1940 Pontiac "Retro" Framing

[Larry]

I have been toying with the idea of putting a modern drivetrain under my 1940 2519 (small Chevy-body) 4-door sedan.
I don't want a "hot rod", just a good (safe) dependable older looking car with creature comforts.... no chopping, etc.
I seem to think that the easiest way to accomplish this would be to lift the body and "drop" onto a complete frame with full drivetrain, etc.
While I know this is not as easy as it might sound, it does seem like it would be easier than doing every single conversion one item at a time (from God knows how many different sources!). I was told years ago that a 1980-'82 A-body GM car would "donate" a frame that would accomplish this with least problem.
My 40-2519 has a wheelbase of 116.5", front tread width of 58", rear of 59". How does that compare to the '80-'82 frame? Also, does anyone have the dimension of the '80-'82 frame in the mid-section, as it has to fit between the body on the '40 which is narrow because of the running boards.
Thought?
Thanks,
Larry

[50scars]

There are a number of ways to go. The Camero/Nova sub frame is real common. The ones with the steering grear behind the axel are more popular because they cause less hassel with the front end sheetmetal mounting. Chrysler 5th avenue, which is anything from later 60s Valiant/Dart, through up until the New Yorker was made Front Wheel drive in the early 90s are also really popular, because there are no spring towers to fight--the torsion bars are horizontal under the frame. These frames all take modern V-8s, as well as 6s, and they have power steering and power brakes, usually discs. Fords are not popular because you need the vertical parts of the fender wells to make it stand up, where the Nova and Chrysler sub frames stand alone.
I can't think of what GM made only 80-82 that is just 80-82. I remember looking at the GM mid size-Chevelle and discovered that it really isn't a frame--it is welded to the floor pan, and collapses if freed. Nova was gone then, they had the Citation, which was front wheel drive--and unusable. The full sized Impala/Bonneville might work--those are fantastic cars--that little 265 CI V-8 gets fantastic mileage--like 25 or so, and they are long lived. A running drivable parts car is cheap, too.,

[Larry]

If the person was corerct about '80-'82 A-body, that would be GP, Cutlass, and whatever Buick made, right? It could be a wider year range also.
Where are wheelbase dimensions, frame width measurements available (if available) for these cars?

[50scars]

As far as I can see, the 108.1 inch wheel base rear wheel drive was used from starting 1978 on the Malibu to 83, Monte CArlo to 88, Lemans to 81 when it became Bonneville G to 86, Grand Prix to 87, Century to 85, Regal to 87, Cutlass and Cutlass Supreme to 87, and Cutlass Supremem Classic in 88. This is the one where the frame is unsuitable if removed from the rest of the body.

[Stu Norman]

One route would be to have Art Morrison build you a new frame to your specs:

http://www.artmorrison.com/frames/straightframe.cfm

[Stu Norman]

Otherwise, a 1968-72 GM A-body frames from a sedan, station wagon, and utilities like the El Camino used a 116 inch wheelbase. Station wagons and El Caminos got boxed frames. 1/2 inch off is pretty durn close.

Find a rusted out 1971 Lemans Wagin and you'd already be set up for a Pontiac V-8.

[Larry]

Sorry to be so lax getting back on this subject... been sort of buzzy!

The mention of the A-body has me thinking as I do have a '69 Lemans wagon also. My only concern is the width of the frame as the '40 body is very narrow in the passenger compartment because of running boards.

I'm guessing it is time to crawl under both and start doing some measuring. You are right about the wheelbase being nearly a perferct fit.

Thnaks for the suggestion.

Larry