Register now to get rid of these ads!
  1. Hey fellas, just in case you missed it - The Rodder's Journal and The Jalopy Journal is celebrating 20 years of bringing you traditional hot rods and customs by offering you a one-year subscription to TRJ and a H.A.M.B. Alliance membership for only $75. Click here for details.

Frame swap 1951 studebaker truck

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by DG Racing, Jan 3, 2010.

  1. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    Is it possible to swap the frame on a 1951 studebaker truck

    i whant to use a chevy 1984 3500 frame
  2. Got a tape measure?
  3. OldSub
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Posts:
    1,067
    Location:
    Seattle, WA

    OldSub Member Emeritus

    Is it possible? Most such things are possible.

    Will it turn out the way you want? You need to think about what do you want to do with the truck when it is finished before you can address that question.

    I'm betting front track width will be too wide for a lowered truck without either body or suspension modifications. Without knowing what kind of bed you intend its difficult to comment on the rear.
  4. B.A.KING
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    2,471
    Location:
    hartselle alabama

    B.A.KING Member

    and watch out for steering box location
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. billygoat67
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Posts:
    339
    Location:
    fort dodge ,iowa

    billygoat67 Member

    the body always seem to set too high on the frame, friend tried a 1500 under his andswaped back to a stock frame with a camaro stub and rearend. sets low and body fit great. of course it should it's basicly the stock frame.[the camaro sub fits right in side the stud frame] it did on his anyway.
    unless you want that look or for a hauler but check the wheel base first i thought it was the same but not pos.
    the first thing to go is your memory,i think!
  6. Dreamweaver
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    Boulder City, Nevada

    Dreamweaver Member

  7. LOWBLAZERO1
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Posts:
    435
    Location:
    kansas city, mo

    LOWBLAZERO1 Member

    s-10 frame pulls the wheels inside of the body too much to look right, in my opinion.
    i am planning to put mine on a 82 c-10 frame, it is the closest track width i could find.
  8. temper_mental
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Posts:
    2,709
    Location:
    Texas

    temper_mental Member

    I love Studebaker trucks. I have built two so far. Why not clip it? Every Studebaker truck I have seen with a newer frame grafted under it Looks like shit! When I find one for sale were someone has started this I walk away from the abortion .
  9. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    Yes i have 22 tapes measure but i didnt received my truck yet so i dont have the spec of the studebacker but i have the 1984 chevy 3500 frame in the garage :rolleyes:
  10. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    i whant to have a strong frame not the s-10 .

    like the 1984 3500 frame :)
  11. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member


    ok this is what i whant to do with it but with a 1951 studebaker

    Attached Files:

  12. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    do you have spec of track width?:)
  13. LOWBLAZERO1
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Posts:
    435
    Location:
    kansas city, mo

    LOWBLAZERO1 Member

    I don't my truck has had a frame swap in the past, done poorly, with leaf springs welded directly to the frame. i can only speculate what it would have been, as mine is currently way too narrow. if you find any specs on it, please let me know
  14. OldSub
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Posts:
    1,067
    Location:
    Seattle, WA

    OldSub Member Emeritus

    I assume from the picture that you intend to use this truck as a car hauler. The one pictured isn't real tall as trucks go, but neither does it appear to be lowered, at least not much.

    I still think you need to look at how the wheels will fit in the front wheel wells. That will mean some measuring and comparing and thinking carefully how high to mount the cab on the frame to keep wheels inside the wheel wells while also covered and maximize your ability to turn because something that long is hard to park.
  15. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    can somebody give me how wide is the track of a original stude
  16. 46stude
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Posts:
    1,453
    Location:
    Rockport, TX

    46stude
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Looks like you won't have the only one on a full size dually chassis. Found this one in a Google image search.
    If you have the big truck fenders, track width should be about right.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
  17. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    wow that look god

    the chevy box have the same width as studebaker

    that is a option that i might look at
  18. OldSub
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Posts:
    1,067
    Location:
    Seattle, WA

    OldSub Member Emeritus

    Wow. Except for the color I like that one. The bed isn't quite right, but it fits that truck better than the bed's on 60's Studebaker's fit 60's Studes.
  19. povertyflats
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Posts:
    8,175
    Location:
    near Salina Kansas

    povertyflats Member

    other than the modern tail lights that actually looks pretty good.
  20. rustynewyorker
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2004
    Posts:
    15,807
    Location:
    Upstate New York, watching my New Yorker Rust

    rustynewyorker Member

    I'm amazed the basic side contour of the Chevy box is that close to the shape of the Stude cab. Except for that reveal in the side it looks like it belongs there. And you can make those beds fit an 87-back frame, there's one local here that's like an '85 with an '89 or so bed on it.

    But you have to cut up the tailgate and weld in the part of the Stude gate so it says Studebaker across the back.



    I know a guy not too terrible far from you with a couple more Stude trucks that vintage, PM me if you end up needing a parts truck.
  21. 1941ihkb5
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Posts:
    339
    Location:
    north east ct

    1941ihkb5 Member

    Kinda funny Im planning on upgradeing my dovetail 69 International 1300 with a 94 Ford superduty chassie . Something about four wheel disc brakes and 4spd with od. Is your 3500 a pickup? Youneed at least a 160 wheelbase for a dovetail body. And you cant put much on a 3500 after you put a heavy body on a truck like that either. Im not a Stude expert still a cool ride though, Maybe fit some 1-2tonfront fenders(if yours is a half ton), so the 16s will fit. The measurement roughly from left to right front hubs on both the 69 and 94 were 76" wide. Hope this helps. Good luck! Have fun.
  22. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    i just find this info about stude specs.

    Attached Files:

  23. 46stude
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Posts:
    1,453
    Location:
    Rockport, TX

    46stude
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    If I'm reading that right, it says front tread width is 60-1/2", the rear's about the same.

    I can tell you that I had my '46 Stude on a '69 F350 dually chassis, & with the 1-1/2 ton fenders on it the front tires were just about right. I'd post a pic, but Photobuckets having a fit at the moment. I believe the 2R series are a touch wider than the M series were.
  24. Stude-sled
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Posts:
    680
    Location:
    WILLARD MO.

    Stude-sled
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I agree the S-10 is to narrow, I will prob. do a clip next time. My 1952 is on a 1999 S-10.

    Attached Files:

  25. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    i just find more info on that truck
    check this link

    http://classiccars.com/112607.car
  26. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    ok so is it a direct bolt on if i use the 1951 R16 front fenders only on my 1951 R5 truck ?

    the R5 front tread is 60 13/16 and the R16A is 63 1/2
  27. 46stude
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Posts:
    1,453
    Location:
    Rockport, TX

    46stude
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I can't say for certain on the R series, but on the M series the fenders are a direct swap. Here's a pic of my M on the F350 chassis.

    Attached Files:

  28. LOWBLAZERO1
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Posts:
    435
    Location:
    kansas city, mo

    LOWBLAZERO1 Member

    Should be a direct swap on the fenders.
  29. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    ok thanks for the info :)
    but i just notice that on the orange truck it does look to have the R16A front fenders ?

    i will try to find out what is the exact frame on that truck its maybe original ?

    because the tread on a GM 73-87 is 65.8:confused:
  30. DG Racing
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Posts:
    44
    Location:
    champlain ,NY

    DG Racing Member

    wow i just find some info on that truck it a original 1 1/2 ton
    and the bed is narow 12 inch

    so this truck doesnt have a newer frame :(

    Attached Files:

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2013 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.