1952 B3b with Cummins 4bt

[1952B3b23]

Yea I'm sure enough torque won't be a problem. I did think about a higher gear in the rear but decided to solve the problem in a much cooler way ( in my opinion). I'm installing an Advanced Adapters "Ranger OD" between the tranny and bell housing. It acts as a splitter and essentially makes the four speed T19 an 8 speed. So the trucks gunna have twin sticks inside. That way I'll always be able to cruise in the engines optimal operating range of 1700-2000 rpm. With P235/75/R15 tires, 3:55 rear, and t19 with ranger OD I'll be just under 2000 rpm at 65 mph. Combine that with a pretty light truck and my MPGs should be pretty darn good. That is if I can keep my foot out of the throttle lol.

-Chris

[1952B3b23]

I got a little work done today. I set the rear end in place using a trick that i learned on another forum. I tacked two exhaust clamps to either side of each of the leaf spring perches so that i could clamp the perches in place. The pinion angle will only be set later on when all the weight is on the chassis. 

Then i slapped the cab on the frame and put the motor between the rails to see how things are looking. So far so good, looks like ill have to recess the firewall a bit to clear the bell housing but thats no big deal. Theres plenty of clearance for the hood as well as clearance between the oil pan and axle/drag link. Man the truck looks tall as hell in the front with no weight on the chassis, maybe i should go gasser style haha. 

I also worked on the steering column. I cut off the linkages for the three on the tree and smoothed the holes left behind, came out decent. Heres some pics for your viewing pleasure.

Thanks for looking,

-Chris

[1952B3b23]

Heres some pics of cleaning up the holes in the steering column from the three on the tree linkages.

 

-Chris 

[48Dodger]

Looks great Chris. Asfar as the hieght goes....stock measurement to the top of the frame rail is 2 feet with 29" tires. When the doors, runner boards, and the bed go on, the "skirting" effect will make it look much lower.  

 

The engine should be a different color than black. In an engine bay as tight as the PH, it will be hard to appreciate the hard work. How bout Charcoal Gray? It'll let it stand out to the average viewer.  Imo, Imho, my 2 cents, its your truck, blah blah blah. lol

 

48D

[1952B3b23]

Yea it'll still come down a lot with the weight of the motor and Trans. The look I'm going for is having the top of the tire be close to even with the inner radius of the fenders. That'll eliminate all the wheel well gap and make it look just a tad lowered. I may have to remove a leaf or two from the spring packs but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

As far as a motor color goes I'm not locked into anything yet. I still have plenty of time to decide before I need to paint it. Thanks for a suggestion on the color that wouldn't look bad either.

-Chris

[1952B3b23]

I was able to get a little work done this weekend, made the motor mounts that attach to the engine block. It took me awhile to figure out how i wanted them but all in all i think they came out well. They're made out of 1/4" plate, should be plenty strong for the 4bt. I also attached a pic of the hydraulic fluid filled mounts that im using. Ive heard very good things about them for 4bts. They help cut down on the vibrations a lot and thats always a good thing. 

Thanks for looking,

-Chris

[wayfarer]

Those mounts look plenty stout. 

As to color, how about the Mopar Turquoise? You could tell folks it was an experimental engine package...hahahaha

[1952B3b23]

Ohhh yea those mounts will definitely live up to the task, they're heavy duty. Hahaha thats an idea. Im just a huge fan of black, some say its plain but i think vehicles look so much better black. Im not into flashy things so lots of chrome and "loud' colors dont do it for me.  I do plan on running smoothie wheels with a shinny lip and shinny center cap but thats really all i have in mind for shine.

 

-Chris

[1952B3b23]

Here's a small update, not much for actual physical progress but i did a lot of planning, measuring and have a good way to continue with my front motor mounts that will go in the frame. I attached the Ranger OD to the 4bt and the T19, then slapped the whole thing between the rails. Its going to fit pretty well without any major interference issues. Heres some pics for your viewing pleasure.

 

-Chris

[1952B3b23]

Got some work accomplished today. Made the frame side motor mounts, i think they came out decent and very sturdy. Next in line is to make the tranny crossmember. 

 

-Chris

[wayfarer]

_{Looking Good!}

[1952B3b23]

Thanks. It's not too much progress but better than nothing.

-Chris

[ggdad1951]

Thanks. It's not too much progress but better than nothing.

-Chris

the little things lead up to the BIG things!

[1952B3b23]

That's very true! I wish I could get more little things out of the way haha. But since it's my first build I find myself thinking things through a lot of times before actually doing anything. Basically, "I don't know what I don't know". I've been learning and it's coming out pretty well.

[1952B3b23]

I did some work this weekend on fabbing up the transmission crossmember. The idea was to make two brackets that get welded to the frame on one end and bolt to the crossmember on either side. The crossmember is a 4" wide by 3/16" thick piece of channel iron. The brackets are made of 1/4" plate. I will bolt the two together using 7/16 bolts (grade 9). They should be plenty strong and make it nice and easy to remove the tranny mount when needed.  

 

The pics that i've attached are of the passenger side mount. The rectangular plate is what gets welded to the inside of the frame rail. The angled portions of the bracket also gets welded to the frame before being boxed in. The brackets will get boxed in with more 1/4" plate and have a cut out so that i can get at the mounting bolts. All that babbling makes much more sense when you look at the pics.  

 

Thanks for looking,

 

-Chris

[Jeff Balazs]

Hi Chris;

I am wondering if this arrangement is going to allow the frame rails to twist enough in this area? The way the original cross member works it allows for some controlled twist in the opposite frame rails. This can be observed when say the right front wheel and the left rear wheel are going over a bump at the same time. The composition and arrangement of the stock cross member makes it work sort of like a torsion spring to absorb and control the twisting action. I am not trying to be negative but I wonder if making this area too rigid might have some adverse effects on handling and longevity?

 

Jeff

[1952B3b23]

Hi Chris;

I am wondering if this arrangement is going to allow the frame rails to twist enough in this area? The way the original cross member works it allows for some controlled twist in the opposite frame rails. This can be observed when say the right front wheel and the left rear wheel are going over a bump at the same time. The composition and arrangement of the stock cross member makes it work sort of like a torsion spring to absorb and control the twisting action. I am not trying to be negative but I wonder if making this area too rigid might have some adverse effects on handling and longevity?

 

Jeff

 

Hi Jeff,

 

First off please dont worry about sounding negative, questions, comments, and concerns are welcomed. I understand what you are getting at with the bump example, and i think it makes a lot of sense for the original design requirements of the truck/chassis back in the '50s with a power plant such as the flat 6 and 3 speed transmission. I can imagine that the roads back then were pretty crappy and that owners did a lot of driving on back country roads with lots of potholes and uneven surfaces and countless other obstacles for the truck to go over. In my case the truck will not be driven off road it will still experience normal bumps in the paved roads. Another huge difference is that im using a totally different power plant which is considerably heavier than the original. With it being a diesel it will produce much more torque than what the chassis was originally intended to handle. This is why i went through all the trouble of boxing the frame rails. In my mind allowing the frame to "twist/flex" in a controlled fashion is going to fatigue the metal and over time with enough twisting and flexing its bound to lead to cracks. I still believe that even with the additional steps ive taken to strengthen things that the frame will still flex and twist to some degree. Ive also talked with many folks who have lots of experience building hot rods and custom vehicles. They say that the norm when upgrading engines and drivetrains is to add rigidity to the chassis, accomplished thru fully boxed frame rails and crossmembers. These are also hot rods that are being built with "old school" suspension technology, parallel leaf springs front and rear, cross steering setups, and lots use the Ford method with one transverse leaf spring front and back. None of these fellows have ever complained about adverse handling effects due to not enough controlled frame flex/twist. Then again maybe they just dont mention it but if it was an issue i'd think they'd stop building them in this fashion. In my opinion allowing flex and twisting will have far worse effects on handling and the life of the truck than will having to much strength in the frame.

 

Thanks for the comment,

 

-Chris     

[Jeff Balazs]

Chris;

Yes but you are mixing different types of technologies and most importantly retaining quite a bit of the old kit. Now this is just opinion....but I think since you are keeping most of the original type suspension etc......it is all still going to want to behave like it was originally designed to. I don't know what your engine and transmission actually weigh......but it is hard to imagine it weighing all that much more than an L6 with a fluid drive and a 4 speed? It is may even be within a 100# or so. And these truck were designed to carry a load....so to me the weight itself should not be the determining factor.

 

I think you are right about the difference in torque and certainly the diesel is going to vibrate quite a bit more than the original L6. I really think it is going to be hard to know just how far to take things when it comes to stiffening up the frame. I definitely agree with what you have done in general......but what I am trying to say is if the structure becomes too rigid and the road loading is trying to flex a certain way...... something is going to have to give. It might happen in the main frame structure or it could be transmitted into the suspension components or even the fasteners holding it all together. You are......and I know you are aware of this.....going to have to step back often and really evaluate all potential situations carefully.

 

Believe me when I say I want you to be successful with this build. I think it is a very cool concept. And you are breaking new ground as you go. Doesn't get any cooler than that!

 

Jeff

[48Dodger]

L-6 218/230 are @... 450lbs dry without trans etc...725 with said equipment.

 

4BT is @ ...................570lbs dry (cummins liteture).... 800 with factory equipment (trans etc)

 

 

Seems weight shouldn't be an issue, rather the suspension will be. IMO the flex was designed for slow moving tasks (ie keep the wheels on the ground) and not the asphalt world we live in now. Ridgid frames give you better reaction/response than flexiable ones.....but the ride is rougher. It truly is a personal choice, in that the vehicle could care less. lol 

 

Mindless chatter: 

 

   The F,M,R,J Bodies (volare frontend) have aftermarket options for racing. You take the rubber isolators out and replace them with aluminum spacers (stiffening). The B, A Bodies (1968-74) have aftermarket options for racing. You take pre cut boxing "plates" and frame connectors to stiffen up the the whole car. The unibody design gave cars from the late 60's a way to control ridgidness through boxing panels and frame rails built into the body panels. Was great for a comfortable ride, but terrible for racing. Stiffening doesn't ruin a vehicle so much as it changes the attitude of the driver. IMO IMO IMO IMO.  

 

48D

[1952B3b23]

Chris;

Yes but you are mixing different types of technologies and most importantly retaining quite a bit of the old kit. Now this is just opinion....but I think since you are keeping most of the original type suspension etc......it is all still going to want to behave like it was originally designed to. I don't know what your engine and transmission actually weigh......but it is hard to imagine it weighing all that much more than an L6 with a fluid drive and a 4 speed? It is may even be within a 100# or so. And these truck were designed to carry a load....so to me the weight itself should not be the determining factor.

I think you are right about the difference in torque and certainly the diesel is going to vibrate quite a bit more than the original L6. I really think it is going to be hard to know just how far to take things when it comes to stiffening up the frame. I definitely agree with what you have done in general......but what I am trying to say is if the structure becomes too rigid and the road loading is trying to flex a certain way...... something is going to have to give. It might happen in the main frame structure or it could be transmitted into the suspension components or even the fasteners holding it all together. You are......and I know you are aware of this.....going to have to step back often and really evaluate all potential situations carefully.

Believe me when I say I want you to be successful with this build. I think it is a very cool concept. And you are breaking new ground as you go. Doesn't get any cooler than that!

Jeff

I don't think that this is going to be an issue. The suspension technology that I am using in my build is still in use to this day. Look at a dump truck or school bus front suspension. In it's simplest form It's an I-beam front axle with parallel leaf springs and shackles. Of course the parts are more HD and they've included power steering for ease of use but the principals are the same.

As for the rear suspension parallel leaf springs and shackles are found there once again. This is a tried and true design. It may not have race car like handling but I'm not looking to race. I will be adding a panhard bar in the rear to help keep the rear differential centered during cornering.

The suspension components will still work as they were designed and keeping things from twisting and flexing IMO will only help them out. I want the suspension to absorb most of the shock of the road not my frame. That's what the suspension was designed to do.

As far as mixing old technology with new I think you're right to an extent. Like i said before these technologies are still being used. I've also gone ahead and purchased all brand new components for the front and rear suspensions. So I'm confident it will be nice and tight when I'm done with the swap. I don't have modern IFS and IRS so I know the trucks going to ride rough. I don't care about that simply because I want it to still drive like a truck.

The weight differences between the L6 and 4bt may not be that great but the power and vibration certainly will. A 4bt dry weighs 750 lbs without transmission. Add in the fluids and all accessories you're around 800 lbs at least. Then factor in my 4 speed tranny (135 lbs) and Ranger OD (80 lbs) for a total of 1015 lbs. That's almost a 300 lb difference between the two. It's really not that much like you said but I think that when you factor in all the dynamics of driving and the additional power and vibration. The reinforcements that I've made to the frame and adding in the stout tranny crossmember are not unreasonable at all.

Believe me I have thought long and hard about all of this stuff and that's exactly why I post on here. To hear different opinions and bounce ideas off of you guys. I'm no professional builder so I don't claim to know it all nor do I. Im just trying my best and want this vehicle to be as safe and reliable as possible.

-Chris

[1952B3b23]

L-6 218/230 are @... 450lbs dry without trans etc...725 with said equipment.

 

4BT is @ ...................570lbs dry (cummins liteture).... 800 with factory equipment (trans etc)

 

 

Seems weight shouldn't be an issue, rather the suspension will be. IMO the flex was designed for slow moving tasks (ie keep the wheels on the ground) and not the asphalt world we live in now. Ridgid frames give you better reaction/response than flexiable ones.....but the ride is rougher. It truly is a personal choice, in that the vehicle could care less. lol 

 

Mindless chatter: 

 

   The F,M,R,J Bodies (volare frontend) have aftermarket options for racing. You take the rubber isolators out and replace them with aluminum spacers (stiffening). The B, A Bodies (1968-74) have aftermarket options for racing. You take pre cut boxing "plates" and frame connectors to stiffen up the the whole car. The unibody design gave cars from the late 60's a way to control ridgidness through boxing panels and frame rails built into the body panels. Was great for a comfortable ride, but terrible for racing. Stiffening doesn't ruin a vehicle so much as it changes the attitude of the driver. IMO IMO IMO IMO.  

 

48D

 

I totally agree with you Tim. Id like to clarify one thing though, a 4bt dry without accessories weighs 750 lbs, add fluids and accessories and you're up around 800 lbs maybe a little more. Now if you are running a 4 speed borg warner T19 like me thats another 135 lbs. I also have an Advanced Adapters Ranger OD which weighs an additional 80 lbs.  That puts the whole package up around 1015 lbs, almost 300 lbs heavier than the L6. Thats not that much more weight so i dont think thats really a concern. Im more concerend with the power and vibration that the 4bt will introduce, thats far more than the stock set up. Thats why ive taken all the steps shown in this build thread to make the chassis stronger and more up to the task. So i'll continue on the path i am going, its to late to turn back now!

 

Also i got the 4bt weight from my Cummins shop manual that i have on these motors.

 

-Chris

[1952B3b23]

Made some progress this weekend, the engine and tranny are finally between the rails on their own supports! I finished fabbing up the tranny crossmember, i think it came out pretty well. Its very easy to take off and put on. Its just a matter of undoing the 8 bolts (Grade 9, 7/16). The output shaft of the transmission is sitting at 3 degrees down. 

I will finish welding the crossmember support brackets to the frame when i put the frame back up on my homemade rotisserie. Currently they're welded along the top side and tacked all around. I will also box in all the sides with 1/4" plate and leave a cutout to get at the bolts. I also left enough room between the transmission and the support bracket to fit a 4" diameter exhaust pipe (If i need to go that big). 

I've been waiting so long for this, feels good.

Thanks for looking,

-Chris

Edited March 23, 2014 by 1952B3b23

[Dave72dt]

Looks good to me, Chris.  That's a real milestone in your project.  As a suggestion, knock the end corners of your trans crossmember off.  Those will poke a hole in your head the first time you slide under the truck.

[1952B3b23]

Looks good to me, Chris. That's a real milestone in your project. As a suggestion, knock the end corners of your trans crossmember off. Those will poke a hole in your head the first time you slide under the truck.

Thanks Dave. Yea it's a huge step for me and a big source of motivation. Good call on that I still have some finish work to do on the crossmember and I'll add that to the list.

-Chris

[48Dodger]

Looks good to me, Chris.  That's a real milestone in your project.  As a suggestion, knock the end corners of your trans crossmember off.  Those will poke a hole in your head the first time you slide under the truck.

Haha.....its been a long day....that just hit me as funny.

 

Good job Chris.

 

48D