That's his problem, where he's at..........................that is a ''rusty parts car"! Those are the kind of cars that get cut up to send parts to the rust belt to repair the rotted out junk over here!
The engine bay configuration all looks very similar to the 64 Electra 225 I’m looking at...with a nailhead 401 in it
So my mind keeps coming back to the frame. Since its an X frame and has no protection on the perimeter of the body around the back passenger door during a crash. Are there or has anyone welded on to the existing frame to correct that problem? Will that change the way the wagon will handle? Frame swap ideas. It has a 123 inch wheelbase. So does a 1983 to 2006 s10/sonoma extended cab, well 122.9 to be right.
Transmission... And why a must on a dynaflow? What would take a th350/400 to fit? Is it just the crossmember? What manual transmission came stock with the 401 and 425?
The transmission crossmember position and the driveshaft will all be different, as is any linkage. The front crossmember position in relation to the engine may be different, I'm not sure if they moved the motor when they dumped the Dynaflow in 64 or not. The Dynaflow was just the cheapest option if you wanted to get it on the road quickly. A 64-66 401 with a TH 400 is a slightly better combination power-wise, but for most drivers the differences are actually negligible. Also, you'd have to change the shift quadrant on the column, - it won't see low gear, and reverse is in the wrong place. If it was up to me I'd go with the 401 and the Dynaflow and drive the car. Now; about the X frame. GM used them for 5 years, and they weren't great. They were fine unless the car got tapped on any corner or was wrapped around a pole. These cars folded up like a tin plate on impact, most full frame cars do. Modern cars are designed to be break-away and the passenger cabin is essentially a roll-cage. The old full frame cars are just held together with a dozen bolts which tend to shear on impact and then you find the engine in your lap. The story about impact survivability in those old things is a myth. Don't believe me, google the test crash between a 59 Chevy and a 2008 Malibu. You have no seat belts in that car, and if they are there, they aren't anchored to much. The steering column in that car is pretty much a straight shaft; - in other words, unless you modify the entire frame and driveline that car by default is a death trap. That's just how it was in the 60s, and most of us survived. Personally, if it was up to me, and this is just my opinion, I'd dump in a 401 4bbl and a Dynaflow and just drive the car. I'd leave the frame and everything alone. Build a half decent set of anchors for the baby seat, sure, but the rest, leave it, the chances of surviving an accident in that car is not that great anyway. If you are truly concerned about impact survival, buy a recent vintage mini-van. A Dynaflow is strong enough to take whatever you can throw at it, and there's nothing wrong with them. Ok, it'll use a bit more gas, but you didn't buy a 4000 lb car for fuel economy.
I could be off but I thought versions of the x frame started in the late 30s And the riviera had them until I'm thinking 70 So a lot longer than 5 years I wouldn't worry about it a heck of a lot of cars have them and yes no where near as safe as a modern car
I forgot that the Rivieras used the X-frame longer, yes, I think it was until 69. There were versions of the perimeter frame that had an X in them, but the true X-frame appeared on Chevy in 59, Buick in 61, and was gone on the full size models by 65. Riviera used them longer, I'm not sure if anyone else did. Ralph Nader had issues with them and his book "Unsafe at any Speed" went a long way to getting GM to abandon the concept.
It was actually '58 to '64 that the B-body GM cars had the X-frames, 7 years total. Not sure about the Rivs though. '57 Chevy = perimeter frame and holds its value, '58 Chevy = X-frame and a lot less desirable and can be bought for a lot less that is if you can find one. They didn't really gain back popularity until the more squared off body style showed up in the early 60s where a lot of those cars started sporting dingle balls and were slammed low to the ground. Some of them even were equipped with aftermarket hydraulics to make them bounce and what not. Those frames can't be all that weak if they hold up to all that hydraulic abuse? Or did those guys some how reinforce the frame some how to take it? Anyway if the frame is that much of a concern, then my advise would be to get her running again and get the interior back together and sell it and buy a '65 or newer wagon rather than try to fab a perimeter frame under this car. The X-frame car is a good looking car already, just doing what I mentioned above will be enough to at least triple your investment to put towards one without an X-frame.(probably more like 5x what you paid for it as a good running drivable car)
Thats true, i was looking at a 4 door hardtop wildcat with a 401 in it thinks i know i wouldent sell it after i gut it.
Im glad you got the info on this model year Marc. I want to modify the drive train and frame entirely to keep it out the death trap column, I know its not the safest car, so im just brainstorming. Ive heard the dunaflow is a leaky one by default, is this true, is it also a 2 speed? Thanks alot for all heads ups.
I got a pad and a pencil infront of me, its good for my brain.. hopefully it will get me closer to know what i want to do Picked up the 4brl 300sbb thursday. I like how the black catalina wagon sits and how the green one shows.
Here's some frame strengthening tips; So after some YouTube searching it looks like there is already a perimeter rail that should be in your car as well that is attached to the floor pan. Here's a guy welding in a new floor on a '64 Impala, basically same construction as your wagon; If you want even more strength than what that provides, I would NOT remove the frame from the car. I would probably take the interior out, remove carpet, then cut through on the top where that channel is and install some tubing that fits snugly inside the perimeter rail as long as the channel is and weld flush to the floor pan minus where the cross tubing will be installed. Then I would cut a cross channel in the floor on top of where those floor supports are to the tunnel and install some tubing that will fit that is close to being flush with the floor and weld it in. After the above to make it across the tunnel without losing to much drivetrain clearance, use similar thinner(thinner as in the rectangle dimensioning, not the thickness of the metal the tubing is made of) tubing that can be cut through to the flat of the other side without making it into 2 pieces so it can be bent to go over the tunnel while trying to maintain the shape of the tunnel to meet the cross piece on the other side. To get the strength back in the tunnel tubing that was cut on one side so it could bend, use the same tubing to cut patches out of to fill in the gaps. Should look like a V on both sides an just straight on the top. If the gaps are small enough, they can be filled in with weld. After that if you get T-boned the car will shear the body mounts and probably get pushed off of the frame somewhat instead of it being crushed inward as much. Should make it better than the later 60s perimeter frame cars as far as getting T-boned anyway. If you tried to change the frame to a perimeter one in your car, that perimeter rail in the car already would need to be cut out from underneath to make room for the new frame! WAY to much work for a first time fabrication job for someone that hasn't even learned how to weld yet! Then new body mounts would need to be attached to correspond to the new frame, again this would be a VERY advanced fab job to do to get the body on square to the frame so the car doesn't look like its going sideways driving on the road! Not to mention the difference in how the donor frame is contoured over the wheel wells vs the original. Then there is the challenge to get the bumpers bolted back on! This sounds like YEARS of hours and hours fab work vs the above mentioned that could be done in weeks and not to advanced for a beginner. Or if you are still unsure and still wouldn't trust the X-frame, get it running, sell it for a profit and buy a '65 or newer or '57 or older wagon if a wagon is what you want like I mentioned in an earlier post.
Ronnie, 1st. off this car is a sedan type body with a B pillar. There's strength in that alone. As stated I wouldn't waste my time doing what you are planning/conseving what you would like to do. A T-Bone is most times above the frame well anyways. If that 300 is a cast iron block with a 4 barrel manifold that alone is worth in the area of $300.00-$400.00+ which is ONE YEAR ONLY & '65 ONLY. & carb. which appears to be an AFB. If the numbers on the carb. indicate it's for an original 300 also that could add another $150.00-$200.00. Plus whatever else you could sell from the 300 engine itself. Now this could help fund the purchase of the correct 401/425 with a DynaFlow. You have MANY possibility's opening up. The car would be a nice driver with the A/C & all. Just my thoughts. Tom T.
I stumbled across this that you might need; https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-1959-1...m=312100827931&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850 Make sure its right for your car before you buy it.
