Parts Compatibility?

The place to talk Slicks. All we ask is that discussion has something to do with slicks...

Moderators: Kid, Casey 65

Post Reply
jamesdfo
Posts: 1637
Joined: February 15, 2011, 10:32 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Parts Compatibility?

Post by jamesdfo »

There must be members here who have used a 64-66 Styleside longbox on an early (ie: '61-'63) LWB straight axle chassis that originally came equipped with a "Wrongbed"??

Does it bolt on without having to elongate or re-drill hole in chassis? How is the cab to box gap??

Any input those who have "been there & done that" can add is appreciated:)

Thanks!
James
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

i'm sure Ice will weigh in here, but it would require some modification given the wheelbase differences.
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
ICEMAN6166
Posts: 11470
Joined: July 11, 2006, 11:28 am
Location: Dove Creek, Co. elevation 6842
Poland

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by ICEMAN6166 »

i cut out 8" from a long uni frame to turn it into a short frame, and all the factory bolt holes lined up.

so the best , simplest and easiest way is to add the 8" to a short frame.
no bed cutting or bodywork then

or do like i did and use a uni bed

edit: i need to check that it may have been 7" but its the difference between long and short wb
1966 F250 4x4
1964 Rambler Ambassador 990
Rest in peace departed Slick family members
Cam Milam
Lesley Ferguson
Steve Lopes
John Sutton
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

There is 14" difference in front of axle location between the later Styleside long and short boxes, but I believe the critical dimension long bed to longbed would be wheel location differences. I suspect overhang at each end would also need modification. IIRC, wheelbase changed 8 inches between wrongbeds and later 2wds. So, the additional 8 inches of later bed length would have to be dealt with, either by bed shortening in front of axle, or additional lengthening of the original long frame.
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
User avatar
unibody madness
Posts: 2140
Joined: December 4, 2008, 4:33 pm
Location: Paradise,CALIFORNIA 95969
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by unibody madness »

James, I did not know they made a long,wrong box.
I mostly deal with 61 unibodies. Is there a difference between the two chassis? I would not think ford would have made yet another chassis.
Turk build thread at:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=18944

It does not matter what you think, it only matters what you do about it!
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

An easier solution if wanting the later longbed on a straight axle truck might be to locate a '64 longbed frame. Everything should be a direct bolt-up to that frame.
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

They actually made two long wrongs, an 8' and a 9'.
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
jamesdfo
Posts: 1637
Joined: February 15, 2011, 10:32 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by jamesdfo »

Paul: Yah, it's looking like I may need a '64 LWB 1/2T chassis....or, I just leave my tin on the M-350 chassis and put a BIG C in the rear rails and bob the back. (because unlike the 1/2 & 3/4 ton chassis, the one ton rails are flat from the cab back).
As for 9' wrongbeds, any of the few I have seen have been on 132" WB one ton trucks, but there may even have been some 3/4 tons, but I have never seen one myself.

BTW: Is there a sticky anywhere that lists SWB & LWB truck wheelbases by year anywhere on this site? (my quick search didn't turn one up).
ICEMAN6166
Posts: 11470
Joined: July 11, 2006, 11:28 am
Location: Dove Creek, Co. elevation 6842
Poland

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by ICEMAN6166 »

jamesdfo wrote:Paul: Yah, it's looking like I may need a '64 LWB 1/2T chassis....or, I just leave my tin on the M-350 chassis and put a BIG C in the rear rails and bob the back. (because unlike the 1/2 & 3/4 ton chassis, the one ton rails are flat from the cab back).
As for 9' wrongbeds, any of the few I have seen have been on 132" WB one ton trucks, but there may even have been some 3/4 tons, but I have never seen one myself.

BTW: Is there a sticky anywhere that lists SWB & LWB truck wheelbases by year anywhere on this site? (my quick search didn't turn one up).


first off f100 4x4 61-65 and f250 4x4 61-66 are also flat railed frames and only 2" less in wb than the standard longbed 122"
not that you want a 4x4 but if you look at my unibed on the 4x4 everything is lined up and i had no bolt holes to drill, the factory ones were perfectly lined up

wheelbases are as follows
all shortbeds 115"
61-63 longbed 122"
64 longbed 128"
65-66 longbed 129"
61-65 f100 4x4 long 120"
61-66 f250 4x4 120"
61-66 f350 all 132"

Paul is correct about the 2 lengths of "wrongbed"
there are 3 lengths of flareside, short , long and the 9 foot for the f350

as to Johns question no there were not different chassis for unis, they just did not have the rear cab mounts on them, but the holes are there for the rivets

the issue of bed lengths in the 2wd lwb is the 61-63 center of the bed is directly over the rear axle same with the f350s
64-66 is not, the axles are moved back so there is more space forward of the axle, longer wheelbases affect the handling- smoother ride and the weight ratio between the axles is more centered in the truck,

if it was mine to do i would call up Tom or go find the lengths of frame needed and weld them in.
it took way more time to carefully measure and cut than it did to do the actual welding
1966 F250 4x4
1964 Rambler Ambassador 990
Rest in peace departed Slick family members
Cam Milam
Lesley Ferguson
Steve Lopes
John Sutton
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

The 9' beds are in fact on the 132" wheelbase; most are F350; I have only seen one which appeared to be an F250 by virtue of the wheels. Three different shortbed wheelbase lengths are listed; with only 1 inch difference between various coil sprung trucks; this difference appears to be other than the frame itself. The '61/63 2wd frames are the same on both F100 long beds and F250's, the shortbed F100 frame is also common through '64 models. The 4x4 frames for '61/'64's interchange between the F100/F250 also. The '64 F100 and '64 F250 2wd longbed frames are shared and a year unto themselves. The 1965/66 coil spring truck frames again vary only by lengths. The '66 F100 4x4 utilizes a frame of it's own in both the long bed and the rare shortbed. F350 frames changed in '64, again in '65, then again in '66.
Although I have had a part in many a stretched or shortened chassis; my preference would be to find the '64 as mentioned, if for no other reason than the resale is invariably hurt by most such mods when discovered. If you were to do as you mentioned, moving the rear axle centerline forward to the F250 position would probably yield the correct results, then it becomes a matter of retro-fitting for the lighter suspension if desired. I have cab to axle centerline dimensions somewhere; I could also easily measure with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The '64 LB frames are usually fairly easy to locate, that is, until you need one. I sold my last one several years ago to a member with a crashed truck. I have a '64 shortbed rolling chassis, but it has an early Crown Vic front clip.
I keep editing this as I verify, or correct, memory; my sources are the Ford (Autolite) master parts manuals and the Hollander 40th anniversary auto-truck edition.
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
jamesdfo
Posts: 1637
Joined: February 15, 2011, 10:32 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by jamesdfo »

Paul: I have a Jag front crossmember to use for the front.
From the measuring I have done (M-350 vs F-100) the 350 frame is 1" deeper at the c/l of front axle (6" vs 5" on F-100), and also ~1/2 overall wider (~34-5/16" vs ~33-13/16" on F-100), it looks like the Jag crossmember should work up front, and a guy can hang any diff he wants out back, but to get it as low as I want, it will take a pretty substancial "C" to have diff clearance. And this is where the trouble starts, because personally, I REFUSE to have a "Hump" in my box floor, so that means I would have to fab a new taller rear sill and RAISE the whole floor to clear the C in the rails.....so I'm still straddling the fence on weather I want to work with what I have or look for a '64 F-100 frame.
Making it even harder is the LWB MERCURY Styleside box & gate I just bought has BEEN INSIDE since ~1968 :? :?

As for Brian's mention of just calling Tom, even if Tom gave me a frame it would cost a FORTUNE to have it shipped up here.....

Anyways, good job I'm not in a hurry....the Mustang will be getting my attention before the M-350....
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

I agree, trucks should have a bed! If I wanted humps in mine, I would just get more Rampsides and Loadsides, LOL! The ability to get it in the weeds while retaining the stock bed floor is my reasoning for using the Mark VIII IRS. Since you evidently have the entire Jag, might I make a suggestion? Unless you just really want to scrape the stripes off the highway; why not use both front and rear suspension from the XJ? It's been decades since I have done one on a roughly 34" frame width, but I seem to remember that a slight C-notch of small radius was all that was required for clearance. I'm not sure how much progress Nick and Kevin have made on Nick's uni, but I'm pretty certain they have at least measured it out and hashed out the pros and cons! I see lots of advantages here; the frame would be extremely rigid by comparison, the flat rails would make it simpler to locate the components where they should be at each end, and obviously, with the parts already in hand, the cost should remain reasonable even if refurbishing of the wear parts is needed or desired. The only small down-sides I see are the need for custom wheels to keep durability, handling, and especially KPI, in check; and, oh, yeah, those infernal inboard brakes!!!
Just some random thoughts and suggestions! :2cents:
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
jamesdfo
Posts: 1637
Joined: February 15, 2011, 10:32 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by jamesdfo »

Paul: The Jag belongs to a friend of mine, we gutted it a week ago, but the diff was never on the table......BUT he does have some MN-95 T-Birds:) May have to look a little closer at what Scott has done to his & see if it's do-able with the flat 350 frame (which BTW, is 7" deep for quite a ways back behind the cab before dimension changes).

Scott?? Time to start a build thread!! :wink:
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

Toyz wrote:The 9' beds are in fact on the 132" wheelbase; most are F350; I have only seen one which appeared to be an F250 by virtue of the wheels. Three different shortbed wheelbase lengths are listed; with only 1 inch difference between various coil sprung trucks; this difference appears to be other than the frame itself. The '61/63 2wd frames are the same on both F100 long beds and F250's, the shortbed F100 frame interchanges through '64 models. The 4x4 frames for '61/'64's interchange between the F100/F250 also. The '64 F100 and '64 F250 2wd longbed frames are shared and a year unto themselves. The 1965/66 coil spring truck frames again vary only by lengths. The '66 F100 4x4 utilizes a frame of it's own in both the long bed and the rare shortbed. F350 frames changed in '64, again in '65, then again in '66.
Although I have had a part in many a stretched or shortened chassis; my preference would be to find the '64 as mentioned, if for no other reason than the resale is invariably hurt by most such mods when discovered. If you were to do as you mentioned, moving the rear axle centerline forward to the F250 position would probably yield the correct results, then it becomes a matter of retro-fitting for the lighter suspension if desired. I have cab to axle centerline dimensions somewhere; I could also easily measure with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The '64 LB frames are usually fairly easy to locate, that is, until you need one. I sold my last one several years ago to a member with a crashed truck. I have a '64 shortbed rolling chassis, but it has an early Crown Vic front clip.
I keep editing this as I verify, or correct, memory; my sources are the Ford (Autolite) master parts manuals and the Hollander 40th anniversary auto-truck edition.
Paul

Confused again!
I can't find my early cab to axle dimensions; anyone know exactly the difference from 2wd to 4x4 on the early longbeds?
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
64 f100
Posts: 2754
Joined: July 18, 2006, 7:23 am
Location: Carmi, Illinois, 62821

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by 64 f100 »

I have a long bed f100 frame with tittle in southern Illinois I would sell if that helps
Rich
jamesdfo
Posts: 1637
Joined: February 15, 2011, 10:32 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by jamesdfo »

Rich: This thread dates back to last fall, and for some reason, Paul brought it back up yesterday:)

But in the meanwhile, I found & bought a '66 crew locally, so the M-350 is probably going to get sold at some point, although we did go out to a fellow's place Wed of last week, because he told me his parts truck was a '64, but when we got there, it was a twin I beam chassis. But not to worry, still plenty of trinkets to be harvested:)

As for your chassis, I think the fuel bill to retrieve it from IL & bring it back to Edmonton would be quite a bit more than the purchase price.....

James
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

Just looking for that dimension. Another "oddity" is falling my way; just trying to reconcile what it may consist of.
Thanks'
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
jamesdfo
Posts: 1637
Joined: February 15, 2011, 10:32 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by jamesdfo »

Paul: If you need a back of cab to rear axle centerline dimension for a One ton (132" WB), I can probably get that for you, but it means a trip out southwest of the city to my buddy Bruce's where it's stored. How big a hurry are you in for the info?

James
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: Parts Compatibility?

Post by Toyz »

I appreciate it James. I am looking for the leaf sprung F100/250 longbed dimensions as compared to the 4x4. As Ice had stated; I thought the long bed was centered longitudinally over the axle. Trying to verify without making multiple trips in view of my current schedule.
Thanks for the offer!
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
Post Reply