|02-03-2013 05:40 PM|
Most axles are going to be too wide. You need a Mustang 9" to bolt right in, and they are expensive if you find one. Even the Explorer axle is about 3" too wide. Your best budget bet is a 93+ Ford Ranger 8.8". It's 1.5" narrower than the Explorer (only 1.5" wider than the original Rambler axle) and has drum brakes. A Ford 9" or Chrysler 8.75" would be more period correct, but also cost more and need to be narrowed. I'm not sure if you can find a Mustang 9" cheaper than narrowing a big car 9" or not, you'd have to look into that and see. Are you going to tub the car for wide rear tires too? Then the axle will need to be even narrower (or just order the right offset wheels). If you're tubbing it you could use an AMC 20 axle (8-7/8" ring gear) from a CJ-7. It's about 3" narrower than the Rambler axle. It's tough enough, and I think the CJ axle used a one piece axle/hub instead of the bolt-on hub that the cars used. The drawback is it uses a 5x5" (or is it 5x5.5?) wheel bolt pattern -- you'd need to redrill the hubs for a more common pattern.
Do any of the 9" ford or 8.75" Chryslers have an offset hog head? If so get another short side axle and it's easy to shorten just the tube on the long side. That might not narrow it enough though, the American is pretty narrow.
|12-25-2012 11:44 AM|
It's a safe bet to use the Ford 9 axle. From the GM rear failures I have seen at the dragstrip I would not use a 10 bolt GM in anything with even mild performance increase. Whenever I see a GM axle in a streetrod I always have to ask, "what else did they cheap out on". The problem with the GM design is the "C" clips. If the axle breaks, (and they do) the wheel, drum and axle leave the vehicle making your ride a tricycle. NHRA wont let you run a GM rear in the faster classes without a C-clip eliminator / axle retention modification. That should tell you how weak they are.
|12-25-2012 09:44 AM|
Yes 9 inch is the way to go and since we were using a 9 inch in 1962 I would say it is period correct..
|12-25-2012 06:20 AM|
|12-22-2012 07:55 AM|
|redsdad||If you are going period correct, a lot of gassers ran the 57-64 Olds/Pont rear end. If you can find a 3 rib case, go with that. The 8-3/4" and 9" also have the look like Big Gear Head said and they were popular back in the day. If you are less concerned with period correct, I would still say go 9". Lots of parts available for the second strongest passenger car rearend out there (at least the last time I looked - I am getting on in years). IMHO, the Dana 60 is stronger but it is also heavier. And it is not period correct.|
|12-11-2012 12:11 PM|
Rear end selection
Ford 8.8's are OK, but if you want simplicity, servicability and reliability, a 9" ford rear axle assembly is the way to go. Any gear ratio is availible, the drop out center is easily removed and serviced. Bearings, axles, etc, are readily availible in the aftermarket. The carrier assembly is stronger due to a rear pinion support bearing. This is a no brainer, 9 inch Ford all the way.
|12-09-2012 09:09 AM|
|big gear head||It would look more corret with a 8 3/4 Chrysler, '57 Olds or 9 inch Ford in it. The old gassers didn't run rear load rear ends, they used front load rear ends. I would go for the 8 3/4 because if the Chrysler engine and transmission.|
|12-09-2012 07:12 AM|
Building 1965 Rambler 220 gasser, which rear end to use?
i'm building a 65 220 gasser and had the same ? i will be running a dodge 400 with a 727. alot of guys tell me to try a ford exploder rear