i dug around a little and only found 1 site that said th stock rear is 57" wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface. explorer is 59.5" wms to wms if my memory serves correct. BUT the pinion is offset to the right 2". the tubes are also only plug welded in 2 spots. so you could either cut the driver side down 2" and use another passenger axle. or you can attempt to be in it a little less in the end and drill out the lugs on the long side on 1 explorer rear and the short side on another. either way you end up with 1 57.5" wide at the expense of 1 spare short(right side) axle. or if you use 2 you have a narrowed to 57.5" and a widened to 61.5"(crown vics and alot of trucks can use the 61.5") either way you can get to 57.5" with the explorer rear pretty easy and they are $100-200 all day long.
The 1964-1965 Falcon had a rear axle width of 58" so I would think the Comet would be the same. A 1977-1981 Granada would be your best bet being the same width. HRP
If you shorten one axle tube and use another short axle, it'll be about right. My 97 is 3.73:1, 31 splines with traction lock and disc brakes. Ditch the OEM tin cover and upgrade to a decent rear cover with support for bearing caps Wheel mounting to wheel mounting surface width: 59.5" Drivers side axle shaft length: 30.688" Passenger side axle shaft length: 27.813" Axle shaft length difference: 2.875" This means cutting 2.875" out of the drivers/long side axle tube, resulting in an overall axle width of about 56.5". Conventional pinion flanges and ratios are readily available.
You might save yourself some effort and money by looking at Ranger 8.8 axle assemblies. They are a bit narrower than Explorer. They have drum brakes, but have the same housing ends and can be refitted with Explorer disc if you so desire.
Actually, the '64 Falcon and Comet are identical, save for upgraded trim, 4" longer WB, and availability of C4 transmission on the Comet. Doors, full interior (including dash), all windows, entire front end will bolt on. The only things really different are the driveshaft (4" longer) and the quarters (4" longer sail panels). HD Econoline vans have the narrow 9 nine inch that may bolt in. If PM'd, I will measure/photograph mine. Cosmo P.S. '65 Comet is a Fairlane, in drag...
not if he wants to put any kinda power to it. ranger guys typically swap to explorer rears as they are a good bit stronger.
Rangers came with either 7.5 or 8.8 rear axles, depending on other factors...engine, 4x4, etc. I personally have examples of both. 8.8 is 8.8, whether Ranger or Explorer, varying only in details such as brakes and width.
i thought the ranger 8.8 were a lower spline count and considered weaker? maybe i was misinformed....
You may be correct on that point....I have not pulled the axles and compared spline count. Even if that is true, the 8.8 in passenger car applications seems to have quite a reputation for strength, regardless of spline count. Explorer rear ends are widely used because of their plentiful supply, width, disc brakes and low cost more than for the spline count. And, in the OP's case, it's a Comet......fairly light weight.
yeah i suggest the explorer rears to alot of folks. actually had an insurance guy in the shop several times a year or so ago that was wanting to find a rear disc kit for his f100 and i suggested an 8.8 from the cv as he put the cv front in. ended up not being able to talk him into it because he didn't want to redo his 4 link on the new rear. i tried to tell him i found a cv from a wreck with like 30k on it for $100 and the 4 link brackets were like $40. he instead paid nearly $400 to do disc on the 9".
The Jalopy Journal
