OK, Let's talk Dakota frames...

B

bill55az

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
142
Reaction score
3
Location
AZ and UT
Pretty sure that whatever is done, the FMJ body will sit higher than before, but that is the modern look anyway.....
 
B

bill55az

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
142
Reaction score
3
Location
AZ and UT
bill55az said:
I copied from service manuals the needed pics, had to resize them to make all have the same wheelbase on paper. They didn't use the same scale on the Dak drawings as the FMJ drawings.
The Dak frame is a bit short ahead of the front tires, a good thing if you are dropping an FMJ on a Dak frame. The Dak frame has a different rise where the rear seats would be, means not having a thick cushioned comfy rear seat bottom. And of course the trunk area would have to be cut out and made to fit the rear of the Dak frame. It would probablly be easier to keep the rear frame of the FMJ and splice it to the Dak frame.
I think the biggest issue is the height of the engine as it sits on the frame. Looks like the Dak engine sits quite a bit higher....certainly the tranny hump does....I suspect a dakota hump would have to be put into the FMJ but then the drive shaft will be at a steeper angle.
Click to expand...
trying again, looks like the daktoa has more front frame than the FMJ, would have to be trimmed....
Dak engine sits a bit forward compared to FMJ, maybe the tranny hump won't be an issue after all.
we need someone with a gen1 dak and a 4 door FMJ to park them side by side and do some measuring.
Some of the FSM drawings are not very good...
 
Mr.Lopar

Mr.Lopar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
594
Reaction score
56
Location
sticks of WI
these are the only pics i have of my gen 1 dak and 87 5th (before i parted out the dak for the frame), but it looks like the front frame horns on the dak frame would be too short, which would be fine cuz you could keep the front horns on the M-body for the bumper mounting brackets.

pics036-3.jpg

pics040-1.jpg


btw, all 3 have 14" wheels
 
D

Dago Red

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
171
Reaction score
7
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
The Long And Short Of It

Hey Greg! What is the wheelbase on the Dakota frames?

They might be good for circle track classes where a full (but OEM) frame is allowed.
 
B

bill55az

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
142
Reaction score
3
Location
AZ and UT
WB of daks is 111.94", WB of FMJ 4 door and M 2 door (ex. 80 and 81) is 112.7"
Track is the same as advertised but Dak wheels have deeper backspace so Dak axles are a few inches wider.
 
Mr.Lopar

Mr.Lopar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
594
Reaction score
56
Location
sticks of WI
a-body rear axle is a few inches narrower, and will bolt right onto the daks leak springs, just did this last week for my 46 dodge truck on the dak frame
 
Shorty Thompson

Shorty Thompson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
858
Reaction score
105
Location
Taylorville, Illinois
Well , I know I shouldn't , but . A thing or 2 concerns me . first off the rise on the frame . You know where it comes out from under the body and goes up past the engine forward . Is this going to be the same ? I'd seen many folks use the front stub off cameros and such for older hotrods for an upgrade , and no I'm not suggesting you use that , but I never trusted them either . However are you deadset on using the Dakota suspension ? I mean , have you thought about using a mustang II front suspension ?
 
D

Dago Red

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
171
Reaction score
7
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Check Your Package

One of the more popular hot rod swaps I've seen is the entire F-M-J front end assembly used under a 40's/50's Dodge/Fargo truck. You can use an A, B or RB and have disc brakes and power steering.

Thanks to Bill, Greg and all for the numbers. There are two Mopar dirt racers that are facing a rulebook change that will effectively outlaw the torsion bar front end. A track surface changes, put two turns on the right front bar and, BINGO! instant complaining of an unfair advantage. The Dak frame with a Mopar skin may be in the works. Maybe a stretched Shelby Charger....?
 
B

bill55az

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
142
Reaction score
3
Location
AZ and UT
2004 is the last year for the 112" wheelbase, std cab and short bed....availble in Gen I or II...

In 2005 Dodge quit making the standard cab, and the Dakota went to only one wheelbase that covers the extended cab with 6.5' bed, and the quad cab with 5.25' bed. The 2005 is also several inches wider, the drawing Gred posted looks newer than 2004....

One other interesting tidbit for the 2005, the 4x4 is no longer higher than the 2WD, given identical tires....according to Wikipedia....

More info
width of FMJ body....F body is 72.4", J body cars are 72.7", M body cars are 74.2"
width of Dak....
87-88 68.4"
89-96 69.4 (to fit the 89 Shelby 318?)
97-04 71.5
05-end 71.7
I don't have frame rail specs but I suspect GenI and II will be the same, altho the Gen II axles are a bit wider. If the frame is wider for Gen II, you would have some options to consider....
We need more info, I for one would want the 9.25 axle....
 
Last edited:
Greg55_99

Greg55_99

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
331
Reaction score
78
I think what REALLY appeals to me about this is, it solves a couple of issues I have. Big block in an F-body is no big deal, but the Dakota frame strengthens the structure, gives POWER rack and pinion and eliminates the transverse torsion bars. None of these items are real problems, but, I like there are quite a few suspension upgrades available for the Dak front end. Tubular A-arms, big brakes and a kit to lower the front end. Also, compared to the Alterkation front end.... it's really inexpensive. Just takes a LOT of work to get it in......

I'm tempted....

Greg
 
B

bill55az

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
142
Reaction score
3
Location
AZ and UT
Greg55_99 said:
I think what REALLY appeals to me about this is, it solves a couple of issues I have. Big block in an F-body is no big deal, but the Dakota frame strengthens the structure, gives POWER rack and pinion and eliminates the transverse torsion bars. None of these items are real problems, but, I like there are quite a few suspension upgrades available for the Dak front end. Tubular A-arms, big brakes and a kit to lower the front end. Also, compared to the Alterkation front end.... it's really inexpensive. Just takes a LOT of work to get it in......

I'm tempted....

Greg
Click to expand...
so am I.....
I have a factory rebuilt 318, pre-roller cam, with magnum heads, which gives the stock cam additional lift due to 1.6 rockers...I can just see that installed in a 1980 Volare wagon, 2.45 suregrip, cruising the freeways at XXX mph....
 
ramenth

ramenth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
906
Reaction score
96
Location
Beaver Dams, NY
Dago Red said:
There are two Mopar dirt racers that are facing a rulebook change that will effectively outlaw the torsion bar front end. A track surface changes, put two turns on the right front bar and, BINGO! instant complaining of an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...

And that's the issue with sanctioning bodies: not one of the higher up's has the the balls to look at the whiners and tell 'em to go build a better car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top