I have a 31 model a sedan. that i plan on running with no fenders and z'ed 12'' in the rear. the body measures 53'' from side to side. Everything i have read say that nova and eary chevy sadens and the same for ford rear axles. but all of these cars measure around 54'' from backing plate to backing plate. Is 1/2in off backing plate to the body a enough for wheel and brake clearance. If anyone could help, thanks phill
Here's my 2 cents worth. I've got a Nova rear end and it looks a bit too snug for me, so I'm going with one from an 89 Suburban which I had set aside for another project. I can't remember the measurements but I think its about 5 inches wider from inside the tire to the opposite side.
I use a 9" from any 73 up to 85?? Fullsized ford truck (some of the 80's are 8.8) The bonus is they are 5 on 5 1/2" bolt pattern. If you want 5 on 4 1/2" bolt pattern a LINCOLN Mark 7 has a 8.8 with disc brakes.
i'll tell you what i'm going to use on my '29 sedan: ford 8" rear end from a '67 mustang. the second gen mustangs used a 59.25" wide rear end when measured from outside of hub to outside of hub which is really the more appropriate way to reference rear end widths. anyways, a 1" adapter that takes the 5x4.5 bolt pattern to 5x5.5 on each side will put me at about 61" from hub to hub. this will put my early ford wheels with 7.50x16 tires right outside the body.
8" Ford Maverick or 57-59 Ford car is just right for the offset of most wheels. I put 15x10 slots on my old T and thought I needed a little wider rear end so used a Granada. When I mocked everything up it was too wide. Ended up with the Maverick, used a '57 9" under my Model A coupe with the 428.
The distance between the backing plates is not the only magic number to be considered. When measuring an axle for a channeled car, the distance between the backing plates along with your wheel backspacing and tire width are the variables in determining the overall correct width.
The Jalopy Journal
