1948 Hudson. I see a big nut on the rear hubs. Tapered axles, I presume? I've heard Ford Ranger is a good fit for one of these and can be had with the right wheel bolt pattern - any thoughts? IIRC the perches have to be moved and angled a bit to match the Hudson springs.
I think I would run an 8, 9 inch Ford or 8 3/4 Chrysler before i would ever consider a Ranger rear end. Why do people even consider this Late Model **** for builds ? I just dont Get it ???
Yep,tapered axles. Leaf springs are splayed and also a panhard bar mount on the drivers side above the U bolts. Axle is also tapered where bearing rides and axle bearings somewhat hard to come by. That said,they are greasable and oz. of prevention worth a pound of cure. I think most all are 4.11 or 4.56 ratio. Sometime in 52 to the end in 54 they switched to a Dana 44 axle that has much better parts availability today. Still running the stock 4.56 axle in my 49 with no problems but if the opportunity comes along I'll swap it for the Dana with a better ratio for me. Consider too that the Hudson axle uses wheel bolts instead of axle studs for good reason. Not a lot of room to get the tire out of the fenderwell with a frame member running inside the outer wheel lip. No way could I get my oversize 235/75-15 off if there were studs on the axle. BUT,I'm running 15 x 6 rims opposed to the factory 5 or 5 1/2" rims.
Ditto on what Ramblur said. The earlier Hudson rear was a Warner Gear [Borg-Warner] product, and was prone to breaking axles when the high-torque 308 Hornet engine came along. Mid-'52, they switched to the Dana 44. The factory hub puller tool was a beast.
My '46 has the tapered axles, and yes, the axles are a ***** to remove without a proper axle puller. The Ranger has the proper bolt pattern, but I forget what the measurements are of both the Hudson and Ranger rears, without referring to my notes. The axle bearings for this particular axle are tapered and pathetically expensive...as in almost $700.00 per side. No, I did not add an extra zero! If your axles are in good shape, I'd keep them. If a bearing is bad, you'd be money ahead to either find another Hudson rear ***embly, or go with the Ranger rear. The Ranger is geared similarly (3.70 is one you'll see), and parts are cheap.
Ranger 94-up 8.8's are 58 5/8" from wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface. I just stuck one under my Rambler wagon. They come in a variety of ratios as well.
The reason for running a Ranger rearend is they're cheap and are said to fit without narrowing them. Step-down Hudsons are pretty narrow in the back. I can get one in the local you-pull yard for under $100 drum to drum, and if I get lucky I might find one with relatively new brakes and so on while I'm at it. It's a 4-door sedan, not a race car, it just needs to be reliable and go down the road. This car was run with the stock rear like 15 years ago, but I'd want to check out the wheel cylinders and all and I see the right side has a stain like the axle seal is starting to leak. The brakes are regular Bendix type but I can see the wheel cylinders being a rebuild only proposition. Heck I've towed it a couple hundred miles and one of the nuts is missing entirely. I don't think the drums are coming off easily.
i plan on doing a rear swap too,but watch for offset pumkin on some of the 8.8's i was also told ''Lincoln versailles 9" is almost perfect fit with disk brakes. Ford Granada also works well, but not as beefy.'' here more reading::: http://www.carnut.com/specs/rear.html
Trouble with those is the disc rear can be pricey, and up here Granadas rotted like nobody's business. The last one I remember seeing in one piece a buddy had in high school like 20 years ago and it was unusual then. A Fox body car, T-bird, Mustang, would be easier to come by but even those aren't that easy unless you're talking 94-up (and a lot are 4-lug).
The Jalopy Journal
