What to do Next?

[1952B3b23]

Hey guys,

So i am finally at the point where i need to decide which way to go next on my '52 B3b. Its currently completely apart and at the rolling chassis stage. I want to go with an aftermarket motor and im really leaning towards a Cummins 4bt but it hasn't been an easy task to find one (still haven't) and they are a bit pricey. My next choice would be a 318 which is less expensive and i think the swaps been documented on here before. Im also thinking of upgrading the front suspension with a kit from Fatman Fab. Im pretty certain that with the Cummins swap this would be mandatory. The stock straight axle and other components most likely wont be able to deal with the added weight of the diesel which is around 750 lbs dry. With the 318 would it be necessary for IFS or would just a disc brake conversion do a decent job? Regardless if i go gas or diesel i want to upgrade the rear axle as well. Basically im just looking for input on the subject before i go and jump into anything without thinking it through.

Thanks in advance,

-Chris

[B1B Keven]

Here's an idea I've been kicking around.

Swap in the drive train from a 2 wheel drive Jeep Cherokee or Comanche.

Super strong, long life 4.0 liter (242 ci) fuel injected inline six, front straight axle already has discs, 4 speed auto with overdrive and the rear axle (could use Grand Cherokee rear for disc brakes also).

4 liters can be stroked to 4.6 or 4.9 liter!

[Dave72dt]

There's other alternatives to diesel than just the Cummins. 318's - 360's don't necessarily need the IFS but it helps when the starter and steering gear want to occupy some of the same space. An IFS will require notching the firewall for clearance. The straight axle may not. The axle and springs can take the extra weight of the diesel. You might need to add an extra leaf to the spring pack. I'd worry more about the spindles and brgs for either setup. Disc brakes are almost a must for today's traffic. It's not that the old brakes are bad, it's the braking efficiency of them compared to the vehicles you're sharing the road with. The Cherokee rear difff seems to be the current choice for upgrading.

[Apittslife]

I am also seriously considering the Cummins 4 BT. It, isn't any heavier then a V-8, were as the 6 BT is a heavy weight.

Since others have put V-8's in the PH with stock suspension, I can't see the need to switch just to install the 4 BT. But Disc brakes would be a smart move.

[1952B3b23]

B1B Keven:

That sounds like a pretty cool idea!

Dave72dt:

Being a huge Cummins fan, in my eyes its either a Cummins or a gas motor. Could you elaborate on why the IFS requires notching the firewall? I think with such an outfit like Fatman supplying the IFS you could call them up and tell them exactly what motor you plan on using and they will spec out heavy duty enough parts for the job. I am going to call them hopefully sometime this week and pick there brain on the subject, I'll report back with info. I totally agree on the disc brakes, regardless if i go IFS or not i'm seeing them as a must.

Apittslife:

The 6bt is quite heavy i think around 900-1000 lbs depending on what version you get. I didn't know that the V8 and 4bt where similar in weight, thanks for that bit of info.

Do you guys think power steering would be a must or just a nice to have with the added weight?

Thanks

-Chris

[Dave72dt]

The notching has to do with the design of the oilpan and the crossmember location. Part of the oilpan wants to be where the crossmember sits on a M II, especially if lowering the truck from original ride height. A Volare style IFS is designed with pan clearance since the V8's came in them, whereas the M II style means you set the engine back into the firewall or forward into the radiator area or higher in the frame. Back gives you a better front/rear weight ratio. The V8 may clear the stock axle and steering linkage. Front or rear sump would determine which way you needed to go. Going higher in the frame would work but puts the water pump and fan pretty high on the radiator and means a bigger trans hump in the cab.

http://www430.pair.com/p15d24/mopar_forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=21492&d=1287871578

This is mine. Could have gone forward a bit but I've got room for a rad in it's stock location this way. The pan is also rounded a bit on the bottom and gets more rounded the closer it gets to the sump. Clearance is about 1/4 inch between pan and crossmember and rack and pinion on the front.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Dave72dt

[JBNeal]

I am not sure that installing a diesel into the B-series frame is as simple as considering geometry & weight. I've seen the undersides of the D-series with & without Cummins power, and right away the additional beefing up of the frame is noticeable. On high mileage CTDs, cracking could be seen around these reinforcements, presumably from the combination of torque + vibration judging from the crack propagation. Redesign of the Ram frame for '94 beefed up the entire frame, from material used to location of reinforcements, and most of those problems went away. The B-series frame is made of a lower grade steel than the carbon steel used in the D-series, and I've seen cracking near rivet holes just from loading the chassis, not from any vibrations from the flathead. Installing a Cummins in the B-series frame might require so much fabrication work for proper support that it would be easier to put the B-series sheet metal on a newer frame. Since these Pilot-House trucks were designed with the 23" flathead in mind, installing any other powertrain will require extensive engineering + fabrication for reliable performance. It can be done, but the cost might be a budget-buster.

[1952B3b23]

Dave72dt:

Thanks for clearing that up for me, makes much more sense now! Do you have power steering on your truck?

49Dodge1ton:

The Cummins is known to produce a good amount of torque which i totally agree that combined with vibration could result in cracking and other undesirable conditions. I have heard of people using engine mounts that are filled with some type of fluid to try and reduce the vibration transmitted to the frame by the diesel motor. Supposedly there has been some success with this approach, cause i know that the 4bt is known to vibrate a good deal. I was planning on boxing the frame and adding cross members to try and combat twisting. Im sure that the grade steel that my frame is made out of is not as good as what is available now in days. Im wondering if boxing the frame, additional supports/cross members, and vibrational dampers would put up with the punishment from the diesel. Im not looking to break the bank here, thats why i really appreciate the comments. I want to think this through before i jump in way over my head.

-Chris

[Dave72dt]

yes, power rack with t-bird tie rod ends. I wanted it easy and comfortable for anyone to drive.

Brother has a '89 W350 automatic. It a real shaker when moving or in Park but even worse when you drop it into gear and setting still. The pump was played with before he got it so the timing may not be exactly where it should and may be contributing to the aggresive shake but I don't know that for a fact. Other diesels, especially the later versions, are much smoother.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Dave72dt

[1952B3b23]

yes, power rack with t-bird tie rod ends. I wanted it easy and comfortable for anyone to drive.

Brother has a '89 W350 automatic. It a real shaker when moving or in Park but even worse when you drop it into gear and setting still. The pump was played with before he got it so the timing may not be exactly where it should and may be contributing to the aggresive shake but I don't know that for a fact. Other diesels, especially the later versions, are much smoother.

Do you have any pictures of your front suspension setup? Also what kind of motor do you have in it?

If the timing is off then that will definitely affect the vibration a lot more, just like you said. I'm a fan off the rumble and feel of driving a diesel so some noise and vibration doesn't bother me. I just don't want the vibration to be so intense that it runs the risk of damaging something. My daily driver is an '03 Cummins and its certainly much smoother than the older diesels but i think part of that has to do with it using fluid filled engine mounts.

-Chris

[Dave72dt]

http://www430.pair.com/p15d24/mopar_forum/showthread.php?t=24007&highlight=firewall

Post # 11 and 12 show most of it. I'm set up for coilovers but have some adjustable links in their place for mockup purposes. There's some firewall pictures on here somewhere too, as well as my motor mounts if you want those. Motor is a 318 w/ 727 trans.

[1952B3b23]

Dave72dt:

That looks like some good work! Do you have any idea how much the 318 with the 727 trans weighs?

[Dave72dt]

More than the six, less than the Cummins. Seriously, have no idea. Might not be that much more than the six with the iron bellhousing & trans.

[Daliant.]

A small block Chrysler weighs about 550# by itself, the 727 trans w/converter weighs about 160#.

[1952B3b23]

Thanks for the info. The Cummins by itself weighs around 750 lbs.