1966 C10 Short Stepside LS Conversion

[1966c10LS]

I bought a 1966 C10 stepside short box last fall. It seems to be a fairly clean truck. It has a 283 V8 and 4-speed transmission. It came with factory power steering, A/C, Power brakes, and factory tach. After driving it last fall I am going do a frame off restoration. I will put a supercharged 5.3L LS with a 4L60E trans, I will keep the 12 bolt rear end, but upgrade to posi. I am going to put disc brakes around and lower the truck some more. Chad at ESDC in Spokane, Wa. will be doing the work for me.

[1966c10LS]

Here we are getting started, Motor is out, front end is off.

[scoot_mcgrute]

I'll be keeping an eye on this one, I plan to LS my 66 before too long.

Will you be posting up the parts and pieces needed, motor mounts and such, or is that all going through the shop that's doing the work?

[Captainfab]

Welcome to the forum

This must the the truck that Chad emailed me a while back, regarding some of the products I fabricate for these trucks.

[padresag]

curious as to why the rear wheels seem to be sitting further back. it dosen;t appear to mbe an optical illusion as to how far the wheels are sitting out. they must have rubbed a little did they?
looks like a pretty decent truck otherwise.
ron

[1966c10LS]

Scoot Mcgrute

The parts will be going through the shop that is doing the build. ESDC Performance, Spokane, WA. The motor mounts will be custom built by Chad. He is going to place the motor lower and further back than motor mounts off the shelf will do. I am wanting to make a daily driver with some good horsepower and torque numbers, That also handles better than it did off the factory line. There should be a lot of custom parts on this by the time we are done.
I will be posting pictures of the progress.

[1966c10LS]

Originally Posted by padresag

curious as to why the rear wheels seem to be sitting further back. it dosen;t appear to mbe an optical illusion as to how far the wheels are sitting out. they must have rubbed a little did they?
looks like a pretty decent truck otherwise.
ron

Hey padresag,

The rear end is sitting funny in the wheel wells. Thats what happens when you lower the truck and keep the stock track bar. I am going to get the truck lower so we will be making changes to the track bar and get the rear end back in align with where is should be. The tires and wheels do stick out, I am going to be putting some custom wheels on, I'm going to make sure the offset is so the tires can be in the wheel wells.

[1966c10LS]

Captainfab,
Thanks! glad to be part of the forum and building my truck at last. I have been talking to Chad since before Christmas so it might be the same truck.

[1966c10LS]

Getting the bed off and the new tire on to see how they fit for clearance and size

[DaddyOh]

You'll be limited on just how far back the engine will go, unless you plan on getting into the firewall... the coil packs become a limiting factor. As far as low, switching out to the F type will get you pretty low.

[1966c10LS]

Originally Posted by DaddyOh

You'll be limited on just how far back the engine will go, unless you plan on getting into the firewall... the coil packs become a limiting factor. As far as low, switching out to the F type will get you pretty low.

Thanks for the advice, I really want the motor as low and as far back as I can, It will help with the handling, and I can use all the help I can get with that ! ha.

[padresag]

what do you see as a problem with handling as due to engine positioning
ron

[1966c10LS]

Originally Posted by padresag

what do you see as a problem with handling as due to engine positioning
ron

No problems, just attempting to improve, I am going to be adding more power with the new motor. So I want to balance out the weight of the truck on both axles as much as possible. A little extra planning and work now should make a difference when we get it rolling again.

[66ChevyMax]

Welcome to the forum, I will be watching this one for sure. I relocated the coil packs and went with taller valve covers which just barely clear the fire wall, and by barely I'm talking like paper or tooth floss type clear! Just FYI

[scoot_mcgrute]

Originally Posted by 1966c10LS

Scoot Mcgrute

The parts will be going through the shop that is doing the build. ESDC Performance, Spokane, WA. The motor mounts will be custom built by Chad. He is going to place the motor lower and further back than motor mounts off the shelf will do. I am wanting to make a daily driver with some good horsepower and torque numbers, That also handles better than it did off the factory line. There should be a lot of custom parts on this by the time we are done.
I will be posting pictures of the progress.

Cool!

[padresag]

Originally Posted by 1966c10LS

Hey padresag,

The rear end is sitting funny in the wheel wells. Thats what happens when you lower the truck and keep the stock track bar. I am going to get the truck lower so we will be making changes to the track bar and get the rear end back in align with where is should be. The tires and wheels do stick out, I am going to be putting some custom wheels on, I'm going to make sure the offset is so the tires can be in the wheel wells.

the amount that your truck is lowered would not moved the rear axle back that far. here are a couple of examples of one close to stack and another lowered



lowering the engine I doubt will do much for weight tansfer and moving it back a bit I doubt will do much either unlee you go to extremes. I can remember back around the mid 60's that we mounted a 410 cu" Edsel in an old 40/50 Studebaker truck. it was mounted under and behind the seat
.
you can do a lot more with suspension than with relocating the engine
ron

[1966c10LS]

Originally Posted by 66ChevyMax

Welcome to the forum, I will be watching this one for sure. I relocated the coil packs and went with taller valve covers which just barely clear the fire wall, and by barely I'm talking like paper or tooth floss type clear! Just FYI

Hey 66ChevyMax,
That is a great looking engine compartment! We test fitted a motor and talked about relocating the coils if needed, thanks for the input and picture. Hope my ride turns out as nice as yours.

[Captainfab]

Glad to have you here.

It's been a couple months since I emailed Chad. He was going to come over and pick up some parts, but I haven't heard from him since. I could also drop them off the next time I go into Spokane.

Originally Posted by 1966c10LS

Captainfab,
Thanks! glad to be part of the forum and building my truck at last. I have been talking to Chad since before Christmas so it might be the same truck.

[1966c10LS]

Originally Posted by padresag

the amount that your truck is lowered would not moved the rear axle back that far. here are a couple of examples of one close to stack and another lowered



lowering the engine I doubt will do much for weight tansfer and moving it back a bit I doubt will do much either unlee you go to extremes. I can remember back around the mid 60's that we mounted a 410 cu" Edsel in an old 40/50 Studebaker truck. it was mounted under and behind the seat
.
you can do a lot more with suspension than with relocating the engine
ron

Hey Ron,
Obviously my answer showed my inexperience and I did not respond the way you thought it should have been. Those are great trucks, looks like you did a great job on them. What do you think the answer to your question is? How do you suggest I resolve the issue, because it is an issue and does need to be resolved.

So you are saying what, about lowering and placing the weight of the motor and trans to the center of the vehicle? When you placed the 410 cu Edsel in the Studabaker truck behind the seat what was your front to rear axel weight ratio? Did you weigh the truck and balance it out or did you put all your weight to the rear of the vehicle. I have rode in a 1966 c10 truck with the weight balanced, have you? I liked how it handled, and want to do that with my truck. I realize more can be done to the suspension than engine placement, but doing both seem to compound the results, just my experiance so far.

[1966c10LS]

Originally Posted by DaddyOh

You'll be limited on just how far back the engine will go, unless you plan on getting into the firewall... the coil packs become a limiting factor. As far as low, switching out to the F type will get you pretty low.

Hey DaddyOh,
Thanks for your comments, We are open to relocating the coil packs if they become an issue with clearance. Thanks for the heads up.
I will look into the F type suspension.

[1966c10LS]

Down to the frame now. The motor was test fitted before the cab and front end was taken off. I didn't have pictures of that. So we are back to setting the motor and trans to get motor and trans mount fabricated.

[padresag]

Originally Posted by 1966c10LS

Hey Ron,
Obviously my answer showed my inexperience and I did not respond the way you thought it should have been. Those are great trucks, looks like you did a great job on them. What do you think the answer to your question is? How do you suggest I resolve the issue, because it is an issue and does need to be resolved.

So you are saying what, about lowering and placing the weight of the motor and trans to the center of the vehicle? When you placed the 410 cu Edsel in the Studabaker truck behind the seat what was your front to rear axel weight ratio? Did you weigh the truck and balance it out or did you put all your weight to the rear of the vehicle. I have rode in a 1966 c10 truck with the weight balanced, have you? I liked how it handled, and want to do that with my truck. I realize more can be done to the suspension than engine placement, but doing both seem to compound the results, just my experiance so far.

those are not my vehicles, just a couple that I was using for examples.
I am just talking about leaving it in the stock location. I am more interested in the fascination of lowering the engine and moving it back. are you going racing?
ron

[1966c10LS]

Originally Posted by padresag

those are not my vehicles, just a couple that I was using for examples.
I am just talking about leaving it in the stock location. I am more interested in the fascination of lowering the engine and moving it back. are you going racing?
ron

Hi Ron,
Yes I do plan on racing the truck, but I would be doing this even if I wasn't. I plan on driving this truck a lot. Balancing the truck makes it better handling, and nicer to drive. You do great work on the dashes you create, they are beautiful from what I have seen on your link. You probably use power tools to make the job go faster, easier, and better. Thats my fascination, I want my truck to go faster, handle better, and be easier to drive. So I am attempting to do that. I am obviously sold on aspects of 1966, and others I am not. Hence the updated motor trans, brakes etc.. Just building my truck my way I guess. I hope you enjoy the process.

[padresag]

Originally Posted by 1966c10LS

Hi Ron,
Yes I do plan on racing the truck, but I would be doing this even if I wasn't. I plan on driving this truck a lot. Balancing the truck makes it better handling, and nicer to drive. You do great work on the dashes you create, they are beautiful from what I have seen on your link. You probably use power tools to make the job go faster, easier, and better. Thats my fascination, I want my truck to go faster, handle better, and be easier to drive. So I am attempting to do that. I am obviously sold on aspects of 1966, and others I am not. Hence the updated motor trans, brakes etc.. Just building my truck my way I guess. I hope you enjoy the process.

pretty tough to use pwer tools on those kinds of jobs. most of my work is hands on, but again I am interested in how power tools make my work go faster,easier and better. I have been in business at it for 41 years now and I spent 15 years automotive prior.. if you want to add the years up, I left home when i was 14 and 71 now and still productive
Speaking of things being better I did get in a discussion on a woodworking forum about new apparatus that makes people better at what they do. I said that is like having training wheels on a bicycle. needless to say he did refer to me as a dinosaur and I nave been called worse. he says that me being from B.C. that I have more than likely skied and rode a bike at one time or another. he referenced that my skis were more than likely antiques and I had leather boots and that my mountain bike was more than likely over 30 years oldMy skis are old and my boots were the last of the handmades and were a beautiflly made,"Heschungs". but again I haven;t skied since 84. My Rocky Mountain bike is a little over 20 and my road bike is just over 25 and I have ridden regulary for about 45 years
here a couple of pics of them. they are a little more demanding of talent then most consumer skis today. Years ago I spent 5 weeks sking Val D'isere, France and by luck I had stayed at the Director of the hills home for 3 weeks of that time. his sonn was on the French Jr. national team and he introduced me to the Heschungs which what both the national and the jr national team used


he was quiet about the fact after. He did tell me a bit about himself earlier and that he had instructed pilots on either f16 or 18s and that he was now a commercial pilot flying 767s. he went on to say how all the electonics that were installed in one of those planes made him a better pilot. I thought about that and responded, "no, but they more than likely make for a better plane and perhaps they make you look better, but the only thing that can make you a better pilot is yourself"! that is what I think of the word better.
If you are going to race it I would check what class it fits into as only so much set back is aloud in certain classes, but many years have passed since I set up my 32 sedan for "A" gas. rembermber to add some more displacement as bricks take more to move them
have fun
ron

[1966c10LS]

Its down to the frame now, getting things cleaned up and just sending off to get sand blasted and powder coated.