Slick 60's

Just wondering if anyone went to a one piece drive shaft,the shaft I have from a 78 might have to be cut a inch and it looks like the bracket for the carrier bearing might have to be removed but will a one piece shaft work or should I stick with a two piece.

It's not a performance vehicle so the two piece shaft really isn't hurting you. A one piece in a longbed might be longer than most shops would recommend unless you stepped up to a 4" diameter tube or something not really financially viable.

78 is 131" wheelbase so your likely going to need to cut 2" depending on the rear end it had

If it was satisfactory for OEM '78's, no reason for it to be a problem on an earlier application of same or lesser shaft length. Ford shows a one piece application all the way up to 69+ inches. Most are in fact 4'' diameter. The one in my C6 equipped '65 LWB is one piece and appears uncut. The one piece is my choice for ALL 1/2 and 3/4 applications other than long crew cabs. The exception would be lifted 4x4's where a two piece might help ease the angularity of each.

I am using a 1 piece aluminum shaft from a mid 80s , but I have a 75 frame so I moved the rear 3" forward and I am using a 4 speed od trans in a 66 f100 long bed. I could measure it for you if it would help. Tom

I was under the truck today looking at the frame and I think the crossmember where the carrier bearing attaches might be a little too close when it would be heavily loaded,I know the bracket it bolts too would have to come off but I just do not think it will work so I am going to stay with a two piece. If anyone has done it i would like to know but I now think those trucks just are not designed for a one piece shaft

All appearances are that my 1/2 ton CS came with a one piece shaft. It was a 352, Cruise-o-matic with no sign of ever having a center bearing bracket. I have never loaded it to the bumpstops, but I am quite certain I would have no interference. As stated in the other post, I have 4 inch clearance at the crossmember. The proximity of the tailshaft indicates to me that it would take much more travel at the rear axle than is available to create any interference. If you have the four speed with the bolt-on yoke, that could be another matter entirely.
Bottom line is, as Ice stated, and you determined, going back with the original design is possibly more confidence-inspiring.
Paul

Mine originally came with a 4 speed and I did not know one piece shafts were on those trucks even with a automatic,the 67 to 72 automatic trucks had two piece shafts so I figured the earlier trucks did too. The one truck I would have been looking at in the junkyard has a automatic so I will look for another that has a manual trans,it figures the only thing missing on the automatic truck is the column which I could use since I want to add under dash a/c and want to get rid of the Lokar shifter so the a/c unit would be centered.

Yes, my '70 Ranger XLT long bed originally had a two piece. When I converted it to 429, I installed a wrecking yard shaft of indeterminate origin and had no issues.
The '65 CS has 4 1/2" from bumpstop to axle, and the mentioned 4" from top of shaft to crossmember. The crossmember itself appears to have a slight rounded clearance at the lead edge of the crossmember. I do not remember any such being present above the center bearing bracket on any other truck; I will look this weekend to see if it is present on the two piece applications. It certainly appears to be formed rather than added; it may be that I never paid attention to it before.
Paul

the crossmember is there regardless of ds.

Never noticed the different reinforcements (5097/98) between F100 and F250 before
Paul

i am getting ready to do this to my 66 f150. it has a car 460 and c6 in it. the front shaft is slip yolked and all the way up into the output shaft of the trans. it has plenty of slip aft of the carrier, but i don't really like what i see. i have a one piece ds that came out of an 81 f150. it will need to be cut, but i think it will work out better.

Toyz wrote:All appearances are that my 1/2 ton CS came with a one piece shaft. It was a 352, Cruise-o-matic with no sign of ever having a center bearing bracket. I have never loaded it to the bumpstops, but I am quite certain I would have no interference. As stated in the other post, I have 4 inch clearance at the crossmember. The proximity of the tailshaft indicates to me that it would take much more travel at the rear axle than is available to create any interference. If you have the four speed with the bolt-on yoke, that could be another matter entirely.
Bottom line is, as Ice stated, and you determined, going back with the original design is possibly more confidence-inspiring.
Paul

I have a Cruse-O-Matic and two piece drive shaft from a swb fleet side 66 F100 352. Would there have been a different drive shaft configuration between fleet and step side beds?

Toyz wrote:Never noticed the different reinforcements (5097/98) between F100 and F250 before
Paul

I looked at the F250 and F100, both June of 65 Kansas trucks, they share the (5097/98) for F100. The F250 is a single wheel twin I beam truck with rear overload springs. Maybe the heavy duty 3/4 tons got the other variation?

Ezer, I don't think I would change anything on that '66 F150; that's got to be a rare truck! . Like mine, it probably already has an identity crisis due to the removal of the "mouse ear" turn signals, LOL! (this is about where our "bigger rig" members will chime in about the "real" mouse ears!)
Chris, I would expect it to be a matter of GVW rating rather than bed style. My CS F100 has some heavy duty overloads which certainly appear to be a factory installation. I would have expected it to have the two piece due to potential angularity changes; and it may well have come with the two piece. As stated, the clearance is there and the angles appear normal. This truck has been modified with '77 drivetrain, so it is somewhat a guess as to original configuration.
As to the reinforcement; I don't know if I would have noticed the difference. I have utilized the #4 crossmember as an additional cab support on unis, but never paid much attention to the support configuration. Just interesting, since I was reasonably certain that all riveted frame components were the same application to application between Twin beam F100's and F250's.
Paul

I have 1 piece as well. mid 70's is the date. but i also have a c4 transmission, so that is probably why it is 1 piece.

Were the step side bed trucks rated less than fleet side due to cargo area?

no
rating is determined by the spring packs (and frame thickness, f250 has thicker frame than 100, 350 is thicker than 250)
flaresides came in f100, 250 and 350s

I am of the understanding that there is no difference between the F100 and F250 frames, application to application. The '61/'63 frames carried replacement p/n C3TZ 5005-AGZ on the 122 wb F100 and F250. The '64s are by themselves, with p/n C4TZ5005A on the long 2wd F100's and F250, while the short bed utilizes the same part number for both series from '61 through '64. I don't have my later book here, and I just had a computer failure, so I don't have the Twin beam p/n, although Hollander lists both F100/F250 long 2wd as their number 1378 with Ford p/n C6TZ5005 BL. I will check inventory tomorrow and see if any frame numbers are readable.
Paul

Interesting discussion, Gentlemen!

Regarding the frame thickness differences....how can one determine which frame they have?
I'm curious about the frame under my 4x2, '65 F250...?
Is the part number stamped on the frame some where?

BarnieTrk