The one I did was a 69 Chevelle convertible with a 71 Elky frame,and I only shortened the rear rails.
The article I have is with a 70 Chevelle project.
Either way,there are plenty of options available. I would not bother with the one under that car.

 

Jeffroi,

I talked to my son (he has the frame). He lives in Pittsburg, KS not far from you. Of course he can send lots of photos so you can decide on the frame. He is willing to deliver it to you if you decide to buy it.

 

Hey Steve,

Great info... sending PM

 

Hi all,

I've been looking around locally and I just got an email from of someone that has a frame from what he is saying is a 1970 Cutlass. I looks to be a convertible frame but I want to double check with all the experts here. What do you guys think?

EvWHe5K.jpg

 

Frame is boxed like my vert frame and I'm no expert but it looks like a type o rear.

 

The only Cutlass boxed frames in 1970 were the convertible and the Vista Cruiser. It's easy to tell the 112" convert wheelbase from the 121" VC wheelbase with a tape measure.

 

From the looks of the frame mounts, this was a 455-powered convertible...

 

I'm trying to get this to replace my 68 convertible 442. Assuming it is the convertible frame (112") and not the VC, will I have issues since I'll be putting in my 400 engine?

 

No, but to be correct, you need to swap the frame mounts from your 68 frame onto this one. The 1969-72 BBO cars used the 2328 style motor mounts with the matching frame mounts shown in the photo. The 1965-68 BBO cars used the same 2261 style motor mounts as the SBO cars. Alternately, you can keep the frame mounts on the replacement frame and use 2328 motor mounts.

I'll caveat this by saying that as far as I can tell, those are 1970 BBO frame mounts, but even when I enlarge the photo, there isn't much detail. I'm basing my statement from the shape of the ribs at the top of the frame mount, near the two top bolts.

 

You have a good eye. Did confirm this is a 70 cutlass convertible frame (not VC) and it did have a 455. Changing the frame mounts shouldn't be a problem. I'll have to check out the shape of the ones in my car now. This one might be the winner for me.

 

Good for you Joffroi, I hope the transition works out well for you.

 

Hi all, I just got more pictures of the frame and I wanted to share some of the close ups with you to get your opinions or concerns. The back bumper looks bent, but I should be able to take that from my frame no problem. What do you think of the other welds? Anything in particular I need to ask the seller? Should I be concerned about these welds?

1aLD7pv.jpg
3q5Djjv.jpg
gEbtlz8.jpg
ZIo0Aam.jpg

Thanks

 

Looks like it was in a rear end collision. Lots of cobbled looking repairs, I'd keep on looking.

Henry

 

Just spoke with the owner. He said to the best of his knowledge the car(frame) has never been in a wreck and has no reason to believe it was. He previously sandblasted it and was going to use it for one of his projects but got the "wife needs me to get ride of projects... " story. Overall, sounded like a really nice guy. Got a few more pictures as well.

 

Lots of people have collision damaged cars that they are truly unaware of.

The pic of the section that has the welding on it shows lots of waviness on the top and side of the frame rail. Looks "repaired" to me. Then the crude looking welding on the spring perch is a warning. I'd ask for further pics of the 3 or 4 feet of the rear frame rails behind the axle.

Henry

 

The Fisher body manual has the X dimensions for the frame. They're fairly easy to measure and it's a good check to see if the frame is still square

 

Couldn't find the X dimension value yet. The wheel base is suppose to be 112 in. I'll verify both sides of of the frame with that, then check the diagonals to have similar measurements.

 

My questions keep coming with this frame situation. I just found out that apparently there is a slight difference between the 68-69 frames and 70-72 frames. Apparently the 68-69 frames are dished above the rear wheels and the 70-72 are not. If you look past the rust and dirt, you can see it on my frame in the picture. The clearance from the panels looks as if it would collide if the dish wasn't there in the frame. With that being said, has another else done a frame swap from 70-72 for a 68-69? Did you see this issue?

It is very close, so worst case I feel like a little trimming of the panel would do the job, but I figured I would ask around here.

QOnoIuM.jpg

 

Your frame has a slight indent on the top outer corner of the frame and its mostly on the forward part or front facing section Can't see enough in the pictures of the other frame to know if it is there or not. As others have mentioned, I would pass on that replacement frame as it has had welding repairs, and poor looing ones at that, and the one factory hole shows evidence of the frame being tied down and pulled on since that oval hole is no longer oval. Its easy to see where the hook was installed and how it pulled on that spot. That could be evident this frame was bent and pulled on. For me, it would be enough to cause me to keep looking. No so much that it was bent and pulled but the fact that it had cracks that needed to be welded. No good. It wouldn't matter to me how cheap it was or how close it was as I would pass. Now if you could buy it for dirt cheap, then I would cut and remove the boxed sections from the side rails and then look for a nicer and easier to find hardtop frame and install the boxed sections on it to get a nicer "convertible" frame.

 

It's nice and solid,but too much evidence of a beating. I would look for another. Those boxed sections would be nice to have though.