I dont know if this has been discussed or even explored before,but since Im getting ready to begin project,"Stretch the Suzuki" this summer,Im looking into options.

Without going into details about my project,and/or starting a debate about what is the "best" way to progress with my plans,Id like to know if anyone has compared the Samurai and Sidekick frames with each other.
I know the Sidekick is heavier overall,but the Samurai was more purpose built and intended to go offroad a lot.Is the Sidekick frame fully boxed like the Samurai's?
If I kept the Samurai frame,Id have to extend it to work,and Id have to adress body mounts.But,I wouldnt have to touch my engine,tranny,steering and axle/suspension connections.If I went with a Sidekick frame(4 door),then there would be no body mount or frame extension issues,but I'd have to start from scratch with my V-6 engine mounting,suspension setup and of course the SAS in the front.
Both will be a solid task no doubt,but if one frame is superior to the other in build,torsional strength or metulurgy,then that might make my mind up for me.

Any opinions.....facts......experiences?

And,in case anyone is scratching their heads wondering what the hell Im planning,Im looking to convert to a 4-door Sidekick body so that I can gain some badly needed comfort,cargo/passenger space and wheelbase.But if at all possible,Id like to retain the heart of my Samurai,which is the engine/running gear and all the other custom stuff Ive done that is all attached to the Samurai frame! Swapping all this stuff into another entirely different vehicle means starting my whole buildup again from the begining.

The kick frame is built with a lot different dimensions. The wheel well areas are the biggest difference. In all honesty sit back do the math and think about just building your own frame to your specs.

Thats a very viable alternative that I hadent though of yet,thanks.

how about stretching and adding a second set of doors to the samurai? I've seen a couple over the years.

The frames are comparable in strength from my experience. The sidekick frame is fully boxed too. It is easy to SAS a kick if you are also lifting it. If not lifting, a spring under solid axle conversion works well.

First I'll respectfully disagree on the sidekick frames being of equal strength to the sami then I'll talk about options.

OK, having had a lot of exposure on this subject. I've been working on one of the original SAS'd trackicks a bunch as of the last year or so. From what I've seen and had to help repair, there are a few troublesome areas with trackick frames. Starting from the basic design. Sami frame rails are one piece from front to back bent to shape with a variety of gusset plates/attachment points being welded to them. they are fairly robust, and do not tend to "store" dirt and junk that much if you hose them out. Trackick frame rails are three distinct pieces (front, middle, rear) welded together by overlapping gusset type cutouts, further they really are two c-channel pieces welded together to box them in some places. Trackick frames due to the three piece design tend to allow "stuff" to accumulate at the termination nodes (where they are welded together to make a complete rail). The probelm is they will rust internally here and become very weak (just fixed this with a new front and back half). The other weak area, is the front end in a trackick. The "advances" of modern vehicle design has unfortunately introduced the crumple zone to our vehicles. This corrugated section is weak and I have seen it fail in long term SAS/winching stress if it is not plated across. I would be very worried about anyone in a leaf sprung SAS without having addressed this. With that said, the stress of steering large tires (steering box set-up) and winching led to the demise of coil sprung sas that I'm referring to. Lastly, I've seen body mounts become useless due to cancer as well, but I think honestly this could be an issue for either/or.

Overall, I actually think the sami frame design, material and construction is superior. With that said, if you spend some time reinforcing the kick frame it can be made comparable. In your case (looking towards a 4 door), I would lean towards reinforcing the LWB trackick frame and dropping your power-train into it. A lot of work but the body lines and wheel travel paths/interference with a long travel suspension kind of needs the extreme arch that a trackick has to work correctly (and not be overly tall).

With that said, I built my own frame for my sami with a v6 and would not have done it any other way (except a full tube buggy).

Chevzuki, I might have a frame I could give you from a 91 sidekick if interested...I am slowly parting out and currently have no takers for said frame...
Loren

The other weak area, is the front end in a trackick. The "advances" of modern vehicle design has unfortunately introduced the crumple zone to our vehicles.

Having owned and wheeled both the kick and the samurai, I have seen this too. My sidekick was nearly stock, and after numerous jumps, rock and rut smacks on the front end, the crumple zones crumpled, pushing the lower control arms back over 2 inches... that rig ended up getting stripped by Brent, at trail-tough... why don't ya take a look at Billy's ( elotsip ) stretch and build thread. He took a SWB zuk, and made it about the same length as a LWB... but if you look at in comparison, it has a better departure angle.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=568822&highlight=stretch+build
Keep the Samurai bod and frame, just massage it a bit...