I might be going off the deep end again. I've stumbled across a ride the trips my triggers. We may be making a trip to have a look at it soon.
It is a late 40s/ early 50s Plymouth, and of course has a flathead 6 with a 3 on the tree. If we get it, it will be my wife's summer car (she is way on board with this), so that drive train isn't going to fly at all.

I'm not impressed with most of the modern (about 2010 or newer) motors Ma Mopar offers. The 5.7 would be way too much motor for the intended use (mostly cruising, would be my wife's summer cruiser). I'm thinking V6, auto trans with EFI here. The record of the Mopar V6 past the 3.9 isn't very good either, except those motors Mopar used in the minivans. Used mini vans are pretty plentiful, and other then some rust issues, they seem to have reliable drive trains.

The concept of converting the old Plymouth in to being a front wheel drive has some appeal to me. I would only have to be concerned about the frame modifications from the firewall forward. The rear axle on the old Plymouth is hung on leaf springs, and the minivan trailing axle is also hung on leaf springs. Measurements would be required to see if any of it would work. I have the experience to do the metal work and make the other stuff work out as well too. Of course there would be a build thread here.

Am I crazy? No, wait, let me rephrase that, is there a better Mopar alternative for the flathead 6, 3 on the tree? I would really rather stay away from the 2015 and newer all computer inter connected stuff.

Hummm, ... my first reaction is that is a lot of work, not that should be a problem for a retired rich person.
(I am starting a new full rebuild project that is almost as nutty at age 80).
My second thought is I think you could accomplish most of your requirements with a rear wheel drive train that uses a slant six (too long?) or a 4 cylinder. Fuel injected or converted.
I think that some of us have to have a project at least for therapy if nothing else.

I would think trying to get the front wheel drive to work in that would be a chore. I would leave the front end alone and make it rear wheel drive. Should be a able to find a efi 3.9/auto(rwd) and everything else you need. They were in plenty of trucks. The dash gauges may be an issue if you get a year that runs them off the can buss.

i have had thoughts on something similar, although it would involve using a 3.3 and transaxle in a trike.
although i will never do the build, my thoughts were to lock out the steering, and use the necessary electronics to run the engine, transaxle, and dash instruments.
installing something like this in a, say 1955 Savoy, would require a little thought plus good fab skills, but i don't think it would be too much different or difficult than any other hotrod/street rod build.
the only thing that may present a difficult undertaking, would be [at least to my thinking] the width of the assembly, [the axles could be easily narrowed/made if necessary] and the underhood height needed for the strut towers.
in my opinion, the 3.3 engine would be much more efficient and fun, as well as more powerful, than a slant six.

I've toyed with the idea for doing something similar. But with one major difference. Use the FWD donor to create a mid engined, RWD setup. Of course my donor was the LH car.

Might be easier?

If this moves forward, electronic fuel injection and an automatic transmission will be absolute requirements. My wife simply will not drive anything with a carb, and she will not drive anything with a manual transmission. Her current ride (for the last 16 years) has been a turbo PT Cruiser. She is pretty used to front wheel drive. At nearly 70 yo, I will not attempt to change her. Make no mistake, if she likes it, she will drive this ride daily through the summer months. If she doesn't like it, she won't drive it at all.

Buying a donor ride (I can drive home) with a good drivetrain would be the preferred direction. Have no intension of doing anything mid engine, but I am not afraid of cutting the old Plymouth's front frame off and building something from there. I've made my living from fabrication and welding. Fabricating a front frame from scratch is not out of the range of my abilities.

Think a drivable Mopar donor, that does NOT have a 4.7, a 3.7 or a 2.7, but does have fuel injection, and will still have parts available 10 years into the future. I am not opposed to a Mopar V6 or a 4 cylinder (if it has some zip to it). I believe a V8 is probably over kill for this build. Now you get the picture of where I am with this deal;.

I need to get some measurements. The front track width of the old Plymouth is in the 60" wide range (center of tire to center of tire), but it has pretty big fenders. I have a Dakota frame under my 48 Plymouth coupe, and it fits well.

Turbocharged four cylinder.

The minivans use a strut front end and the strut assembly replaces the upper control arm.

I am not sure the strut won't want to go right thru a fender rather than inside the engine compartment.

Look at these pictures. In the 1st pic, our PT is behind my 49 Dodge truck, it is the best pic I have of our PT. The PT has the McPherson strut front suspension where the upper control arm is replaced with the coil over spring. The truck has a Dakota 4x4 chassis under it. The 2nd pic is my 48 Plymouth coupe, it has a Dakota 2 wd frame under it. All 3 have raised centered hoods (as does a 49 Plymouth), and with all 3, everything concerning the suspension and motor are completely under the fenders. The raised hoods are pretty much just decoration.

Back in the early 90s, when I was building my 35 Dodge sedan (my very 1st hot rod), the frame was total junk. At the time I had in my possession a complete mid 80s 2.2 turbo car as a possible donor. I took the measurements and concluded that that crossways 4 cylinder would fit between the front fenders and under the closed hood. I went as far as building a front frame clip (it was pretty ugly back then, skills have improved) to accommodate the strut suspension with the cross way mounted motor under the fenders and hood on that 35 Dodge. Then events happened that moved the 35 back towards the conventional frame drive train. There is more side to side space under the late 40s hood and the 40s fenders are much higher then the 35 hood & fenders were.

The PT has a 4 cylinder motor that sits side to side, the motor width is all under the width of the hood, the top mounting for the coil over spring is below the front fenders and is accessible from under the hood. All the suspension under the 48 coupe is accessible from under the fenders. The fender height of the 48 Plymouth coupe is higher then the fender height of the PT. The hood & fender heights of nearly all the modern cars are lower then the fender height of my coupe, and nearly all of them have the front (and most have the rear) strut suspension. I've been fixing these rusted out strut mounts for years. The strut front suspension from the lower control arm to the top of the strut is only about 6" higher then the upper and lower suspension systems. That puts the strut mounting point at about the same height as the top of the motor.

The V6 from a minivan is shorter, side to side, then the 4 cylinder in the PT, so there is actually more space between the ends of the motor/trans on the minivans there there is on the 4 cylinder PT.

Someone was questioning the turbo 4 cylinder. Our turbo PT is the low HP turbo motor (does not have the intercooler) and is rated at 180 HP in a 4,000lbs car (the turbo with the intercooler is rated at 240HP which is pretty quick for a 4 cylinder). Our 180 HP PT would have given your factory stock V8 a run for is money in its (and my) younger days. The old flathead 6 cylinder motors from the late 40s/early 50s had around 90 HP in a 3400lbs car. Both get about the same mpg. For reference, my coupe has a 3.9 V6 (EFI) 5 speed from a 90 Dakota rated at somewhere in the 170 HP range, also in probably a 3800lbs car, the 5 speed makes it fun to drive.

I am not building race cars here, just fun street drivers. I have not yet been able to put my hands on the target Plymouth, and I have not made any measurements. Just thinking outside of the box here.

While I have no experience with this, I am intrigued by the idea.

If I remember correctly, when you built you truck and car using the Dakota chassis, didn't you use the floorpan too from the firewall back? Couldn't you essentially do the same with the van but from the firewall forward instead so you retain all the stock mounting points for everything?

More so than the metal work, my biggest question is the wiring. Sure, you could use as much of the van as possible but what about accessories the car wouldn't have that the van does (like airbags). Is there a work around with the van's stock computer?

I'll be watching to see if you proceed with this.

I'm sure with enough time and figuring you could get the FWD to work. But probably could get RWD running in less than half the time and effort. I don't like torque steer. I have 3 80's 2.2 cars and all have it. I would like to convert all of them to RWD with at least a 5.7 hemi.

i'm thinking one could use the entire wiring harness from the minivan, including using the airbags, by using the minivan's steering column, and cutting the van's dash to fit the 40's/50's vehicle one decides on.
knowing Gene's skills, i don't think this is out of the question.
as to the front suspension, the engine/transaxle/lower control arm assembly is mounted on a cradle similar to a K member, so all one would need to do is fab up some mounting points on a modified stock frame, or make a frame stub to be attached to the existing frame.
as stated, the front fenders on early stuff are usually "taller" than minivan fenders, so there should be enough room for the strut towers.
just stating my opinion, being intimately familiar with the 96-2000, and the 2001-2007 versions of the minivans.
your mileage will vary.

So here is a wrinkle for you.
The Fox body Fords ( mustangs and others) have what is called a hybrid McPherson strut, the strut is just a shock and it has coil springs between the lower A arm and the front cross K member (that also has motor mounts).
I think the sock/strut is a bit shorter then some but you still need shock towers of some kind. This is what I am going to use in my next project and I have the cross member disassembled at this time if you want more pictures.This pix is from the net.
The fox car rode like crap for the most part but I just go to DQ anyway and I do enjoy the new challenge, darn it.

I dug up some track widths

Track width

2009 Grand Caravan - 65.5"
2008 PT Cruiser - 58.3
1948 Plymouth - 57"

I still think the struts will be an issue.

II would not be afraid of using a PT engine cradle instead of one out of a minivan. I expect to face challenges, that is part of the fun. Helps keep the cobwebs out of the old brain.

On a PT, the right side top motor mount bolts to the top of the strut tower, and that mount bolts to the block between the timing belt adjuster, under the cam sprocket in the head.

I believe wiring may be the biggest challenge, but if the donor is old enough not to have everything ran through the computer, I should be OK. My 49 pickup has a 96 Dakota wiring harness (with the buss bar) and everything I need works. Air bag function at that point could still be turned off. The car will have seat and shoulder belts.

The guy was suppose to send me more pictures yesterday, I have not seen them yet. We will see what happens.

My biggest problem right now is I can't add any more pictures to my computer, I'm no where near my photo capacity, but I can't even download pictures from my phone.

I do think the PT might be a better donor, track wise anyway.

the 84 had a front track width of 59.9
99-2007 - 6
2008 - 65.5

now with all that said, including Sniper's info, i believe one could narrow the axles and rack to fit the vehicle in question easy enough, without any bad side effects.
however, it all comes back to the height of the strut towers.
could they be modified to use a "lowering" spring from something else ?
like the old saying goes : "where there is a will, there is a way".............
more contemplating of a swap of this nature will definitely be required.

My biggest difference would be wanting to avoid wrong (front) wheel drive.

Going to be the wife's ride. She has been driving a front drive Mopar for the last 30 + years (first one was in about 1988, an 85 turbo Lebaron GTS) and she loves them. Most of those front wheel drive Mopars were turbo cars, she is also pretty used to the torque steer.

Actually, at this point, a rear wheel drive car may be more of a problem for her then a turbo front wheel drive car. We ARE NOT building a race car, just a cruiser.

Back in the 80's the V6 was the 3.0 Mitsubishi engine, probably a hard pass, lol.

Your 99-2007 data is incomplete, I looked it up. 63" track width.

Some careful measurements might help sort all this out. I'd start with the PT, since he has one to hand.

I do know that one lowering trick for the older minivans was to used Daytona strut assemblies. I do not recall how much shorter they were though. Also not sure what years that trick worked for.