hello... can anyone tell me if i can put a 1941 chevy deluxe sedan on a 1984 through 1989 chevy caprice frame???

ya ain't gonna be happy with it.
besides being a s**tload of work, they're too wide...
--
If ya ain't drivin' it, it's just junk in the garage...

thanks 4 the info...what do you suggest

well,MII would be the easiest and have better resale if you decide to off the project, looks better too.
most subframes are too wide but the 79-87 G body(malibu,monte's, etc) are ok width-wise but as i haven't done one on that particular frame, i can't say for sure.
S-10's may be a possibility, too.
don't swap the whole frame out, it's waaaay too much work,trust me....
--
If ya ain't drivin' it, it's just junk in the garage...

I put a S10 under my Hawk. It was a lot of work. I had to make new floors from the firewall to the tailites.Measure the wheel base of your car and get a S10 that is longer than that. It's easier to shorten the frame than make it longer. The car rides nice and you can get lowering stuff for it if you need too. Dave
--
Life's too short to drive an ughly car!

'66-72 Chevelle and El Camino frames go right under '39 Chevy 2 door sedans so I'd check on that to see if the geometrys right with that vs your '41 body. Back when my uncle was building his '39 in the early '80s it was either leave well enough alone and go with stock be the first around here to go the sub-frame route which wasn't all that popular (dont know why but rodders back then believed in full frame swaps to get the ride they wanted??) or find a full frame that'll work.

Check up on 66-72 Chevelles and Caminos no newer than '79

Best of luck!
Slammin

The length or width may have changed
--
Dipstick Streetrod Association Member
If ya aint throwin' sparks ya aint low enough!

If I was doing a 41 Chevy I'd use Chassis Eng. bolt on, adjustable height MII front end plus their bolt on leaf spring rear end kit. Good stuff & easy to use.

Dont go the frame route.Not very many look that good when done.Look at it this way,the only thing you aint gonna touch doing it is the roof and rear fenders(not kidding its a hell of a lot of work). MustangII or one of the other coil over crossmember are the way to go.(i wont use the fat brand) Most times you can have a whole stangII or coil over tacked in the car in a day.Dont go with a strut rod frontend stangII and make sure you upgrade to the 11 inch brakes.Its also a pretty good idea to try and get a kit that uses the older midsize brake calipher(they take the md52 brake pad) not the metric calip. Hedits,progressive and TCI are the best out there. Installing this stuff for a living you get to see some of the problems,and frame swaps are not that easy.Wish the rod books would stop with the s-10 crap cause unless your a good fab guy they look like crap and only fit a hand full of cars/trucks. I also dont see the need for a bolt in kit as i would have it welded later anyway.Welds are better than bolts anyday. Hope this helps yah a little. Hey a real rod subject!!!!!! Ye ha Mike......
--
Drive like you stole it !!

I put the S10 frame under my Studebaker way before the books were doing it. My son has a S10 and I used his for the measurements. The frame I got cost 200 bucks complete. It comes with those D52 calipers too. The frame can hold a lot of HP too. There's 454 in mine. Sure it was a lot of work, but the floors in the Hawk were gone and would have to be replaced anyway. Dave
--
Life's too short to drive an ughly car!

Mike, Why wouldn't you go with the stang II "strud rod" setup, ride, geometry, looks, etc? I've got it under my '32 and I ended up with a little too much caster (4d) and I was thinking about shortening the strut rods or change the lower control arms to the ones w/o having to use the strut rods. The car steers a little hard. (No power steething).
Lynn
--
'32 Ford Tudor

Dave in your case the s-10 is a perfect deal(and some other trucks)when you have no floors and are going to build a whole car/truck its a good deal. By the way i like your truck and am not knocking your skills but i am sure you can tell everbody how many man hours went into it.Its not a saturday job.A lot of thought and work went into your ride(and it shows)
Lynn The strut rods seem to break either the rod were it has been heated and bent or were the bracket has been welded to the frame.The bushing wear pretty quick when the rods are at bad angles(hell ford cant get them right in their stuff new) The car will loose castor under heavy braking and change bump steer and camber gain. 4 degrees castor is not to much for your car but yes it will steer hard trying to park .I have run them up as high as 8 degrees of castor if it has power trying to get the pinto rack to feel heavy(the correct way to do it is to go to the newer power bird/mustang rack3 1/2 turns i think) Yes i would go with the better lower a-frames with out the struts.It will hold the alignment much better. Do you have a rack(yep some guys dont have racks on stangII) I have made longer steering arms on the spindles(1/2 inch is a lot!!) and spaced the rack out a bit ,making it steer a little easer(you may lose some raduis though) You dont want to take to much castor out of a stang II as it will hunt on the highway. Hope this helps a little.
Mike...
--
Drive like you stole it !!

Yes, it is a rack on my car. I would like to go to a power rack, but I don't think I can make enough room in the splash shield area for the power rack to fit. I had to modify the splash shield a lot even for the manual rack and it is REAL close. One more question if you don't mind. I thought about reversing the spindles and going to a rear steer power rack, but I was told this wouldn't work (that geometry thing). What are your thoughts on this? Thanks very much for the good info.

Lynn
--
'32 Ford Tudor

Lynn I have put the power rack in your car in the front.Its not that much diff than the manual. If you have time some day disconnect the rack at both tie rods(spindle end),now turn the wheel all the way to one side.Now count the turns it takes to go all the way to the other side. If you give me that count i may be able to tell you of a better manual rack to use. You can go to rear steer but its a lot of thinking and geom to work out .Also you cant use your rack as you will turn right on the steering wheel and it will go left on the tires(not a good idea LOL) Anything from 4-5 turns on a manual rack will help. I would look at the steering arms first,if there is any possable way to make them longer it will help greatly(with out putting the tie rods at bad angles) Hell most need to modified any way cause the akerman is not correct.The frontend companys cant possably know the wheel base of your car and that is how that is figured out.(another one of fatmans screw ups
--
Drive like you stole it !!

Hey lost,

You've brought up an interesting point. Do you happen to know what the wheelbase is on the common donor cars (Mustang II and Pinto) and how that compares to the common street rods, early 30's Fords and Chevys? If the Ackerman angle is off, what is the best way to correct it?

thx,

bjb
--
There's a world of difference between "good" and "good enough".

Model A = 103 inches, 1932 ford 106, 33 up 112. I do not have wheelbase on Must II.
--
Same Wife, Same Job, Same 32 Roadster for over 20 years. Must be in a rut. AIN'T LIFE GRAND.....

Bj Most times you need to string the car and either heat and bend the arms a touch or shim the mounting holes if they are bolt on arms to get it right. I dont have the wheel base in front of me for the stang/ pinto.I allways check them anyway.Thats why the front steer camaro is a tuff one to fix(the rear steer has good arms that can be heated),i really dont like bending the cast spindles(if i do, it gets a plate welded to it and is Maged)
Hope that helps.
MIKE........
--
Drive like you stole it !!