The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > General Truck Forums > Suspension

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2008, 07:05 AM   #1
Frizzle Fry
Registered User
 
Frizzle Fry's Avatar
 
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.
Frizzle Fry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 01:54 PM   #2
jlaird
Senior Member
 
jlaird's Avatar
 
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.
jlaird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 07:59 PM   #3
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
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:
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.
You can technically put the brake lines where ever you want regardless of c.member year model. I had post-73 brakes/lines w/my stock 68 c.member before doing the notched c.member (which never saw the road because of Mr. Porter).
__________________
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.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 08:44 PM   #4
jlaird
Senior Member
 
jlaird's Avatar
 
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
jlaird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 08:54 PM   #5
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlaird View Post
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
Yours was the only other one that I knew of that was close to completion but I wasn't sure if you finished the steering stuff.

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.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 08:56 PM   #6
Frizzle Fry
Registered User
 
Frizzle Fry's Avatar
 
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?
Frizzle Fry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 09:01 PM   #7
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frizzle Fry View Post
What's this spacer you guys speak of?
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.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 11:45 PM   #8
Frizzle Fry
Registered User
 
Frizzle Fry's Avatar
 
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?
Frizzle Fry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 01:52 AM   #9
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frizzle Fry View Post
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?
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.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 03:15 AM   #10
jlaird
Senior Member
 
jlaird's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: johnstown, NY
Posts: 2,393
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
Yours was the only other one that I knew of that was close to completion but I wasn't sure if you finished the steering stuff.

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)?
No, the 1.5" would not have worked. The outer ubolt on each side was the major issue. There is clearancing to do on the front lip of the cross member, but that was no big deal. I used a 69 crossmember. Outer tie rods are 73-87 for use with the 73-87 drop spindles. Draglink is 69. U bolts were upgraded to the thicker 9/16" thick ones.
jlaird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 04:04 AM   #11
grnddwn
belly dragger
 
grnddwn's Avatar
 
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
grnddwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 06:57 AM   #12
Frizzle Fry
Registered User
 
Frizzle Fry's Avatar
 
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:
Originally Posted by grnddwn View Post
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.
Frizzle Fry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 08:48 AM   #13
PBFAB.COM
Senior Member
 
PBFAB.COM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Mesa,Az
Posts: 3,981
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frizzle Fry View Post
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?
It's a lot of work to incorporate a rack and pinion onto a factory crossmember... and have it function properly. The main issue is rack mounting clearances at the u-bolts that secure the LCA. If I were to section the factory crossmember (we all know what I would really do!), I would keep the factory steering box/linkage and move it up.
__________________
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!
PBFAB.COM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 04:13 PM   #14
gringoloco
A guy with a truck
 
gringoloco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Germany, for now
Posts: 5,921
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking

Quote:
Originally Posted by porterbuilt View Post
...I would keep the factory steering box/linkage and move it up.
Yep. This will require a lot of strengthening where you cut the frame though. I think if you're gonna go R&P, you might as well go DM. It really is a nice piece that just kinda falls together. It would also give you a good reason to take advantage of that monster notch...
__________________
-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
gringoloco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 05:36 PM   #15
smashingchuck
It'd be alot cooler if you did
 
smashingchuck's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
78 Build Thread

4Runner Build
smashingchuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2008, 10:46 PM   #16
Frizzle Fry
Registered User
 
Frizzle Fry's Avatar
 
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?
Frizzle Fry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2008, 05:09 AM   #17
Dinos63
chevy only
 
Dinos63's Avatar
 
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
Attached Images
    
__________________
CHEVY ONLY... Nothin Else !

Last edited by Dinos63; 05-29-2008 at 05:24 AM.
Dinos63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2008, 07:29 AM   #18
smashingchuck
It'd be alot cooler if you did
 
smashingchuck's Avatar
 
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.


Attached Images
  
__________________
78 Build Thread

4Runner Build

Last edited by smashingchuck; 05-29-2008 at 07:33 AM.
smashingchuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2008, 10:13 AM   #19
Frizzle Fry
Registered User
 
Frizzle Fry's Avatar
 
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.
Frizzle Fry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2008, 04:21 PM   #20
smashingchuck
It'd be alot cooler if you did
 
smashingchuck's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
78 Build Thread

4Runner Build
smashingchuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2010, 04:18 PM   #21
Jeffs70
Registered User
 
Jeffs70's Avatar
 
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.
Jeffs70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2010, 06:01 PM   #22
truckeez
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?
truckeez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2010, 11:54 PM   #23
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 22,136
Re: 67-72 vs. 73-87 Crossmembers for Pancaking

Quote:
Originally Posted by truckeez View Post
What does pancaking a crossmember mean? vertically sectioning?
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.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2025 67-72chevytrucks.com