Project Fur-Kota!

The Dakota axle, if anything, will be narrower than the original. As I recall, the "Daxle" :D is very similar in dimension to the F/M/J-car unit which is close to the '65-'67 B-body unit but wider by about .100". The '65-'67 B-car axle is 2½" narrower than the C-body axle used '65-'69 (except '69 wagons, which were even wider). The tires may fit, but not likely using those sexy BBS wheels. Like all Dakotas, they use a FWD-style offset.

The front will pose a similar challenge as track widths are usually pretty close F:R. A 2WD Ram 1500 frame/axle might be a better place to start.

On the engine location, I'd start with the transmission mount and work forward. The transmission's mount location is essentially ironclad, with only an inch or two leeway in either direction if you plan to use the original C-body body crossmember at all, and that inch or two may require quite a bit of fab work. The Dakota trans mount is much more similar to a GM-style mount than what you're used to seeing under older Mopars. If you plan on using the Dakota stub far enough back to use the Dak's original trans crossmember (which I don't recommend since that frame hanging down would ruin the profile of the car), then the only place to start with your measurements is centering the wheels in the wheelwells... and then you've got to live with the location of the engine, the trans and shifter location, etc. and make everything work around that.

Myself, I'd probably cut out the Dakota frame sections needed to mount the control arms, steering box, etc. and somehow work them into the original front subframe maintaining the Dakota geometry. That wouldn't be easy and though it's more work from a frame standpoint, I think it would be easier from the standpoint of engine/trans/shifter location. You could then work off the transmission mount and weld frame tabs where required to mount the engine. Of course, this option still leaves you in the dark from the front swaybar standpoint since it can't be widened effectively.

There are a ton of variables here. This may be one of the most-complicated swaps on which I've ever spent brain time. Short of chopping out factory unibody to fit the entire Dakota frame, modified to fit your wheelbase, I think even Chip Foose might think you insane. Even then, you're still facing a track-width issue.

Though one could say I'm lazy and be 100% correct, were it my project I'd probably source a set of '73 C disc brakes, leave the stock rear axle but get gears close to what's in the Dakota, and not worry about the ABS (I'm not a big fan anyhow, since its only real advantage is on ice or slushy snow). I wouldn't monkey with the suspension, either, save replacing bushings with some poly upgrades in the right places and maybe adding swaybars. I'd be happy with the 3.9 and NV3500 running in the car, with the rest of the car essentially stock. I might even do the emissions thing just for fun, converters and all, just because I could.

This is merely my opinion, but now that I've thought about it I think you're trying to go way too far with this. I don't mean to be discouraging--measure everything twice as I may well be wrong--but if I'm right you'll endure months of frustration making everything work geometrically (wheel spacers are not an option, period). Then you'll face even more months of wiring dilemmas. I know I'm being a Negative Nancy, but though I love the whole idea overall, reality is often an ugly stepsister.
 
i agree with doc on this entirely but ..i love a challange.....but it litteraly looks and sounds like the reverse of trying to put a 58 ford onto an 1980 lincoln chassis..i thought it would work..thankfully i had a second car to cutup trying.......that went right out the window

as for the measurements regarding the engine i was thinking about the oilpan mostly and of course the front dak sub frame in relation to everything

as for the wireing..well thats actualy very easily sorted out..it sounds and looks twice as hard as it really is
 
Well, I apreciate your advice, I realize you're both talking from a position of greater experience than I have. It's good to hear peoples thoughts both pro and con. I still think it's worth investigating though I doubt I'll be capable of the sub frame install I still want to be involved as much as possible. I'm going to have a guy at work look at it. He's been welding half his life and put toghther some pretty serious race cars (Drag cars) and I'll see what he thinks. I'm still going to try like hell to make it all work somehow. I'll update the thread once he comes over next week. In the meantime I'm still going to get out there and do some measuring.

Thanks for putting some thought into it for me. :clap:
 
i dig the challange and i know its possible but like we have both mentioned track width WILL be your biggest enemy..with ANY street rod project of this magnatude track width is the worst..my lloyd is a prime example

if your dead set on keeping the abs...and track width becomes an issue your going to have your hand forced in a hurry.....either suffer looking too narrow/wide under the body or cut and widen/narrow the rear axle set and pay hell with the nose..but the nose is allready going to be the same dificulty no matter what
 
69.5: Right off the bat, I'm 99% sure the Dakota track width is too narrow. Also, I think the wiring thing is more a nightmare than you imagine... remember, this is OBD-II. Everything's tied into everything else for the most part. The Dakota transmission can't run the Fury speedometer so either you work in the Dakota gauge cluster somehow or you modifiy the Fury speedo to accept the Dakota's electronic guts which operate from the vehicle speed sensor that's required for the PCM to work the transmission and EFI correctly. You run into the same problem with the water-temp gauge, which is run from a sender in the Fury but comes from the PCM on the Dakota so the signal is wrong for the factory gauge. Any input or output, often including measured resistance, than an OBD-II system monitors and on which it expects to see a certain value will throw the PCM into a hissyfit it it's not there or not correct. This is why EFI Ed chose a 1995 Mustang ECM for his Charger--it's flashable, pre-OBD-II, and an Engine Control Module rather than a Powertrain Control Module. Big difference.

I'm simply looking at it from this standpoint: You're looking at Ridler-Award-winning amounts of fabrication, wiring, and thought processing for something that will only sport a stock 3.9L V6 and be used as a daily driver. We're talking thousands of hours of work here. I appreciate a challenge myself, and might consider taking it on if it was a 6.1L Hemi/6-speed drivetrain being made to work with Viper suspension and brakes that might increase the car's value tenfold. However, we're talking about a swap that is based mostly on driveability and fuel economy that would likely increase the car's value to anyone but the owner not one whit, if not decreasing it... and let's be honest, a two-door sedan first-gen C-body is a low-interest car in the first place. A friend's Dad is currently trying to move a pretty-solid '66 Sport Fury hardtop with a fresh 440. It's an original floor-shift black-interior car, and no one's biting at $1,500.

Again, I'm being Negative Nancy but this is literally what 340EH is up against. If he wants it that badly and is gonna drive it until he dies, by all means I say sally forth with the project. If not, it's way more work than the end result is worth.

The more thought I give it, the more I think I'd go with the Dakota engine running on MegaSquirt, hooked to an A833OD from a truck with a 2.94 or 3.23 gear, and do the standard C-barge suspension and brake upgrades. Cheaper (especially with more Dakota parts to sell to offset the cost), easier, and if the time comes to sell the car you've got thousands less hours and dollars tied up in it... and the MS can be easily adapted to a V8 which the next owner might appreciate. At least the 3.9L tabs fabricated for the front subframe should support a factory Magnum V8.

Middy: It's your car, it's your money, and it's thousands of hours of your life you'll never get back. If it's what you really want, I'm behind you 100% and will help any way I can. I only ask that you not be hurt when I tell you I really can't see the value in the level of swap you propose. If you want to do it, though, I think you'd be way ahead of the game selling the Dakota whole and finding a Ram 1500 2WD with the same drivetrain.
 
I thought the Dakota was a V6, but that doesn't matter. Upgrading to a 5.2 or even a 5.9 really doesn't diminish a single thing I wrote. I know; I'm sitting on a loser of a project from a cost- and labor-involved standpoint. Between parts and materials alone, I've got nearly 5 digits sunk into an '81 LeBaron... and less than two grand of that is in the engine currently designated for the car, which I wholly intend to blow to pieces and replace. When the time comes to sell, I'll lose my ass on a car with wildly-upgraded suspension, a desirable manual-trans setup, a built engine and numerous other HP modifications. I'm doing it because I want to do it, and from a labor standpoint I'll have less in the entire car including paint, body, and medical-attention time than Middy will have in figuring out the front end and making it work.

The voice of reality makes for an ugly song.
 
doc the wireing isnt half that bad..you just have to understand it first..i took a 89 2.5 turbo harness apart its not that bad..as for the guage issues..ALL of them can be solved via "dakota digital" parts(ive gotten bits from them for the lloyd) and or a few misc vw parts(digital to mech speedo drivers)..seriously..its easy REALLY easy...but your right easier still would be dumping the stock wires for MS or gotech or the like...then you can actualy tune the system and get REAL info back from the car

your right on the track width tho......would be better off selling the truck and getting a wider one that fits better
 
OK since C-bodies are my preference I'll throw out a bit more info.

Steve (Polaraco) over on moparfins.com built his 72 Polara/monaco hybrid car with a 5.2 EFI maggy and all the goodies.

I tried to find his original build thread over on the Cbodydrydock.com board but could find it. I've PM'd him and hopefully he can sind me a link to his build threads.

Here's one thread....

http://www.moparfins.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=259
 
Good read, Brian. :2thumbs:

Polaraco did exactly what I'm suggesting 340EH do: make the drivetrain work in the car and be happy with the rest rebuilt to stock or mild-upgrade specs. Polaraco also used a 1992 OBD-I PCM which is far less complicated than the OBD-II setup. The OBD-II setup isn't impossible by any means, but you'll note that Polaraco mentioned one of the biggest hassles was... wiring. :D There's a lot less of it on OBD-I.

It's when we get into the chassis end of it with the Dakota's suspension and ABS brakes that I start to think this is a challenge of epic proportions.

I have said my piece about the potential challenges and pitfalls. Some disagree with some of my points, and that's the great thing about having a project like this on a discussion board--differing opinions. However, I think that continuing on about what I've pointed out would serve only to frustrate 340EH. That is not, nor was it ever, my intention so I'm not going to keep muddying his thread talking about it.

340EH is a smart guy and will figure out whether this can be done to the level he desires with the tools and skills available to him. That's the clincher. If it can, spectacular! If it can't, only he can decide whether a lesser/different build is acceptable to him.

It's a great dream. It would definitely be the coolest '66 Fury on this continent if he can pull it off. I'll help any way I can.

Go on wit' yo' bad self, Middy. :dance:
 
When 340Eh suggested using the Dak...as stated by you Doc, my first thought was the track width as well.

I'm along the line s with both of you and ditching the ABS would definitely simplify things, if you were to try and use the Dak suspension. But upgrading the original suspension, with the 73 disc brake set-up, and then good rubber bushings, and a 1 1/4" firm feel bar up front, and a comparable one in the rear, would definitely make things easier.

I understand wanting to use as much of the donor as possible, but sometimes you have to look long and hard and decide if that a road worth wandering down.

I'll help as much as I can no matter what route he decides to take on this one.
 
I'll admit it myself a big shortcomming is that I flat out love the wheels hence the desire to keep the running gear. I wonder if I could get the 6 bolt hubs and brake setup on the C bod spindles with some clevely sourced components. just thinking out loud. Thanks all for your comments I'm off to mow the lawn and play with my welder.

Happy Fathers Day! to all the Poppa's
 
I'm sure yu could get your axles and rotors redone for 6 bolt, but depends on what size circle the 6 bolt is based on compared to the 5 bolt. But as Doc stated, the biggest draw back to using those rims is the off set.
 
slightly wider rear axle or race bred adaptors...i know everyone thinks unsafe and a red flag goes up..but..there are some out there that are up to race specs...many care and brakes have adaptors engineered that bolt onto the front brakes anyway and have been doing it for decades....

something to think about tho..the money and time spent making the dak stuff work..would be still more than brembo/wilwood brakes in any pattern you like with a widend 6 lug 8 3/4...and youd end up WAY ahead of the game
 
For those keeping score at home here are the f/r Track measurements. (keep in mind the Truck was on the ground and the Fruy is on jackstands but here goes.)

All measurements plumbbobbed from lower tire sidewall at 6 o'clock

Fury front 69.25" rear 69.5"
Dakota front 72.75" rear 73.5"

the Dakota is currently on the stock 15x8" 98 alloys on it's 75 AR winter tires so there is a lot of sidewall "squish" ? but the numbers are there. I also plumbed the inner fender to the tire sidewall on the Fury and found more than 3 inches between the sidewall and inner surface of the fender. so it looks like an 1.25" per side on the front and 1" per side on the rear.

More info as it comes in.
 
Track width is measured at the center of the wheel when mounted. A better measuring point for you would be the surfaces at which the wheels seat, in other words the drum and rotor faces on both vehicles. Tires leave too much room for error depending on inflation.
 
this is true..to a point..if you can fish a tape thru and mueasure the tops thats even better..as the top outter wont be off from side wall and weight changes

but..if those #s are close then hell thats not to bad at all.....another good trick would be go up as high as you can at both the front and rear of the front tires and measuer across there ..cause if the toe is in or out this will be shown but that # wont deviate much..measuring at the wheel mount face is good but if your dead set on those wheels you need to keep the wheels in the measurement....measure the rear axle the same way and see what you get
 
Well Beau was buy last Friday and took a look and some preliminary measurements and he thinks it looks pretty good. The Dakota frame will nestle nicely in between the Fury rails and should fasten to the the same attach points as the original sub framewith some new mounts. I'm going to get the Dakota on the BBS rims and get the Fury back on the ground to take some measurements on heights of things like frame kick up. to make sure the furkota isn't driving around with the nose two feet higher than the tail. I'm going to have to turn the Fury around in the garage which should be interesting with no brakes. Gotta start trying to find buyers for parts so I don't have to store them, anybody know how to tell what kind of trans is behind the slant six? I'm assuming it will be a 904 how would I tell the diff between it and a 727? anybody interested in a good running slant and trans?
 
Well those numbers look promising. :2thumbs:

Sounds like things might work out better then anticipated...for now at least...;)

As for 904 vs 727....look at the pan, 904 will be roughly square, and the 727 will have a noticeable hump to the outside near the front pass. side corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

SiteLock

SiteLock
Back
Top