|11-04-2005 06:04 PM|
|MM in NM||
I bought the 57 a couple months ago minus engine and minus rear end though otherwise I would call it complete even with the original 3 speed w/overdrive hanging in there. I've got another project in the garage (a 69 R code Torino which now has a 460/C6) that's heading down hill and hopefully will be on the road in the spring. Hopefully serious work will start on the 57 then though gathering parts and info has already started.
I called the guy who's name was on the title and who owned this car 20+ years ago asking if he had any of the parts, specifically the rear end, still around. Hey,,,, it's New Mexico and one can never tell what a guy still has or doesn't have laying out in the back 40. He told me he took the rear end out and put it in a truck that also now is long gone.
That still leaves me needing a rear end (and springs). The neighbor kid has an 8 inch rear housing, springs and axels from a 64 V8 Sprint laying in the dirt, but it needs a pumpkin and will need brakes.
He also has a couple 9" housings from various 70's trucks but they also would need to be narrowed and totally built including new axels as i want the original 5 on 4 1/2 lugs.
I have a 75 Conti Mk back in the woods that has a complete disc rear (9 or (9 1/4"?) It, at least, would also have to be narrowed and would need new axels.
I did just buy the 82 Conti. $100 bucks with title. The tires are slashed, the windows and lights are all busted out but, as pointed out, it has 72k on the clock, the previous owner said it was a good runner and I figured there's plenty of good parts that can be adapted to the 57 including the 5.0, accessories, hydroboost, etc. I had hell today getting the wheels off because of the damn wheel lug nut locks but eventually did get all 4 wheels off. Monday I'll put a set of used tires on the wheels to pull the car up on my trailer. Hopefully next week I'll get it home.
If it's a 7 1/2 inch rear it's not going in the 57 but the rear brakes may go on the 8" housing and I'll just have to keep looking for an 8" pumpkin. There is a tag on the rear but since I only had it up on a jack today I decided not to crawl under it to check it out. If it perhaps may be an 8.8 it will be very close to the right width to fit under the 57 and I'll just buy wheels with the proper back spacing for the rear. I figured I'd grind off the current mounts and weld on leaf spring perches and use it if it turns out to be an 8.8.
The 5.0 in the Conti will be checked over and more than likely tweeked a little. Since it will (if it checks out OK) be going into the 57 there's no sweat about emmissions stuff here in NM and used Mustang hardware for the 5.0 seems to be avialable and dirt cheap. EFI sounds really cool but I'm way to old and completely in the dark when it comes to the computer controlled stuff.
I do know that the AOD will be put away in case I need it for something else in the future. I want a T5 in this 57 behind the 5.0 and it sounds easy enough to do especially since the pedals are in the car and the Mustang cable clutch doesn't sound complicated at all.
So,,, when the 57 is done it'll be a 12 second roadburner? Probably not but upgraded with discs it'll be fun to drive... At least that's the plan so far...
|11-04-2005 11:43 AM|
Oops me bad!
Youre right Kultulz, not sure what I was thinking about with the 9 1/4 inch rear. Guess the oldtimers disease is more advanced than I thought.
|11-04-2005 11:03 AM|
The reason that this gentleman is looking for a rear asm. is that someone pulled his 9" rear for obvious reasons. 9" IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO...PERIOD...END OF STORY...HAVE A NICE DAY.
OLD FART- Still Sexually Stimulated By The Sight of Tri-Power Carburetion...
|11-04-2005 09:44 AM|
Both the 9 and 9 1/4 inch rear ends were produced at the same time, being there were several years that production overlapped. I dont know what all the differences were between them, but know that they both used a lot of the same parts.
The 60's model year Fairlanes and Meteors, and Comets had about the same track width rear ends, so finding one of those, and the 8 inch having the advantage of being a lot lighter in weight, and nearly as strong as the 9 inch, were it me, I would opt for the 8 inch rear, if I was doing a replacement of the rear end.
A little known fact on 8 and 9 inch rear ends.
You can use the axles and axle tubes of an 8 inch with the pumpkin and housing of a 9 inch. The 28 spline 9 inch rear and the 8 inch have the same splines, diameter, and length of axle end where the splines are.
This can be particulary advantagious for doing a back yard narrowing of a 9 inch. Beware that 8 inch rears came with both 4 and 5 lug bolt patterns.
All being said, the best way to do it is to get out the measuring tape and find the rearend that will fit exactly.
|11-04-2005 05:53 AM|
I may be wrong, and will stand corrected if so. The 9'' r/e was introduced in 1957, not the 9 1/4. For years the 57 thru 59 , 9' was considered the swap for early mustangs, falcons, and comets,as it was the narrowest. stock r/e. please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
|11-03-2005 11:30 PM|
The 57 being pretty much hollow inside (but thick sheet metal -lol). The GT seems a lead sled for its size. That is the price of door crash beams, crush zones, collapsable steering columns, power windows, cruise control, air bags, 3 point belts, air conditioning, sound proofing, anti lock brakes, fuel injection, etc.... all that heavy safety..... schtufff.
Ah, the good old days.
People are now complaining the new Chrysler 300 and Charger weigh 4000..... mmmmmmm, I wonder why.... lol. And they are ugly too.
I think he said that the 57 does not have any rear end and his buddy has a Lincoln 9.
Why spend the money on chopping a 9 when a Granada 8 will do everything fine???????
If he ever puts a 460 in it, the 9 can be had then.
|11-03-2005 06:18 PM|
302/5.0 into a 57 Ford
What I was referring to in weighing about 3600 lbs, was the 57 Ford itself, rather than the Mustang GT. Its ironic that the GT, which is a very much smaller car would weigh as much as the Fairlane.
Most likely, the rear end you have in your 57, is a 9 1/4 inch, and from what I was told in the old days, the gears between a 9 1/4 and 9 inch were interchangeable. Dont knock that old 9 1/4, the were a pretty gutsy rear.
|11-02-2005 12:12 AM|
Duke you are correct. It is a Fox. I was thinking that it was a carryover 70s Granada chassis... He basicly has an engine, transmission, brake booster. Even the rear end cannot be put into the 57 for any reasonable effort.IMO.
If someone really wants an 8.8..... the 80 Granada/Monarch fancy model trimmed like the Versailles, used an 8.8 on leaf springs, drum brakes, 2.47 gear, 57 1/2 wide wheel to wheel. A straight bolt in for a 57-59 Ford and most any unibody Ford from the 60s. They are very very rare but I have had two.
I'd still do the 8 in Granada in his car. It is a straight bolt in and cheap and will take all the power the 5.0 will do.
Max is correct. The Fox Mustang GT is right around 3600 curb weight, depending on transmission.... and they go pretty well with the true HO. Of course that Conte 5.0 will only do 160 stock, but can be coaxed up a little without major expense.
And as we recommended, do upgrade those front brakes to disks. Look into the 72+ frame Torino spindles. The Granada rear drum brakes will be fine. The Granada/Monarch/Versailles that I mentioned had hydroboost and it worked great.
The 57-9 front suspension was a little wierd, but worked reasonable well, so I see no reason to chop it up or install something special for a cruiser car.
|11-01-2005 12:33 PM|
302/5.0 into a 57
Swapping a 302/5.0 into your 57 Fairlane should be a pretty straight forward endeaver, and will be a nice combination. This has been done several times before, but mostly with the 351W and Clevelands, which use the same motormounts as the SBF.
Check with some of the Ford specialty houses on the mounts etc, since that would be the best source for finding a swap kit. The 57 Ford weighed about 34-3600 lbs, so even a stock engine, while not being a barn burner, will make the 57 move out in fair style. Especially considering that the late model 302/5.0's put out as much horse power as at the rear wheels as that 292 put out at the flywheel, so you are looking at an honest 40-50 HP gain right off the bat. Not to mention that the SBF is a smaller and lighter package than was the Y block.
Your 57 should have either a 9 or 9 1/4 inch rear end in it, which both rearends used the same gears.
Since your 292 was hard pressed to get 15-17 mpg on the highway in its hey day, dont be surprised to see a good 3-5 mpg improvement, even with a carburated version of the SBF.
One thing I would highly recommend in your conversion, would be to definately upgrade your brakes, but to go with new springs and gas shocks all the way around.
|11-01-2005 06:41 AM|
The HYDRO-BOOST is a plus...
Am Looking For Factory/Aftermarket Speed Parts For The MEL (MERC-EDSEL-LINC-TBIRD) Engine Family (383-410-430-462) Produced From 1958 To 1968
Also Early FORD Special Service Tools
|10-31-2005 11:52 PM|
You are concerned with mileage. If you are building a cruiser, the 302 will be fine. Upgrade it to SFI. There is 3-4 mpg more with SFI than carb.
I have a 90 Town Car 5.0 AOD that I bought new. It was never any rocket ship but consistently got 24.5 with AC on the road with a 3.27 gear. It has 235,000 on it now.
Hey my new 4.6 TC ain't no rocket either..... and it gets 27 on a trip but needs 91 octane.
I think that that Continental rear end is either 2 or 3 inches wider than your 57 Ford which was/is 57 1/2 inches wheel to wheel. I'd still do the Granada 8" as a direct bolt in no hassle deal. It will stand 250 hp at the tires easy. The 8 and the light 9 have the same axles.
I am not sure if those Continental spindles and disk brakes bolt right on to the 57, but I will try to find out.
Wow, that Conte has hydro-boost power brakes.... those are excellent... use them too !!!!!!!!! With a Saginaw PS gearbox it is sweet.
The street rodders are just now latching on to that technology and they love it.
|10-31-2005 05:04 PM|
|woodz428||Not to start a debate in this thread but The Windsor is much easier to fit into tight compartments than a Cleveland....MUCH easier. The exhausts fit closer to the engine on a W because of the port angle, plus they are inward of the block edge where the C ports are AT the block edge. Look at any Mustang that has a W and then one with a C and you'll see that the Windsor has much more room. If you're in the area stop by and I'll show you one of each.|
|10-31-2005 08:39 AM|
The 57 Fairlane is a big heavy car and it will be some what of a dog with a 302 (my opinion). In its day, with a 312, 2 4barrels, police special, it was a dog. I would go for a big block and add EFI for increased economy and stick a manual OD tranny behind it. Now your motor will be loafing, hauling the 2 ton boat instead of bogging down a small block. But if you insist on the 302, look at a Kenne-Bell blower to help it out.
|10-31-2005 08:25 AM|
|KULTULZ||It's a CONTINENTAL RWD. It came through with CFI but I see someone has carbed it with a 4180C HOLLEY. Shame, nice body.|
|10-30-2005 11:32 PM|
|MM in NM||I think I've found a donor. What exactly it is I'm not sure but I think an 82 with 5.0, AOD and disc 8.8 rear.|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|