My 48 KB-1 on a 96 Dakota Frame

I'm planning a similar project ... my 48 KB2 has a 125 inch wheelbase though. Any info on possible donors (with 125" wheelbase)?
So far I can only find 1960's chevy van with that wheelbase and some even came with 238 engines!

I don't know anything about the Chevy van for a donor. Is the width correct?
A lot of people use the S-10 for a donor but that is a bad choice since they are too narrow and look funny. Also you loose any bed depth, they end up at about 6" in depth.
The first generation Dakotas are the best donor as far as I am concerned. The width is correct, you only loose 2" in the bed depth, the cab mounts right on the frame without too much effort, a sbc will mount to the Dakota motor mounts with a flat adapter, the trans crossmember only needs to move back about 4 inches and the 8.25 rearend, gas tank, shortened drive shaft, can all be used with the KB.
A extended cab 1987-1996 has a wheelbase of 123.9 about 124 inches. That is pretty close and would work fine. If the rear wheel looks slightly out of center, you can move the rear fender forward slightly and not hurt a thing.
My thoughts, Bob

Thanks for the early Dakota donor info. In my old truck world, though, beggars can't be choosers.
I use what I can lay my hands on.
However, next time an early Dakota POS (I can say that, I WORK on them) pickup shows up for little or nothing, I'll bite.
I know everyone here could care less but a 3.9L Dakota KILLS catalytic converters. It's what they DO.

Captainbob...the "funny" look you describe and loss of bed depth is a subjective thing. Some folks want their trucks LOW. In order to lower the truck there has to be a big kick over the rear axle and possibly over the front axle, too. When you mount the old truck cab to this "depression" in the middle of the frame OF COURSE you end up with decreased bed depth. Half of the rear frame is up inside the bed!
Those of us that like low trucks don't mind at all.

Thanks for the early Dakota donor info. In my old truck world, though, beggars can't be choosers.
I use what I can lay my hands on.
However, next time an early Dakota POS (I can say that, I WORK on them) pickup shows up for little or nothing, I'll bite.
I know everyone here could care less but a 3.9L Dakota KILLS catalytic converters. It's what they DO.

Captainbob...the "funny" look you describe and loss of bed depth is a subjective thing. Some folks want their trucks LOW. In order to lower the truck there has to be a big kick over the rear axle and possibly over the front axle, too. When you mount the old truck cab to this "depression" in the middle of the frame OF COURSE you end up with decreased bed depth. Half of the rear frame is up inside the bed!
Those of us that like low trucks don't mind at all.

A little more information for those that might choose a Dakota chassis. The standard cab short bed model Dakota has the same wheelbase as my KB-1 short bed. Making your truck low is not an issue using the first gen Dakota chassis. I bolted the IH front cab mounts directly to the frame, then moved the Dakota front mounts to where the rear IH mounts needed to be and welded them on with no altercation to the Dakota mounts. This setup only causes you to loose 2 inches of bed depth, you will have to cut the back side of the front fenders off 2 inches to keep them from being too low. My running boards will be 3 inches off the ground mounting the cab directly to the frame like this. I have to raise them, to get the 5 inch clearance I want so that I will have a street-able truck and not have to carry ramps for speed bumps.

When I first started, I bought some 2 inch drop axles for the front and installed them. I had to remove them and return to the stock axles due to being too low. There is no problem being low enough and still maintaining your close to stock bed depth.
I like wide and low. An S10 chassis will not and does not, look wide..and low means, no bed depth at all.

I am running a 327 Chevy engine and with a 1/4 inch flat plate I adapted to the stock Dakota motor mounts. It sits perfectly in the engine cradle and is aligned with the trans and rear end. No issues with driveline phasing. No crappy weld on motor mounts. I moved the transmission cross member towards the rear just a few inches and I'm using the Aisin-Warner AX-15 5 speed manual transmission that was stock in the Dakota with a Novak adapter. http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge/transmissions/manual/ax15 this is the same transmission used in Jeeps for years with no issues. I am using the gas tank, rack & pinion steering and installed Trac Loc in the 8.25 rear end. I have a stock hydraulic clutch, all pedals stock, power brakes, disc front, drums rear, emergency brake and aftermarket heat and air. This is a pretty easy frame swap and you get to keep a lot of the stock Dakota components that don't require you to hunt for parts to complete the transformation.
If you like the narrow stance of the S-10 and don't mind adding wheel spacers to get your stance right, and a gearbox for steering, go for it. I spent many hours figuring out what was the perfect chassis to use and the Dakota had everything I needed.