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.

One advantage we have is it will be a daily driver through the summer months, it will not have to be low to the ground. I don't mind 8"-10" of rocker clearance (I just measured, our PT has 9" of air space under the bottom of the rockers), like most normal daily drivers have.

yeah, i missed a figure !
thanks for the correction. i just forgot to push the other key to complete the info. a putz i can be.
i had a 3.0 in my 2000 "bus", and it logged 230k before the body "fell off" due to rust.that engine ran great, and used NO oil and didn't smoke at any time ! i was totally surprised, as it was the original engine. i bought this from the original owner i have known since childhood.
i had forgotten about using the daytona struts to lower those things.
i "think", but not positive, the lower strut bolt pattern and width between the retainer pads on the struts, plus the upper bolt pattern where the strut bolts to the tower were the same for a very long time, but have no real way to check, as all my first generation vans and my daytona/lazer are long gone.
i still have my 95, 2000, and 2002 vans parked at my buddy's mini junkyard, and i could measure that stuff the next time i'm out there. if i don't forget, that is..........
having the PT to use as a starting point is the best way to go, as you pointed out, because he has it.

well, I'm not hacking up our PT, my wife will need it to drive through the winter months. PTs are cheap, and so are minivans, finding a donor of either won't be hard. When we get to that point, measurements will be made. I have a PT to make some measurements with, but its already well past 90 out there, so not today. I am also not limited to using a factory setup. I can pick to use as much as I feel will work, or will save me work.

Given a choice, I think I would rather have a V6 instead of a turbo 4 cylinder. A non-turbo 4 would probably be a hard sell to my wife, and probably a harder sell to me. I'm not building a race car, but I'm not building a slug either.


On the bright side, I have been in contact with the seller today, he got side tracked by a chaotic weekend and had forgotten about taking more pictures. It is a project car that sounds like it was taken apart to restore. He is suppose to have "all the parts". Assessing the reality of actually having them, and then evaluating their condition is forth coming. Moving forward with that. The car is a 6 hour one way drive from here. We will likely make the trip to inspect it, buy it, then get it hauled home, or reject it. I'm well past the point of buying something based on pictures alone, pictures are to determine if its worth traveling to look at. I no longer have a car trailer, so that is another obstacle.

if i were doing this project, i would use the 3.3 engine.
my "bus" gets 26-28mpg loaded, unloaded, city or highway, and although i drive like a grandpa, if you stomp the right pedal, it has surprising pick up, considering the weight of the thing.
i also installed a trans-go shift kit and those lock tabs that go on the ring gear and retain the "death pin" for the spider gears. those retain the pin in case the original retainer bolt breaks or comes loose and falls out, thus saving the transaxle case from the pin trying to escape.
the shift kit isn't the "bang-screech" type, rather just an improvement of the clutch pack engagement[s] and releases, plus eliminating the into low gear "bump/bang" when coming to a stop.
if you decide to tackle this project, please keep updates coming, as i for one would sure like to see what a conversion like this would require, and how the end results turn out.

I will keep everyone up to date on how things progress, or don't.

Conversations with the current owner lead one to believe we may also be looking at replacing much of the glass. The pictures show some glass is not installed in the car, including the windshield. I inquired if he still had the glass and what condition it was in. He says he has it all and it is "sort of" OK, which also would probably require the rubber around the glass to be replaced. The seats are also not bolted in, He says he has them all too, they appear to have been redone "years ago, but still look OK." The inexpensive buy in is pretty reasonable, but it appears the cost of the project may be escalating. The car body looks pretty good in the few pictures I have seen, and he says its really pretty solid. We are at the point its time to go look and see, but that is something we can't do until about mid July.

Anything past that is just speculation. I will be looking into drive train and donor vehicle options. My brother in law just picked up (with in the last year) an older rust free minivan and he installed a reman motor with a 60,000 mile warranty, but I'm not sure what year that van was, or what motor. He did his himself, so I'm sure he will share his info with me. I basically have a PT and a minivan and a 48 Plymouth (the target car is the next gen 49) I can take measurements off of, so between now and then, I can have a plan and a better concept of the projected cost (and the amount of work involved) the project will be. Keep in mind, I completed a ground up build on my 49 truck in 2022 (after the paint & body work), pic posted.

Ray good for you. I’ll be 80 in September and I just started a 64 Dart restomod build. I really believe working on these old cars is what keeps me going.

Poorboy that sounds like an interesting build. I have always wanted to use v6 out of anew Challenger or Charger. I’ve been told the whole suspension and engine drops off as an assembly. It’s probably to wide for what you’re doing.

You guys are making me sound like a spring chicken, I'll be turning 68 in a few months. My problem is if I have a major project, everything else has to sit outside through the winter, my wife is getting pretty used to parking her car in that heated garage, and I'm getting there pretty fast myself. I already have one car sitting outside year around, this project would be two (plus whatever piles the donors are going to make). Not so sure the city would like that very much. When I ran my shop here, I told the city to pound sand (it is a business zoned property) but the business or any related action has been dormant for 3-4 years.

My son has an 08 or 09 Charger ex squad car he drove for several years and has been replaced. He is planning on pulling the Hemi drive train out of it. I'm sure we could make a deal on the rest of the car, but that front track width is pretty wide, probably wider then the late model minivans.

Huuuum again. Two things. As usual one thing always leads to another, a new (extra) project without shop or storage space unfortunately means the need for a new, or temporary, or prefabbed, or repurposed heated shop or storage space. I doubt very much that the city would know that your business has been dormant and even if they did you should still be zoned for a shop/storage space?

The biggest possible issue with the business zone property where the business has closed is, the reopened business may now be required to meet all the new requirements the city has tacked onto businesses over the last few years. When the business was still operational, it was "grandfathered in" (exempt) from nearly all of the current added laws. Those laws include a paved and lined parking lot with handy capped reserved parking spaces, parking lot lighting (even if the business is not open during the dark hours of the day), and several other "requirements" to meet the current city desires for as business clement (businesses of which the city is loosing very fast, almost daily). The problem is, I won't know where I stand until a City official is standing at my door, or I get a letter in the mail.

I have become pretty laid back during my retirement, especially after I got the 49 truck roadworthy and painted (about June of 22). I'm getting pretty used to not having a set time schedule and I'm becoming pretty guarded about tolerating many inconveniences. If this project moves forward I may have to schedule an actual working time again. (I can just tell you are all feeling sorry for me)

That 49 truck was my 3rd "last project" and I really thought I was done. I had no desires to do another one until this popped up. I even cleaned up and got rid of a lot of my stuff. That lasted about 2 years. I am really not sure I want to go back to those thrashing days with a 4th "last project". It will also be a bit more expensive, I will need to buy nearly everything for this project, there isn't very much here anymore. Add in uncertain times and one has to really evaluate his true desire.

It looks like I have a couple weeks to figure it out. Maybe the car will sell by then and will make the decision for me. I hate arguing with myself.

Here's a thought, and it's just me thinking along the simplicity lines. Does a Charger/300 3.5 V6 make sense? Another option might be to use the 3.8 minivan V6 bolted to a Dakota-sourced auto trans. I recall, from selling cars in the 90's, that many of us marvelled at how much nicer engine the 3.8 was than the 3.9, despite their common roots. I believe the 3.8 will bolt directly to a rear drive trans.

That may be an option, but I'm concerned about the 3.5 Charger V6 computer complexities. The Chargers were all new in 06 or 07, and had lots of "security stuff" built into them from the start. The minivans and PTs were still old school and were starting to age out. Most of them escaped the "security" updates until the government forced them to comply after 2013ish.

I have not heard about the minivan 3.8 bolting to a Dakota auto trans, that could be an interesting direction. Locally, a used engine out of a junk yard would cost as much, or more, then a complete rusty donor vehicle. I would still need to source a donor vehicle for all the odds and ends I would need to build this ride. If I have to buy a donor to complete the build, I might as well look into modernizing the brakes, the front suspension, and gain power steering at the same time, all of which the donor vehicle could provide. Still processing.

The buyer pool for the FWD version would be VERY small when it came time to sell. I would try to find a wrecked charger/300 and go 3.5L or a wrecked Charger/300/Ram/Durango/Grand Cherokee and go 3.6L. All the security stuff has been long figured out, I wouldn't let that bother you

I was over at my son's place this morning. We did some measuring on his 09 Charger ex squad car. The actual wheel mounting surface on the front is 64", that is about 2" wider per side then the wheel track listed on a 49 Plymouth (commonly agreed as being a 60" wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface), and the 49 fenders are wide with the original tires and wheels well behind the fender lip. My son also has a 68 Coronet (also with a measured today, 60" wide wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface) with the standard 5 1/2" (or 6"?) wide tires and wheels (I didn't look to see if the tires were 14" or 15"). The 09 Charger squad car steel wheels are 18 x 8" I believe. With our totally accurate ( ) measuring equipment on hand (a broom handle as a straight edge and a tape measure), with the straight edge against the tire sidewall and measuring as good as possible from the outer side of the steel wheel mounting surface, on both sets of wheels and tires (09 Charger and 68 Coronet), the outer surface of the tire was the same distance from the wheel mounting surface. The Charger wheels have a pretty big negative offset.

All that mess says is the if 2" of a wider track on each side can be accommodated by the wide fenders, there shouldn't be a problem with tire clearance (the Coronet has plenty of tire to fender clearance). The only issue I could see was if the total OD of the Charger's 18" short sidewall tire diameter was much larger then the outside diameter of the 14" or 15" tall sidewall tire diameter of the Coronet (or the 49) tire was. If the differences was large, one may have to trim the corners of the fenders to clear the tires when the wheels were steered to the max in either direction. The 49 front fenders do not curve under the body like modern car bodies do. I believe the larger diameter would have to be much larger to be a problem. I do expect to find about the same thing with the minivan front track width. According to the numbers above, the PT track width is with in an inch of the 49 track width.

My wife has been driving a front wheel drive Mopar for 30 years, I still believe a FWD would be better for her (this car is being built FOR HER). A 49 Plymouth does not have E brakes on the rear axle, it has a very limited choice of rear gears, and the rear axle has the tapered axle drum brakes. The 49 also has the 2" wide rear leaf springs, so if it remains rear wheel drive, a rear axle assembly with replacement spring would still be required. If it is converted to FWD, the rear axle can be swapped over to the PT or minivan trailing axle and the 2" springs (or the donor rear leaf springs) will be OK. The Charger has independent rear suspension, so there would be another major project.

Unlike some of you, I don't really give a rip about the future resale value of my stuff. If I build this car, it will be for my wife and my enjoyment. We are both nearing our 70s. resale is not in our future plans, that will be my children's problem. Neither of them are too concerned either. If my time, effort, and money, create a flop, its on me and I'm ok with it. After we are no longer involved, my son will simply sell it as a driver, or part it out and move on. He is a car guy, we raised him right.

Not at all.The Explorer 8.8 is a common swap into this era cars. All you do is slick off the Explorer mounts and weld on a new set of 2" perches, commonly found. All the rest stays original.. On axle parking brake setup, better gear selections, limited slip option.

This does assume the original springs aren't all wore out and in need of replacing regardless.

You could always use the rear suspension and rear end from the donor car. I’ve bee told the whole assembly drops out as a unit on the news stuff.

Newer, for me is defined by something built after about 2013. The last 25 years of my life has been welding repair, and I usually didn't see much of anything until the vehicle design reached about 5-6 years old. I retired from most underbody welding in 2018. I simply have not been the least bit concerned about much modern stuff, I have really only seen a few undercarriages that happened to be on my buddies hoist when I may have dropped in, or something I helped my son with (09 Hemi Charger) a few modern Jeeps (my daughter has a 2016 Grand Cherokee I've been under a couple times), and our 04 PT. Over the years I have done a lot of stuff to the Chrysler minivans, for the most part, they have not changed much.

I'm aware most modern front suspension & drive train mounting sits on a cradle and the Charger front and rear suspensions are both mounted on a cradle. The PT has a coil spring and trailing arm axle and the Minivans are leaf spring mounted trailing axles.

I am aware of the Ford 8.8, we installed one under my son's wagon many years ago. That doesn't change the fact that my wife has been driving a front wheel drive Mopar car for the last 30 years. Any rear wheel drive set up under the "new" Plymouth will start out at a huge disadvantage. This is suppose to be HER car, if she doesn't like something, she won't drive it. If she won't drive the new build, there isn't much sense tin moving forward.

I would rather really just pull the OEM axle and bolt on a slightly modified minivan axle, hook up some brakes, and be done with the rear. The rear suspension would all be under the car work, and I don't have a hoist. I would rather not go that direction.

I do appreciate your responses. Thank you.

How about putting the fwd in the back of your car? I just had to say it, I’m thinking your gonna pull it off and it’s gonna work no matter how you do it.

Yea, but that "Turbo 4 Under the Roof" or "Mid Engine V6 Plymouth" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Hemi Under Glass" has. I have to admit, the thought was entertaining for a short time.

I suppose that if I had a way to lift the body off the frame built the chassis with the motor in place with everything engineered, then cut the appropriate hole in the floor pan as I set the body back on, it could work. That just sounds like a lot more work the just pulling the front sheet metal, making everything work, then reinstalling the front metal. Not sure how my wife would like to pick up groceries in a car with the motor in the back seat, but somehow I suspect it wouldn't go over well. Might be fun to ask her though..

my wife always tells me : "you gotta sleep sometime........."
so i make sure i'm always a good little boy............

My wife was a nurse for the 1st 1/2 of our marriage, worked on the broken bones floor, then moved to the after heart surgery floor. I know what she was capable of.... She had a way of pretty much keeping me in line. Only a fool would want to cause too much trouble, my mama didn't raise a fool. My wife and I celebrated our 48 wedding anniversary back in May.

congratulations on your 48 year marriage !
we will celebrate 44 years on the 20th of this month, after being together 45 years.

Thank you. Yes, marring my wife was one of my smartest moves I made, as I was leaving my teenage years.

Just to throw more mud into your clean pond of a project...The 3.8 was available in a front engine-rear drive arrangement in like '07-'10 Wranglers.
The 3.3 was also available as a north-south arrangement but still with a front wheel drive transaxle in some Intrepid/Concorde models and I believe the early 3.5 was a variation of the 3.3/3.8.
3.3/3.8 engines disappeared around 2011. Exactly how long do you expect to be able to get things other than water pumps or timing chains? What if your computer or fuel rail goes bad?
Where are you finding these 13-30 year old donors with low mileage that don't have rotted cradles/suspension/etc. in the midwest?
Allpar is a good source of info for that era of all things Mopar. As with your previous projects, I have no doubt it will be cool.

Funny you should post about the 3.3s in the Intrepid. Around 5 years ago I sent what was a good 3.3 motor & trans to the scrap pile. It had been sitting for nearly 10 years at that point, still have the entire wire harness with everything still attached to it hanging on the wall in my lower garage! It was a nice low miles car that got side swiped in the very early 2000s. Over the years parts of it have been used and other parts scrapped. We had several Intrepids. I likely would not have used an Intrepid as a donor for a hot rod, things were not in compatible locations, I looked into that years ago. A minivan /PT Cruiser have the drive train more compact and would be easier donors.

You all are still missing the point my wife LIKES to drive those front wheel drive vehicles, and has been doing so for the last 30 years. I'm building it for HER, I intend to build something she is going to like.

The average age of vehicles on the roads today is 12-15 years old. Its not hard to find 15-20 year old donors with mechanical issues or crash damage with the parts I need still intact. I can be pretty selective on which donor to buy, and if the price is right, I'm not past buying two, one for the drive train, and one for the undercarriage, probably still be cheaper then buying just a motor from a pick a part. If I buy 2 donors, I'll have a source of parts on the shelf at home.

With the average cars still being used as long as they are, a lot of parts are still going to be around for another 10-15 years. That will put my wife and myself in the 80-85 age group. This stuff doesn't have to last 20 + years for us, and it probably won't see more then another 50,000 miles.

I'll look into Allpar.

the one thing about cars of today, drivetrains last for hundreds of thousands of miles, and finding a front drive chrysler product with a rotted off body but perfectly good drivetrain, cheap, is fairly easy to accomplish.
building what your wife WANTS is a good thing, [and i know you are WAY more than capable of doing just that] and if she wants front wheel drive, great ! myself, i think that would simplify things considerably, being able to use a "packaged assembly" that includes everything.
i'm looking forward to see how this project progresses if you decide to undertake it.

For a long time on FBM in the central WI area, there had been a 55 Dodge pickup on a Dodge front drive minivan chassis for sale. Kinda looked ok from 20' away, though the minivan dash in the cab looked totally out of place. That, the steel expanded mesh grill insert and the Chrysler V6 for me kept it being an interesting oddity. Probably pretty functional.

Well,my 49 Dodge pickup has a Dakota dash in it, and the 3 chrome bars that are supposed to be the grille trim was over a grand for the only used set I've seen, and I haven't seen that set posted for a while. If you can't find the factory parts, and you want to drive it, you have to do something. 50's Dodge truck parts are not hanging on trees.

You all are still hung up on the resale value. If my wife likes it, I won't care, if she doesn't, I'll sell it off as the parts car it currently is. If I can get 3/4 of my investment back, I'm OK with that.

We have ran into a bit of a delay on my part, a computer crash, and the passing of my mother this week. I was suppose to be in contact with him on Monday. I'm not sure the car is still available.

so sorry for your loss.

Thank you.
Her passing was so much better then it could have been, she had about a year and a half of dementia but she had a bleeding stroke in her sleep last Friday morning, and passed 6 days later, she never regained consciousnesses. She did not have to experience her farther dementia decline, and neither did our family. Just the same, its been a rough week.

To keep this on topic, I am the executor of mom's estate (its pretty simple), so I will likely be tied up with that for another week or so. The car is still listed, so my wife and I will likely make the 400 mile trip to have a look at it, and make a decision after that. I will be communicating with the seller.

Sorry for your loss. My mom made it to 96 Jan 12th of last year. Her mind was still near perfect sharp, but the body was finally failing fast. She survived her teens in German occupied Holland in WW2, then moving to the US with husband and two kids (me being one of them) at 32 years old and $90 in their pockets landing Hoboken NJ in June of 59. Not more than a week or two after her 96th birthday she fell out of bed and head the back of her head on the wood frame. I suspect too that she had a few micro-strokes before her 96th birthday. The last week of her living was tough, seeing her finally releasing to life, but also having no answer to her question, "why can't you help me?"

Yet, she went quicker, with most of her mind intact, in less than a year. Compared to those loosing a parent to mental disease over months, years and more is far more stressfull.

my wife is suffering memory loss, and yes, that is VERY stressful for me, but i have vowed that as long as i'm still kickin', she is NOT going into a home !

That simply was not an option with my mom. She needed 24 hour care, My older sister and I did not have the ability to take care of her, and my younger sister and her hubby are living in a motor home.
Now, if it comes to that with my wife, that is a different story.

You're right! You're crazy!

But this is the kind of crazy that's intriguing.

So my 4 cents worth, since mama bear is familiar with the PT, likes it and you have one, I'd seriously look into a body swap plan.

Basically getting a PT,, cutting it down to a basic skateboard. Cut the floor and firewall out of the Plymouth and set it down on top.

I don't think there's going to be a big difference in vehicle weight. You will have to figure out a ways to solidly connect the upper structure of the Plymouth to the now flimsy PT. Unibody construction issues. The through rail design of the PT helps here and it may be possible to keep some of the PT superstructure intact.

If you're absolutely intent on a v6 minivan, I'd still look at the skateboard idea just keeping in mind one may have to shorten and narrow much more stuff. K based might be a better starting point.

I've had similar crazy ideas, mainly with a 62 Galaxie and putting it on a Panther chassis.

Being crazy is sometimes what makes life fun.
I actually have considered the PT (or mini van platform) as the base to build from, I have certainly had enough experience concerning the unibody structure with the 60s & 70s Mopar dirt track cars. This car does have a full frame that is suppose to be good.

Unfortunately, at this point things are looking less and less likely of happening. The car is still available (it is a 49 Plymouth 2 door Suburban station wagon). The car looks really solid and comes complete with a few extra parts (like a 2nd complete dash,an extra tailgate, and extra fenders). The car is a rolling chassis he says should run to get up on a trailer (he says it ran a couple years ago and has been sitting inside since). There are parts that are dissembled, some of the glass has been removed (all suppose to be there), and the interior is just sitting in the car and the original dash has been dissembled for painting. Hence the reason we were going to go look at it. We were suppose to go look at the car (400 miles away) the week my mom ended up in the hospital, and at this point, its going to be at least another month before we are going to have a chance to go look at it now. I no longer have a car trailer, so transportation here also becomes a larger expense. The fact that the car is on the other side of Chicago and Lake Michigan doesn't help.

This has been a fun adventure, and we were pretty serious (and have the funding). The timing has not been good at all. With everything that has come up in the last month or so, maybe it isn't suppose to happen. When we get on the other side of our current mess, we will reevaluate.

whatever comes to pass will be what it's supposed to be.
as everyone knows, "that's life" as Frank Sinatra would say...............
if you ever get back to thinking about this concept, please post more about it, as i for one, would like to see something like this.

Many years ago, I saw an early 50's Ford 2 dr with a 2.2 Turbo FWD unit swapped in. They did a nice job, but it sat a little high in the front.