Ranger frame for 40 Ford coe?

[cougstang]

I have seen all kinds of frames being used on coe pick up conversions but I have not seen or heard of anyone using a ranger. Seems it would be similar to the S10 set up. Anyone done it, opinions? TIA

[treb11]

too short, too narrow. think Bronco II with all the weight high and forward.

[Hnstray]

I agree with treb11.

Too light for the application, in my opinion. With the weight concentration on the front end, the chassis/front suspension needs to be pretty stout to do the job properly and SAFELY.

I know there are several COE's out there with MMII kits and so on, but they are, I believe, seriously compromised. A late model full size "half ton" pickup chassis should be considered the minimum, but are probably sufficient for a Pickup Truck style build as they are pretty heavy vehicles to begin with. For a 'ramp truck' or the like, heavier is better.

Ray

[dave lewis]

the most common frame used for a coe upgrade is...
motorhome
forward control, heavy duty, and usually cheap !

[George/Maine]

See a 47 ford coe last night had a 1980 chevy pickup frame.

[VoodooTwin]

Not traditional. Sheesh.

[cougstang]

Sounds like a no go. So is this to say that the S10 is wider, heavier and longer than the Ranger? I don't want to go motor home, I just want a driver truck. I also would like to keep it all Ford

[hotroddon]

I would use a 1975-91 Ford E Series Van frame. It will give you the forward steering and motor location that is desirable.

[Hnstray]

No, the S-10 is none of those things...........not worth the time, effort or expense in this applcation.............in my opinion of course

You don't need motorhome capacity for what you want to do, bt a full size pickup chassis would be far better than the mini-truck stuff.

edit: Just saw hotroddon's post.............good idea!


Ray

[cougstang]

Thanks guys, Believe me, I am not arguing any points here, just trying to find the best and easiest way of doing it. I don't have a truck yet so I can't do any measuring or checking for myself. I did ask about the E series van before because of the steering etc. and it was pretty much put down for the twin I-beam suspension and was told the frame and front tracking was way too wide?

[George/Maine]

I know of 2 in area.
One is on Dodge 1 ton dual wheels, hauling a car 5th wheel trailer very high off ground.
last night one 80 chevy pu 1/2 frame was so low i could look in and see the floor. had a flatbed like a 1 ton. ya don,t see many around here.

[hotroddon]

Originally Posted by cougstang

Thanks guys, Believe me, I am not arguing any points here, just trying to find the best and easiest way of doing it. I don't have a truck yet so I can't do any measuring or checking for myself. I did ask about the E series van before because of the steering etc. and it was pretty much put down for the twin I-beam suspension and was told the frame and front tracking was way too wide?

Nothing wrong with the twin I Beam at all! If you need it narrower, there are a couple of choices, run the 3/4 or 1 ton 8 lug hubs and use dually style negative offset rims, OR narrow the frame and custom make shorter I Beams.

Mine had an 80's Chevy truck front clip and that had to be narrowed as well, and it still had a horrible angle on the steering box. If I were to do another one, I would use the Econoline for sure

[The37Kid]

I've always thought an E-350 chassis with a dually rear would be the perfect thing under a '40 COE cab. What are the 75-91 features that would make it better than a newer one Bob

Originally Posted by hotroddon

I would use a 1975-91 Ford E Series Van frame. It will give you the forward steering and motor location that is desirable.

[hotroddon]

Originally Posted by The37Kid

I've always thought an E-350 chassis with a dually rear would be the perfect thing under a '40 COE cab. What are the 75-91 features that would make it better than a newer one Bob

The 92 to present will work as well, it is basically the same frame with a different angle on the steering column due to the newer body style

[kscarguy]

For a pickup style COE (not a car hauler) Consider an early Dodge Dakota frame. The front track width is perfect to fit under the front fenders, they came with large 11 brake rotors and 5 lug wheels with a 4-1/2" bolt circle. The rack and pinion will need to be rotated to point upwards but will line up with the COE dash nicely. Swap out the rear end for a full size 9" ford to get rid of the weak dodge third member.

[cougstang]

Again, not to be augmentative, why is the Dakota any better then the S10 or Ranger?

[Hnstray]

I, too, had thought about suggesting a Dakota chassis. I happen to have the front frame sections from both an early 90's and '97 up style in my shop and the '97 up is stouter than than the earlier unit. The later has 6 on 4.5 bolt circle which is it's only potential drawback when it comes to wheel choices. However, there were quite a few styles used by both Dodge Dakota and Durango from the factory, from 15" to 17", and a fair amount of aftermarket choice. The track width should be, or be near, perfect.

The Dakota is more ruggedly built and is wider than the S-10/Ranger stuff, being a true "intermediate" size truck, as it was advertised. As for rear ends, the stock 8 1/4" inch isn't weak rear end, though not as rugged as a 9" Ford or 8 3/4" Mopar axle.

Also, depending on chassis/powertrain options, many Dakotas and Durangos had Mopar 9 1/4" axles and they are sized like a Dana 60. That will do anything you want to do, and came in 3.21. 3.55 and 3.92 ratios......maybe even 4.10.


Ray

[kscarguy]

Agreed, the dakota has a bigger frame than the S-10 and ranger. I had an 87 Dakota and measured it for my 41 Ford COE and it would have fit very well. It is a perimeter frame with the fuel tank inside next to the drivershaft. The center section of the frame under the cab is more square than rectangular. My '87 had the 5 lug rotors. The later six lug are a drawback, I wonder if the rotors interchange? On my 87 dakota, I blew up the rear end at 100K miles. The full size ford LTD 9" rearend was an easy swap and only 1/2" wider on each side (1 inch overall wider) I think the Ford drums were slightly larger and wider than the mopar. If I built another COE, I'd definitely give the dakota frame a lot of consideration.

[kscarguy]

FYI - I used the air conditioner from my 87 Dakota on my COE. It is a completely contained unit and fits under the dash very nicely. The ONLY difficuly part was having a fitting made to route the hoses in the correct direction under the hood. I found an a/c shop on the east coast who made the fitting for me.

[cougstang]

Hey KS, would you happen to have a pic of the ac inside?