85 2wd C&C Dump 4x4 Conversion

[ArdWrknTrk]

It wasn't the cross member itself that needed cut. It was a little bit of the bottom channel on the frame on the driver side so that the cross member could sit flat. Essentially the lips on the channel of the frame are wider on a C&C. This did not allow for the flat spot on the cross member to sit on the frame properly.

I don't think that these differences had anything to do with four-wheel drive and two-wheel drive. I think these differences 100% had to do with the difference in the C&C frame and using a passenger truck cross member

That makes a lot of sense.

When I usually think of a C&C chassis, I think of the narrower frame, narrower springs and the gauge of the material being thicker.

I don't think about the flanges being wider, but I know they are.

[bp17oang]

That makes a lot of sense.

When I usually think of a C&C chassis, I think of the narrower frame, narrower springs and the gauge of the material being thicker.

I don't think about the flanges being wider, but I know they are.

With all that said I would certainly be interested to see a 4x4 C&C chassis in this era and see how Ford dealt with that. Did they actually use completely different cross members or did they do similar modifications as I did?

[bp17oang]

That makes a lot of sense.

When I usually think of a C&C chassis, I think of the narrower frame, narrower springs and the gauge of the material being thicker.

I don't think about the flanges being wider, but I know they are.

So, now I am working on getting my rear ride height correct... (do these kind of projects ever stop costing money??? I should know better than even ask that question!!! )

My initial dive into this rabbit hole seems to indicate the difference in the 4X4 C&C and 2wd rear ride height is somewhere between 4 and 4.5 inches. I have gathered that from the ride height information for 1987 (granted different years) C&C brochure, the differences in the rear shock absorbers lengths, and that I think I found what appears to be "factory" 4" rear blocks for a 4x4 C&C. Anyone have any different thoughts on this than what I have discovered?

I am struggling a little on accepting the difference is only 4" based on how my rig currently sits... If I jack up the rear end to get the truck level it appears to be closer to 6" of difference. Obviously, I have installed new front leaf springs, which I was informed were the 3" (edit: "leaf" not inches) stacks that came on factory ride height C&C 4X4 chassis (obviously with monobeam axles). I am waiting back for a call to discuss this with the suspension shop where I bought the leafs from.

Could my 2" discrepancy be in the fact the front leafs are new and not worn compared to the rear ones that are clearly original and 36 years old?

[bp17oang]

That makes a lot of sense.

When I usually think of a C&C chassis, I think of the narrower frame, narrower springs and the gauge of the material being thicker.

I don't think about the flanges being wider, but I know they are.

I just got off the phone with Jeff's bronco graveyard... either I got the wrong representative or things have changed.

He was less than helpful. I asked if I gave him a dana spicer number if he could see if he could get it he said they are not a dealer for Dana Spicer. I asked him if I gave him a Ford number and he said we're not a Ford dealership. When he asked what it was for and I told him an F-350 he acted like I had just called a Tesla dealership.... Hmm

[ArdWrknTrk]

I just got off the phone with Jeff's bronco graveyard... either I got the wrong representative or things have changed.

He was less than helpful. I asked if I gave him a dana spicer number if he could see if he could get it he said they are not a dealer for Dana Spicer. I asked him if I gave him a Ford number and he said we're not a Ford dealership. When he asked what it was for and I told him an F-350 he acted like I had just called a Tesla dealership.... Hmm

Well, that sucks.

It's time for me to go beat the bushes.

I was just saying to Cory about how you can often find a manufacturers product for less than suggested wholesale when he commented on buying a new gas tank and sender.

[ArdWrknTrk]

So, now I am working on getting my rear ride height correct... (do these kind of projects ever stop costing money??? I should know better than even ask that question!!! )

My initial dive into this rabbit hole seems to indicate the difference in the 4X4 C&C and 2wd rear ride height is somewhere between 4 and 4.5 inches. I have gathered that from the ride height information for 1987 (granted different years) C&C brochure, the differences in the rear shock absorbers lengths, and that I think I found what appears to be "factory" 4" rear blocks for a 4x4 C&C. Anyone have any different thoughts on this than what I have discovered?

I am struggling a little on accepting the difference is only 4" based on how my rig currently sits... If I jack up the rear end to get the truck level it appears to be closer to 6" of difference. Obviously, I have installed new front leaf springs, which I was informed were the 3" (edit: "leaf" not inches) stacks that came on factory ride height C&C 4X4 chassis (obviously with monobeam axles). I am waiting back for a call to discuss this with the suspension shop where I bought the leafs from.

Could my 2" discrepancy be in the fact the front leafs are new and not worn compared to the rear ones that are clearly original and 36 years old?

35 years under a dump truck?

Yeah I imagine you could end up with 2" of set.

The front springs are obviously going to settle down too.

4" is what's quoted for F-350 4X4 lift blocks. I'm not sure if the same holds true with a D70 under a C&C frame.

[bp17oang]

Well, that sucks.

It's time for me to go beat the bushes.

I was just saying to Cory about how you can often find a manufacturers product for less than suggested wholesale when he commented on buying a new gas tank and sender.

Yeah I think if I bite the bullet (what's a few hundred more bucks at this stage?!) and get new leaf spring packs for the rear

He does have 12 spring packs instead of the standard 10. That would give me an additional 7/8 of an inch on the rear.

So if I went with the 4-in blocks, The 12-spring pack, in addition to the new springs probably adding a couple of inches compared to my old worn-out dump truck springs I think I would be pretty darn close.

But I'm going to obviously wait until I hear back from the guy from ATS who has been very helpful so far

[ArdWrknTrk]

Yeah I think if I bite the bullet (what's a few hundred more bucks at this stage?!) and get new leaf spring packs for the rear

He does have 12 spring packs instead of the standard 10. That would give me an additional 7/8 of an inch on the rear.

So if I went with the 4-in blocks, The 12-spring pack, in addition to the new springs probably adding a couple of inches compared to my old worn-out dump truck springs I think I would be pretty darn close.

But I'm going to obviously wait until I hear back from the guy from ATS who has been very helpful so far

It's my understanding that ATS is very good to deal with.

[bp17oang]

It's my understanding that ATS is very good to deal with.

Very good to deal with!

I just got off the phone with Bob Sr. He recommended that I go with 12 leaf pack for this application (and the HD helpers). He made a good point, that getting new springs and with the additional two leaf springs, I really should get the springs in place to determine what size blocks I need instead of guessing.

He said with the new springs and extra springs, I might only need 2 or 3" of block to level it out.

 

[bp17oang]

It's my understanding that ATS is very good to deal with.

Question on the 3G alternator conversion. After reading Gary's information section, it appears I need a small case (90A) unit (I am using stock V belts).

What common donors would be appropriate for that particular unit and wiring harness assembly?

I see a listing for the 130A donors, but not for the smaller housing units.

Thanks