1952B3b23 Posted December 31, 2013 Author Report Posted December 31, 2013 I test fit it and it's pretty darn tight. I used the open end side of the wrench and you can barely turn the nut. Another idea I had was using a regular bolt so I can hold the bottom nut and have some one else tighten the top but that would be my last resort. On the drivers side I'll correct the issue by making the opening larger. Young ed, I have used the gear wrenches you're talking about but if I still can't get the wrench off I'm screwed. The gear wrenches I have are the type that you need to flip over to reverse. Thanks guys, -Chris Quote
ggdad1951 Posted December 31, 2013 Report Posted December 31, 2013 remember you SHOULD have 2-3 threads beyond the nut.... Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 1, 2014 Author Report Posted January 1, 2014 This won't be a problem on the driver side. I'm going to leave a 2 inch deep by 4 inch long channel for the mounting bolt. There will be plenty of space for the threads beyond the nut and for turning a wrench. The passenger side is going to have to be reworked. I'll post up pics when I get a chance. -Chris Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 3, 2014 Author Report Posted January 3, 2014 I got the drivers side frame rail boxed up, came out well. I left a larger opening for the bed mounting bolt, Its a channel that i made out of two pieces of 2" x 2" angle iron. There is now plenty of space for getting a wrench in there to tighten the bolt. -Chris Quote
Dave72dt Posted January 3, 2014 Report Posted January 3, 2014 works better and looks better too. Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 3, 2014 Author Report Posted January 3, 2014 works better and looks better too. Thanks, now i just gotta fix the other side to match. -Chris Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 6, 2014 Author Report Posted January 6, 2014 Got some work done this weekend, had to modify the steering box mounting plate to make space for the drivers side motor mount. I had to remove the "arm" that extends to the front crossmember. I've attached pictures for your viewing pleasure. I also coated the rails with some primer to keep the rust away. -Chris Quote
wayfarer Posted January 7, 2014 Report Posted January 7, 2014 It would seem that you will loose some frame rigidity without the brace. Is there no way to incorporate one, even on a smaller scale? Quote
Dave72dt Posted January 7, 2014 Report Posted January 7, 2014 The frame is boxed almost to the crossmember. That should have put all the rigidity back in. Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Report Posted January 7, 2014 I thought about that but then i came to the same conclusion that "dave72dt" did, Its fully boxed so i think it'll be more than plenty rigid. The motor mounts that i plan on using are pretty large about 5 inch diameter and at least 4 inch tall so the drivers side one will eat up most of that space. So trying to add the support member back in would be pretty difficult. Thanks for the comments, -Chris Quote
Dave72dt Posted January 7, 2014 Report Posted January 7, 2014 You "may" be able to add some triangulation on your motor mounts to help lock in that corner. It certainly won't hurt. Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Posted January 8, 2014 Yea it can't hurt to try. I'll know better when I go to make the motor mounts. -Chris Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 12, 2014 Author Report Posted January 12, 2014 I fixed the passenger side cutout for the bed mounting bolt. Just having that angle iron did not leave enough room for tightening the bolt, whoops. So i busted out the plasma cutter and went to town, had to make the opening bigger than needed just so i could get the old piece out. I fitted in a 2" x 4" piece like i did on the drivers side rail, made a patch for the material around the cutout, welded it all up and ground the welds flush. I think it came out pretty well. I've attached some pictures for your viewing pleasure. Picture number 1 is a before shot. -Chris Quote
48Dodger Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 Way to go Chris...looks Factory! 48D Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Posted January 13, 2014 Way to go Chris...looks Factory! 48D Thanks a lot Tim! I tried getting the welds as flush as possible to try and give it a more seamless look, at least now both sides match. -Chris Quote
Merle Coggins Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 Why leave a gap near the cross member? Wouldn't it be even stronger if you tied it all together? Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Posted January 13, 2014 Why leave a gap near the cross member? Wouldn't it be even stronger if you tied it all together? Yea im sure it would be stronger, but i dont think it'll matter all that much. Its still going to be plenty strong, the gab between boxing plate and cross member is only about 1.5". -Chris Quote
wayfarer Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 The frame is boxed almost to the crossmember. That should have put all the rigidity back in. Boxing the frame is a completely different issue from losing a brace. The lost brace is a structural component that keeps the frame from 'wanting' to become a parallelogram. Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Posted January 13, 2014 Boxing the frame is a completely different issue from losing a brace. The lost brace is a structural component that keeps the frame from 'wanting' to become a parallelogram. I see where you are coming from but i wouldnt say that frame boxing and losing a brace are completely different issues. They are very much related to each other since boxing is adding a lot of structural integrity and rigidity back into the frame. My belief is that the extension arm coming off of the steering box mounting plate and connecting to the front cross member was there in order to keep the mounting plate from twisting with the frame rail. I have now tied the mounting plate into the boxing plate and the frame rail is fully boxed to the cross member. This will add a lot of torsional resistance so that the mounting face of the steering box plate will not move, or move very little. I don't think the frame will want to become a parallelogram because there will be enough structural members holding both of the frame rails together, preventing this from happening. Thanks for the comment, -Chris Quote
Dave72dt Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 It really depends on what the brace was intended to do, prevent diagonal movement or reduce torsional twist of the frame at the steering box location. the truck I think has 4 crossmembers about 4 inches wide and a base of about 6 inches wide so parallel movement of the rails would be very limited. I think some gusseting can go in with the motor mounts that should take care of any concerns of frame movement. Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) It really depends on what the brace was intended to do, prevent diagonal movement or reduce torsional twist of the frame at the steering box location. the truck I think has 4 crossmembers about 4 inches wide and a base of about 6 inches wide so parallel movement of the rails would be very limited. I think some gusseting can go in with the motor mounts that should take care of any concerns of frame movement. I agree, it does depend on what the brace was intended to do. I think that brace is there to prevent twisting of the steering box mounting plate. I do not think this will be an issue, just having the motor mounted between the rails acts as a cross member tying both of the frame rails together. With proper vibration isolators i think it'll work out just fine. If i am really concerned about it i can add gusseting in with the motor mount on that side. -Chris Edited January 13, 2014 by 1952B3b23 Quote
Jeff Balazs Posted January 14, 2014 Report Posted January 14, 2014 I agree, it does depend on what the brace was intended to do. I think that brace is there to prevent twisting of the steering box mounting plate. I do not think this will be an issue, just having the motor mounted between the rails acts as a cross member tying both of the frame rails together. With proper vibration isolators i think it'll work out just fine. If i am really concerned about it i can add gusseting in with the motor mount on that side. -Chris Seems to me I read somewhere that some of the early trucks did not even have this brace. I believe it was added in late 48 to counteract frame twist at the steering box mount. Surely there is more than one way to address this if necessary. Jeff Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 14, 2014 Author Report Posted January 14, 2014 Seems to me I read somewhere that some of the early trucks did not even have this brace. I believe it was added in late 48 to counteract frame twist at the steering box mount. Surely there is more than one way to address this if necessary. Jeff Hmmm thats interesting Jeff, i didnt know that the earlier trucks didnt have it. But yea you're right theres always more than one way to go about it. -Chris Quote
48Dodger Posted January 14, 2014 Report Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) .....My belief is that the extension arm coming off of the steering box mounting plate and connecting to the front cross member was there in order to keep the mounting plate from twisting with the frame rail.... -Chris I believe you are correct. The 48-49 frames are different in a number of ways from 1950. The mounting holes for the steering and the orientation of the brace, to name a few. The brace is cupped into the frame instead of boxed into the frame in 48-49. This means the steering box itself is different then 1950 on up. The 48-49 steering box had an extension that went into the C channel to bolt up to the inside wall of the frame. The layering of steel made it about a 1/4 steel mounting plate for the steering box. The leverage of course is greater on the box due to the extension which inturn would also be influenced by the twist of the frame, regardless of the arm to the main crossmember. The steering box for 1950 saw the steering brace "flipped" around, internal steel tube braces (the mounting bolts pass through them), longer mounting bolts (to reach across the new box design) and a steering box that basically lost its leveraging advantage from 48-49. This change had to improve handling. The reason (in my opinion) is that frame flex influenced steering/handling in 48-49. By rearranging the brace in 1950, frame flex influence was better controlled. Chris has removed frame flex to such a degree by boxing his frame....the brace is not as improtant or needed (again, my opinion). 48D p.s. I have pics to show the differences...I'll post them here when I get more time. Edited January 15, 2014 by 48dodger Quote
1952B3b23 Posted January 14, 2014 Author Report Posted January 14, 2014 Tim thanks a lot for that very informative post. I'm eager to see the pics you have. I've never seen the frame up close on a pre 1952 Pilothouse. -Chris Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.