![]() |
Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hillsboro Oregon
Posts: 6,449
|
67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Are they exactly the same? I know they'll swap over, but what are the differences? Any? Couple bolt holes? I'm thinking about trying an xmember pancake and I'd like to source a spare so I don't have to pull mine until I have the mod'ed on ready to go. BTW, I'd do a dropmember but I don't want to have to have another drive shaft made etc... This way my engine stays put.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: johnstown, NY
Posts: 2,393
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
One I can think of is I believe the brake lines are routed to the front for the 73-87 vs the rear of the cross member for the 67-72.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Mike, I would say there might be more clearance issues using the later model c.members. It might be that the flange of the c.member @ the u-bolts is a deeper depth vs. the earlier years.
I know XXL's c.member was notched 1.5" & only required minimal clearancing. I tried for that using a post-73 crossmember on my 68 & there's no way it would have worked w/o cutting the outer u-bolt nut + threads in half which IMO is not enough material to keep things in place. I spaced the c.member up using shims & wound up w/a 1.125" notch w/.125" clearance from lock-to-lock. I removed the reinforcement 'pad' under the u-bolt (outer side only) & had to cut the extra threads above the u-bolt nut off for clearance. Check w/XXL or CaptKaos. I'm not sure who else is running one that's actually got all the steering linkage installed/tested. Quote:
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod 64SWB-Recycle 89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck 99CCSWB Driver All Fleetsides @rattlecankustoms in IG Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive. It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar..... Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol. Last edited by SCOTI; 05-26-2008 at 08:07 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: johnstown, NY
Posts: 2,393
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Mines finished with all steering linkage connected. Let my know if you have any questions. I also did 1.5" notch with a .25" spacer to get things to work.
josh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Quote:
Do you think the 1.5" would have worked for you? What year c.member did you use? What year steering gear (tie-rods, draglink, c.member u-bolts)?
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod 64SWB-Recycle 89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck 99CCSWB Driver All Fleetsides @rattlecankustoms in IG Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive. It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar..... Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hillsboro Oregon
Posts: 6,449
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
What's this spacer you guys speak of?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
I made a .250" plate that sandwiches between the c.member & the frame. I also had to make some that go between the m.mount towers & the c.member.
These aren't necessary if the notch is done in the exact amount. But, I did a 1 3/8" notch only to find it wouldn't work for my parts combination. I could find another c.member & cut it less, or.... make spacers. Spacers it was.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod 64SWB-Recycle 89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck 99CCSWB Driver All Fleetsides @rattlecankustoms in IG Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive. It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar..... Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hillsboro Oregon
Posts: 6,449
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
ahh gotcha. I'm thinking about choppin out just 1". That'll use up the rest of the space I created with the fender sectioning. I want to do a crossmember section rather that notch to retain my current pan clearance. You guys agree with that reasoning?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
100%.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod 64SWB-Recycle 89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck 99CCSWB Driver All Fleetsides @rattlecankustoms in IG Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive. It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar..... Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: johnstown, NY
Posts: 2,393
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
belly dragger
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: sherwood park AB. Canada
Posts: 694
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
I also did a 1.5 notch then installed a 0.25 spacer in mine too. Over the past 3 years I've grown tired of the bump steer and I am switching over to a dropmember this year. The only steering shaft interference I had was after the bodydrop and that was minor just a little control arm mod to fix. Other than that the steering has been fine (except the bump steer but I drive it pretty low) for 3 plus years.
__________________
SAVE THE PLANET DRIVE AN OLD TRUCK |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hillsboro Oregon
Posts: 6,449
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
You shouldn't have bump steer if you move the inner rod ends and associated pieces/arms up the same amount as the total CM drop.
I am thinking along those lines for possibly going to a rack. I've never done either of these before but from what I've read it all comes down to the right rack width and placement. Any insight? Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Mesa,Az
Posts: 3,981
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Quote:
__________________
www.PorterbuiltFabrication.com Phone: 480-297-2621 E-mail: sales@pbfab.com Find us on FaceBook under Porterbuilt Fabrication Specializing in Chassis and Suspension Components for your Classic Chevrolet Truck. We offer components from the following manufacturers: Porterbuilt Accuair Ridetech (Air Ride Technologies) Air Lift Wilwood Intro Unisteer ECE Gotta Show Air Lift Borgeson CPP Supporting this forum since 2003! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
A guy with a truck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Germany, for now
Posts: 5,921
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Quote:
![]()
__________________
-Chris Instagram _elgringoloco_ '70 Short-Wide How to: Ruin a perfectly good C10 ‘70 Blazer ConversionHow To: Ruin a Perfectly Good 4wd '72 Highlander How To: Ruin a Perfectly Good K/5 (SOLD) '72 Blazer 2WD How to: Ruin a perfectly good Blazer (SOLD) '05 Yukon Daily Driven (not so stock) Yukon (SOLD) ‘07 Yukon Denali (daily) Members met list: SCOTI, darkhorse970, 67cheby, 67cheby'sGirl, klmore, porterbuilt, n2billet, Fastrucken, classicchev, Col Clank, GSFMECH, HuggerCST, Spray-Bomb, BACKYARD88, 5150, fine69, fatbass, smbrouss70, 65StreetCruiser, GAc10boy |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
It'd be alot cooler if you did
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Three Rivers, MI
Posts: 2,345
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
I moved everything up 1.5 inches including all the steering components and notched the frame for the ties rods. My crossmember is not pancaked, just channeled for the frame, and I shortened the motor mounts so the motor is in the stock location. Work great - I've had it done for over 5 years now.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hillsboro Oregon
Posts: 6,449
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Thanks smashingchuck. I actually read some of your previous posts about it before posting this thread. Got any pics?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
chevy only
![]() Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 6,619
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
frizzle, This is the one that was in my panel and all the stock steering worked, hope this helps I also have some pics of it installed also
__________________
CHEVY ONLY... Nothin Else ! Last edited by Dinos63; 05-29-2008 at 05:24 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
It'd be alot cooler if you did
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Three Rivers, MI
Posts: 2,345
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
not any very recent or useful ones. Truck is at the bodyshop right now, too. Otherwise I would just go take some.
![]() ![]() Last edited by smashingchuck; 05-29-2008 at 07:33 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hillsboro Oregon
Posts: 6,449
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
How deep is your love... er notch on that Dino?
Thanks smash. Looks like you've done a whole lotta mod'in to that truck. I'm not sure how much I could get away with before the BBC pan would hit without sectioning. I'll have to look. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
It'd be alot cooler if you did
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Three Rivers, MI
Posts: 2,345
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
I have a small block, and it clears no problem. Not sure on the big block. I guess you might be better off to do it how Dino's is. If you still need em when I get my truck back I'll snap some better pictures.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Valley Springs, Ca
Posts: 857
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
I have been curious of doing the pancaking with my c-member, but then again I have this thought in my head it would be a bad idea due to the fact It would Drive everything up ward from the bottom, that including the lower Control Arm's and that causes an Issue with everything in foul play don't it?
Last edited by Jeffs70; 03-14-2010 at 04:20 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cruzeville
Posts: 219
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
What does pancaking a crossmember mean? vertically sectioning?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
|
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking
Yes.... Just like in the above pics.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod 64SWB-Recycle 89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck 99CCSWB Driver All Fleetsides @rattlecankustoms in IG Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive. It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar..... Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|