Unibody metal thickness and wheelbase

Can anyone tell me the different unibody frame metal thickness difference through the first gen ford vans in different years, and also the wheelbase and track widths front and rear on the short wheelbase van only. Thanks.

90" wheel base

Thanks Mike, I should have known that. I have heard that the thickness of the metal got thicker as the years got newer. From 61 to 64, than got thicker after that, and the heavy duty was even thicker any truth to anyof that and by how much ? Anyone know the track width front and rear ?

heavy duty meant more leaf springs, etc. No difference in the thickness of the sheet metal in heavy duty vans as far as I know. The bumpers on the later earlies were stronger as were the bumper mounts.

The frame rails were indeed thicker on the heavy duty models. I dont have any numbers on it though. I have cut up several and its very noticeable that they are thicker.

Thanks Tim, I didn't know that.

EconoUSAparts wrote:The frame rails were indeed thicker on the heavy duty models. I dont have any numbers on it though. I have cut up several and its very noticeable that they are thicker.

Do you know if it was thicker on the standard van after 65 ? I was told that but wanted to confirm it. I was told there was 3 different thickness, 61 to 64 then 65 till the last one then the heavy duty.

I thought I heard it mentioned way back that the 61/62 models were prone to cracking around the steering box area. I *think* there may have been a change in 63 but not sure. I personally have never run across the cracking issue on any of mine.

Pickups have thicker outter sheet metal in the rockers than vans did. Vans had the interior ribs for added support where pickups didn't. All Supervans have the thicker frame like the heavy duty trucks. I don't have the numbers from the various pieces but I can get them. I have cut up many and still have sections from all of them. What exactally are you looking for?? I'd be happy the measure any part needed.

Duane in Tennessee

econopoor wrote:Pickups have thicker outter sheet metal in the rockers than vans did. Vans had the interior ribs for added support where pickups didn't. All Supervans have the thicker frame like the heavy duty trucks. I don't have the numbers from the various pieces but I can get them. I have cut up many and still have sections from all of them. What exactally are you looking for?? I'd be happy the measure any part needed.

Duane in Tennessee

I would like to know if the frame part thickness of the uni-bodies changed through out the years. were they made stronger where the leaf springs and things attach, the whole frame or what. I want to maybe make a 4X4 out of one and want to start with the best thickness I can find, or are they all the same and I just need to beef up parts. Is the heavy duty a lot thicker or just barely that it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Get a Heavy Duty to start with if possible. The front spring perches are larger and beefier on all Econos 65 and up. Possibly even on a 64 but I would have to look at mine in daylight to see.

I'll look at some of the frame sections I have here and see what the differences are this weekend. Like Tim said. A 65-67 Heavyduty would be the way to go. 61-62's were the weakest by far. I've also seen several 63's with frame damage. I don't know why I see more 63's with damage than the others but I do. I just finished cutting up a 64 Heavyduty so I can check that in comparison. It will be interesting to see the differences.

Duane in Tennessee

Thanks for the reply's If you guy's get a chance to post the info I would appreciate it, Where did you see the cracks at when you saw them ? Thanks

Anyone get a chance to check thickness on pre 65 post 65 and heavy duty ?

I checked the ones I had around here today. I was very suprized at what I found. The 64 heavy duty, 65 heavy duty, and the 67 supervan all measured about .120 in the main frame rail. The 62 pickup I cut up measured .050 in the same place. That's a really big difference. It really makes me rethink building the 61 pickup I have. I may go back to finding a 65-67 to build. I had no idea the earlies were that thin.

Duane in Tennessee

econopoor wrote:I checked the ones I had around here today. I was very suprized at what I found. The 64 heavy duty, 65 heavy duty, and the 67 supervan all measured about .120 in the main frame rail. The 62 pickup I cut up measured .050 in the same place. That's a really big difference. It really makes me rethink building the 61 pickup I have. I may go back to finding a 65-67 to build. I had no idea the earlies were that thin.

Duane in Tennessee

Thanks for that, any idea on what just the non heavy duty frames would be on the vans.

The only non-heavy I have is a 67 pickup. It's still intact so I'll have to see if I can get a measurement of the frame. My 67 eight door is not a heavy duty but I believe the eight doors had a heavy duty frame as well. I'm pretty sure I heard that sometime ago. I'll check my 67 pu and let you know.

Duane in Tennessee.