I've seen one, 79 or so Chevy longbed 4x4 at a car show. It was interesting, but nothing I'd try. He had two identical frames on top of each other. The top one held his body, and drivetrain. The bottom, suspension and axles. It was big, but looked too top-heavy and too awkward to haul.
ya up here in new hampshire we have that you can only be 30 inches from the bottom of the frame to the ground at the point where the rear bumper ataches. my questioning is because i am looking at getting a new truck and one has a stacked frame. also was thinking about doing this to my truck to gain a little more hieght. i would leave the existing frame there add the second one and set my body on that. leave the motor and axles right were they are.
MUDD_RAT: 1978 Chevy K-10 with dana 44 front, 12 bolt rear 350/350/203 running 15/39/15 Mickey Thompson Baja Belted
Ok, how does stacking the frame work? Would there not be tons of gaps and stuff to fill? I doubt they would be a perfect fit together, Not even close to a Male/Female fit like you would see if they were meant to stack on top of one another. Do you have to fill all the spaces afterwards and how about making it all level???? The whole idea sounds a little to weird to me..but that thats just me.
<font color=purple>Used to be a real common mod around here WWAAAAAYYYY back when. Guys needed mongo lift in order to negotiate deep water crossings. And the added weight of the extra frame kept them from getting pushed around too much by the current. Haven't seen anyone do this in a really long time (save a really bad IFS to solid 4Runner conversion using parts of a solid-axle frame). For reference, there was a guy at the Jamboree Nationals in '93 with a double-stacked Bronco ('78 or '79). Had 44's, aluminum rims, & no winch. Weighed 6,900 lbs - which was 1,400 more than the next heaviest truck we weighed among the mud racers (only the "street" guys were anywhere near this heavy obviously). Needless to say, despite a healthy 514", he was really damn slow.</font color=purple>