor homes were probably from the 1970s through maybe the 1990s. Those have heavy gauge boxed steel front frames. Gene

It appears some of you guys need to read some of the build posts for these 57-59 Mopar car builds right here in the Street Rod section.
There are a lot of guys cutting and welding frames.

This isn't the restoration section, this is about making an old car (or truck) do what you want it to do. We are not locked into the box of redoing what the factory poorly did all those years ago. We have the advantage of using modern stuff to make the old stuff better. Gene

Poorboy is right, we did a Dakota to a 1940 Chrysler frame. Lots of measuring and making transition pieces between the two. You can make anything work if you want.

Mike

Hi Gene, I didn't get the feeling that the restorers were trying to taking over, but then I'm not that bright. The feeling that I do get is that sometimes people will use something that they have (guilty) just because they can, rather then something that works better and is much easier to install.

Anyways, Dakota into '56 Plymouth wagon. Relatively easy pleasy.

I drove many late 50's MoPars back in the day. I actually LIKED the way they drove.
I bought a 58 2drht I was planning to clip, but after many conversations I've decided to completely rebuild the 58 stock front suspension and steering and toss a healthy big block in it. I'll see what it drives like. I'm tossing Wilwoods all around, I cant stand the 57/58 drum brakes.
I have a couple Dakotas that are nice sitting around already, if needed down the road I will chop em up, but if the car drives well I'll leave it stock!
Strange but true.....

My son has a 57 Dodge wagon. Modern 5.7, efi, Ford 8.8, disc brakes all around. Still has the 57 torsion bars and has rebuilt suspension parts. His biggest concern is with the 57 power steering. He doesn't like the feel it gives him, and he is concerned about possible future problems. If he could find a good alternative to that original power steering, he would change it out in a heart beat, but at this point, a clip is about the only option we can find. He really would rather not take the car down to do that.

The only recent pictures I have of my son's wagon. Gene

Cool wagon!!!!!


My 58 has manual steering, but I've driven power steering Forward Look cars and they drove awesome.... so no idea why his wouldn't!?!

".....He doesn't like the feel it gives him, and he is concerned about possible future problems. If he could find a good alternative to that original power steering, he would change it out in a heart beat, but at this point, a clip is about the only option we can find. He really would rather not take the car down to do that......"

Boy does that sound familiar!!

The 57 PS gears were one year only and actually had worse road feel than the 58-62 units (which are a bolt in replacement).

When I built my 57 Coronet many years ago I used a Saginaw PS pump with a 58 PS gear. The Saginaw pump was rated at a higher pressure than the original Mopar pump which gave the car a "twitchy" feel especially at speed (it's more aggravated if the steering gear has any slop in it). Basically it's the same complaint a lot of the Hot Rod guys have when using a Saginaw pump on a Mustang II PS rack.


Not sure what pump Genes' son is using but it could be the same situation I had.

i don't know if this applies or not, but at one time, someone had an adjustable power steering pressure valve that was an addon to reduce the pressure of the saginaw pump. maybe something to look into gene ?
provided, of course, that item is still being made.

From a old and FAILING memory, there was a kit for the sag pump that was just a couple of cooper spacer washers that went underneath the outlet valve (?). I tried a steel washer and it worked on my '37 ford with big block gm / MII.

ray, "eranbooger" did a story in mopar action magazine about that mod. i tried it on my charger and it worked great !
unfortunately, my old mind can't remember how long ago that was.

Looks like we've managed to pretty much hijack this thread.....my apologies to the OP.

I have no idea what the 5.7 in the station wagon uses for a PS pump. I kind of suspect they may be using the one that came with the motor, whatever that is.

As far as the Saginaw pump there were a few way that people used to reduce the pressure and as far as I know most are still available including the shims, a new relief valve and even pumps rebuilt to drop the pressure.

I heard recently that a Saginaw pump speced for a late 60s-early 80s Corvette operates at a lower pressure. That makes sense as those power steering systems used a slave cylinder and draglink mounted control valve.

If that is in fact true I would be careful where I bought the pump from as I suspect from a rebuilders standpoint a Saginaw pump is a Saginaw pump and chances are you would end up with the higher pressure pump.

No apologies needed. The more people talk, comment and post pictures of anything, the more ideas we all get!

Im back home in my shop finally for two weeks. I work 2 weeks on 2 weeks off in another state.

Comment to one of the posts... Im very guilty of "using what I have" instead of using "what will work best or be easiest". I cant see a reason to waste good parts that will do what I want them to do. So, with that in mind, once I get my 70 Challenger off the lift, I'll bring the van inside, lift it up and see if there is a way to make it work and still be safe and usable.

I'll get some pictures and maybe with everyones input we will find a way to utilize a bunch of stuff off this silly van/camper.

Laine.

To follow up on my son's wagon, He is using the pump from a 97 Ram. We made brackets so it could be mounted on the modern Hemi (yes, the pumps and brackets are different between a 5.9 and a 5.7).
This pump has been on the car for about 3 years. He did something to reduce the pump pressure so it matches the pressure output of the original 57 pump. I think he used a bypass regulator that allows you to adjust the pressure. What he doesn't like is the feedback the original power steering for this wagon gives him, even with sway bars and a completely rebuild suspension.

Lmopar69, I will be looking forward to your findings with the van chassis. Gene

I never knew the 57 steering boxes were different. I drove two of them back in the 80s and regularly at rather high rates of speed..... I liked the way they drove. They were poly V8 power steering cars, both of them.

I’ve been reasearching alternatives to the factory power steeeing unit on the 1957-61 models as well. Another way that’s popular with the hot rod builders is using an electric power steering unit.

The electric power steering setup replaces the factory parts and doesn’t take up space which can be critical when swapping in a different engine.

I haven’t made the decision to pursue this, so if anyone has experience that they could share it would be appreciated

When I got serious about doing a PS conversion on my 57 last year my first plan was to go with an electric conversion. I was looking at the units that splice into the steering shaft under the dash. I still think it's feasible but not for my car.

The show stopper is my Plymouth is a 4 speed. There was just no room under the dash for the electric motor without removing the clutch pedal (converting to an automatic).

Just my experience (luck ? ) all 5 of the original 57-58 manual steering boxes I dealt with over the years were worn to the point where they should have been sent out to be rebuilt. I got a quote from Bench Works in Phoenix last summer and that would have added another $350 (plus shipping) to the project. If I were still considering doing an electric conversion I would probably also look at converting to the manual version of the Ford Steering gear I'll be using on my 57.

If your steering box is worn to the point of needing a rebuild adding the inline electric power steering booster will do nothing to fix that. It will still be a sloppy, vague feeling mess that is a bit easier to turn now.

check out K member under a C body----it is like a big square with a cross member---C body share suspension and brake components with 1/2 trucks and vans.....

What C-bodies have K frames? All the ones I've seen have stub frames.

If you read past the K frame statement you'll see that what he is describing is the stub frame. But nitpick away.

Not being nit-picky, just trying to clarify what he's talking about as to prevent confusion.

We all have brain farts where we can't think of the name of a part.

..yup...words have meanings......