Frame differences

[OverUnder725]

I fixed a bend in the frame on my '82 long box behind the drivers front cab mount. Decided not to use it in the end and set out to find a different one. Picked one up today, price was right (20 mins worth of snow clearing with my bobcat) and I have noticed a few differences. The new one is from an '83 but has the solid crossmember at the rear cab mounts and stepped down profile at the most rearward crossmember. All other holes in the frame are exact. I think the full crossmember at the rear cab mounts was for a 2 piece drive shaft set up, mine is a one piece. Third picture also shows a crossmember that is for a spare tire, is that correct?

Anyone see any issues with using this frame with these differences?

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[MarineOne]

Frame will work just fine and yes that's for a spare tire

 

[OverUnder725]

Glad I went with my gut on this one. Here are pictures of the frames lined up perfectly at the rear spring mounts. Granted, the sub frame isn't in the one on top but I don't think it would have made much difference.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Originalthor]

@Bighead72 check this out. You were asking about a bent frame. This looks pretty close to you.

 

[KCKKen]

I can confirm the solid rear cab mount is for the 2-piece driveshaft, my parts truck has the carrier bearing mount still in place. I'm trying to decide whether or not it's worth the effort to convert over to the 2-piece driveshaft in my project truck (1/2-ton), I'll be doing a bit of trailer towing with it. Any advice out there?

Take Care,
KS

 

[OverUnder725]

Just from moving the bare frame around the shop, it for sure ads more rigidity. Cost and trouble of converting vs advantage for towing, I couldn't say. Maybe the 2 piece shaft handle the torque better being it has the Center bearing for more support?