How many horses does it take to kill a stock 40 Ford Banjo?

Gents, first off let me say I appreciate all your inputs here. Please keep them coming!

Zibo, the fenderless pickup I'd like to build will hopefully be in the 1800-2000 lb range. My avatar is just a photo of some model car parts I used as a mock-up, but less the opera window cab it is kinda where I'm going... a 27 T extended / chopped cab in glass from Russ-no-more, an OEM 34 truck grille - sectioned as necessary) and probably a shortened early A pickup bed (although the wide body later 31 bed also has appeal, too). Time will tell.

Power ranges VW Turbo diesel or Ecotec / Ford I-4s to Pontiac 3800 V-6 with supercharger, anwyhere from 120 to nearly 300 hp at the flywheel.

A light weight diff also sounds good. I've heard some Jeeps used Danas with aluminum center sections, but have no idea if that is true. Considering the Jeep aftermarket, perhaps I can get one built as wide as I want with 3" tubes? QCs have been ruled out. Alfa sedan diffs also in the mix. 9" Fords also low on the list, mostly for weight, but I could be wrong.

Later, Gary

Gary

 

I don't know if you've read about those oldsmobile quad 4's,
think they came in late 80's early 90's olds and chevys.
They really look cool for a newer engine.
TP

 

Zibo, if I go with a small motor, it will be a new, hi-tech one. It will be run stock, no mods, as mpg is a key element for using one. All the older mills, the quad, the Chevy II, etc. aren't much without tinkering, and then the mpg goes down. For example, the 180 hp Ecotec in the new Pontiac / Skys are pretty nice. But that has been on other threads.... later, Gary

 

Dont know if you found your solution,but fyi a 99 -07 jeep grand cherokee used a aluminum dana 44 with some decent gears selections to be had, 3.73 and 3.55.If you find one with a v-8 and allwheel drive (quadradrive i do believe) the posi unit is hydrolicly enguaged non posi while turning and a geroter pump to enguage the clutches when they go.Hope this helps.

 

Also, I don't think you need to worry about breaking any half-way reasonable choice of rear with high power/low displacement engines. You are talking low low speed torque here, with all the steam fairly high in the RPM range where it is much less of a problem for the infrastructure. A 300 horse 350 would be much more stress on a rear than a 300 horse screamer. A banjo rear would be fine for sure unless in really bad shape, with the mileage benefit of the non-offset pinion--although the Lincoln mentioned is hypoid, so scratch that.

 

How much drag is in the offset pinion? I've never heard it spoken of in terms of mileage benefit.

Pete

 

There are losses due to extra sliding contact of the gears; don't have a number, my sole engineering text in the office here is a 1935 Ford one that is all based on normal spiral cut gears; for those, the call out 8% loss per pair of gears engaged. as rule of thumb. They were't using any hypoids and weren't interested...
Straight cut gears would have lower power loss than spiral, though that is likely irrelevant.

 

Stolen from Winter's site, folklorically racecars running QC's are less likely to need coolers than 9" cars, which require coolers for sustained high load use. Obviously that heat is coming out of your gastank...

"Winters Performance Products manufactures the best quick change rear ends ever made. Mostly used in circle track racing, quick change rear ends work very well in street applications. In most cases the Championship 10" Quick Change is more rear end than you'll ever need (800+hp). All Winters Quick Change Rears use spiral bevel ring & pinions, the most efficient ring & pinion available. Pinion placement of a spiral bevel ring & pinion uses less power, is more efficient, and runs cooler than hypoid ring & pinions. Hypoid style ring & pinions create more sliding action, increasing heat and power loss."

Here, we are talking about a QC still more or less based on the big banjo used on Ford trucks.

 

Another thing, speaking of gear losses...it might be better for economy to use a 1:1 high gear trans with a rear end ratio chosen for economy, using a trans with deep lower gears for acceleration, than to use a low rear with OD, keeping extra gears turning at cruise.

 

Glad to see this thread isn't dead. Keep'em coming! Gary

 

Alright, Gary so the answers you'r getting have me scared or confused on if I should proceed with my build setup. I'm currently setting up a '46 banjo to run behind a hopped up '57 - 371 olds motor with th350 in a Model T Sedan. I noticed lightness was mentioned to help the situation and thats what I was betting on, but is this true?

 

Oldsboy, I'm not sure I'm qualiified yet to answer your question, but it seems that if the car is light, and the tires are not too wide or sticky, tire smoke will save your rear.

Right now, I think I'm going to pass on the 40 Banjo and perhaps just take the front end. But that's another thread of questions. I like the Jeep Dana idea, but the search I did this afternoon on them led to all kinds of problems - on the OEM Jeeps anyway.

If I can keep my project under 2K lbs, then perhaps a small diff from a V-6 Camaro, S-10 or Ranger would be the ticket? They MUST be lighter than a 9", eh?

Gary

 

Go for the banjo man. Fit the hub and axle with valve grinding compound. Torque axle bolts to 250 -300 lbs. Have run them for years. You won't stop for gas and have someone get on their knees to check out a late differential.

 

ha.... i was gonna say something dirty but held back.. and had to say something. Sorry..

 

Save yourself a bunch of grief!!! Start with a tried & true 9 inch Ford, it has 1 inch axles for openers!! I started with all early gear (39 box, 41 banjo) in 1962, running a 260 Cobra motor, started twisting axles, then sloppy keyways, then shims & aluminum foil, then frustration ------until I replaced all with B/W 4 spd. & '57 Ford wagon 9 inch rear end, 1 inch axles, replace axle bearings every 5 years, runs great, now have 300,000 happy miles----Nooo problems------------Don

 

Banjo rear with hot rod works axles will handle plenty of power and looks the same as stock.

 

He's building a light car...weight of a 9" might approach 20% of car, really wrecking handling and ride. A 9" for a light car requires a zillion dollars of aftermarket aluminum.
We need a thread on rear end weights...I've never found any good sources on that. Unsprung weight should be down around 10%, a real problem with a flyweight car and typical hotrod parts.

 

Bruce, GREAT idea... it would be nice to know how much a 9" vs a QC versus a Miata or Toyota or Alfa weighs. Gary

 

Time out for a video erection? This is EXACTLY why I want to build a light, low, good handling hot rod CCPU (er, road racer closed cab 27 pickup in disguise). While 250hp would be really fun, I think 180-200 would be more practical and economical. Overall, 1800 lbs would probably be ideal, but 2000 lbs more reasonable with my propensity for gizmos and fun stuff. I suspect the car in this video only weighs 1400 or so, perhaps less. Besides, I could never learn to drive as fast as the guy in the Lotus 7 anyway. Enjoy, Gary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfy1VO4ePlA&feature=related

 

Seems like i'm hearing 2 completely different story-lines here.
From one source i hear: Circle track modifieds on 1/4 mi with injected 427 on 15"W slix, on pavement = ok life.
On the other hand i'm hearing: with only a flatmotor broke 'em regularly.
That seems like a pretty wide gap in opinion.
Some questions answered by those who've had failures might help resolve this a bit.
1) what ratio R&P was installed?
2) what backlash control procedures were followed?
3) Clutch technique?

 

Years ago we did some testing; i think it was ~ 10% xtra mileage w/ the V-8 spiral bevel replacing the 10-bolt saginaw. Ford's 9" is way worse, still.

 

Any story about circle track modifieds with 427" motors probably doesn't include the "Real" details about the rearend. Those cars probaly had full floating hubs (3/4 ton truck) at the very least even if they were running a V-8 center section (or q.c.). More likely, they were running the entire 3/4 ton rear end or the "Champ" style Q.C. which was derived from the same. I remember the sportsman class hardtops running at Limaland in the early '50s all had 3/4 ton rearends--to eliminate the grief associated with the skinnier tapered and keyed axles. And these were all Flathead powered cars at the time.

 

used to work w/ a guy that wrenched on the modified referred to on previous post; will query him directly, asap, regarding actual hardware run. will post info i recieve.
Anyone out there: please forward best information on any failures that you've experienced!
I really(really!) want a banjo type rear under my ride......

 

as a followup: how do the strengths of the various years relate to each other?

 

Does a Ford 8 inch fit into the discussion? My figures have it 40 lbs lighter than the big brother.

 

OH Sure, 1/4 mile at a time, eh????----------Be smart, start with later model running gear if you plan on street rodding, & not have to worry!!!
Been there, done that, etc.--------------Don

 

I blew lots of transmissions, and a driveshaft once right behind the universal. I never blew a rear BUT I ran small tires 600x16's and the like and never revved it and dropped the clutch. This was with both a nailhead and a 301 Chev. The rears were 40 years newer then however.

 

The Banjo rearend will not stand up well with a heavy car and abusive driving. I have proven this on a '48 Woody with a stock flathead, even with the poor tires that were available back in the 1960's.

 

NO HARD DATA HERE; What broke? What is "abusive"? What gear?

 

Good info here