hi Guys - I have asked this before and received numerous different answers but here goes again.... 9 inch Ford Rear end to go under a 32 chassis - (chassis not fabricated yet so I can't measure) what is the correct rear end width and is it correct that this is measured from the inside of the backing plate to the inside of the backing plate (drum brakes) cheers thanks for any help
You need to know what wheels, tires and everything else bolting to it before choosing a rearend width. I always put the tires/wheels in the wheelwell exactly where I want them to end up and measure the hub to hub distance. SPark
57-58" is a common choice measured from mounting surface to mounting surface. This means an early Bronco for 5.5 and 58 pass for 4.5. I run an 8" Maverick with one inch wheel adapters to get 5.5 pattern. Width is 58"
On my '32 chassis, with stock measurements, I found a '74-'77 V-8 Maverick/Comet 8" dropout complete. I chose an 8" over a 9" because I have less than 300 H.P., it's lighter, and very good fit. I used 10" steelies with the max backspace and 31x12.50x15 Hoosier street radials. My clearance between tire and body is 1". It looks as though Henry Ford designed it that way. Nice and tucked in. Don't remember exact dimensions, but is within 3/4" of the all-time favorite '57-59 Ford 9". Ranchero and Wagons have bigger bearings if desired.
exactly....., and nobody asked about full fender or cycle fender or none. How on earth can anyone suggest a width to use without wheel width and offset, tire profiles, fenders etc. I have a 60" early Olds rear under a full fender 32.....but I needed 56 Olds wheels that had the most backspace of GM wheels. There is no way to run any type of common old mag on mine.
yeah ok fair comment..... Model A roadster pickup Hiboy on 32 rails running 15 x 5 steel rims, will juggle the rim back spacing to suit the Rear end - having said that though I would still like to be able to change the wheels in the future if I feel like it..............
That's really the best way & The only way to get it exactly how you want it. There's ways to get close, but you wind up hunting and compromising and when it's finished there's always some wishing. Wheels and tires ain't cheap, so buying them before you start is hard to do and hard to wrap your head around but it really is the best way.
I like the 66 to 77 Bronco rear axles,they measure 58" and have a 5 on 5 1/2" bolt pattern. I use 6" rims. HRP
On all the 32 chassis I build I use a 56 outside to outside width unless the customer wants something else. Done 100's this width.
The 57 ford because of the center smooooth roooound center, then the 57 ranchero because of the piñon bearing
hey, let's not start that GD "traditional crap" again.... ... just kidding BTW, what is different about the ranchero pinion bearing, compared to wagon? Or are they both bigger bearings than sedan?
Guy, My son and I are building a 1932 Ford 5 window Fiberglass coupe. I purchased a frame in Ohio that came with a 70-80's Ford pickup rear end. The driveshaft in the rear end is not centered but slightly off to one side. We have a Chev 350 and 700r4 transmission. Will the rear end work or should I look for something else. ' I purchased a disk brake kit and turned the axel hubs down and set it up for 5 on 4 1/2 spacing. Would like to use this rear after all the work I've put into it. A friend said with the angle the drive shaft will be at I can't use it. Thank you
So I would put trust in both your inputs on this topic. It sounds like a 56"-58" axle width (give or rake a bit) is the range that will work? I'd be curious what axle width is best for fitment under stock fenders on a '32 sedan. I've determined that a plentiful source of Ford 7.5" and 8.8" axles with drums and discs depending on the year (all 7.5" and 8.8" ranger of 2010-2011 have disc brakes and both came with open and traction-lok diffs) is the Ford Ranger. The axles are 58-1/4"-58-1/2" wheel mount to wheel mount. Ford built tons of 1993-2011 Ranger's and they all have this axle width. The 7.5" is less desirable. But it's fine for an engine without much more than 300 ft-lbs and skinny tires that don't hook up so great. The 8.8" is, well, an 8.8" and that makes it good for most anything a street going hot rod would have powering it.
So I had some time today to poke around in my barn and I was able to take a measurement of my 99% stock early style '32 rear axle that has '46-'48 juice brakes. I pulled the wheels and used a 3 foot level to drop a perpendicular mark to the floor that I was then able to measure. End result? It is 58-7/16" wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface. So if anyone ever comes searching for the stock 1932 rear axle width it is 58-7/16".
Have a read of this thread, you want Explorer not Ranger. https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/8-8-rear-end-for-a-hotrod-info.1203372/
The 58 7/16 stock rear end width is with some 3 inch wide 32 wires and some size of narrow 18 inch tires. That changes when we add 7-8 inch wide wheels and 235/75/15 or worse 255/70/15 tires. That's why I built all those customer 28-34 chassis with a 56 inch rear unless the customer requested a different width.
i have a 1967 mustang rear with 15 x7 wheel with 3.75 backspace 235 75 15 tire fits in the fender nice
Got busy. Forgot about this thread. Yeah the, Explorer 8.8 is highly regarded. Narrowing to use two short side axles is a great rear end. But even these Explorer axles are starting to get harder to find. Ford built tens of thousands of Rangers and Mazda sold them too under their brand. They can also be narrowed 2-7/8". Making for a 55-5/8" axle. So it's just another viable option. As a bonus some Ranger's with 8.8's came with the same 31 spline, 1.31" axle size as the Explorer and they had Torsen diffs. One of, if not the, best lockers you can get. 9" drums, 10" drums, big vented disc brakes. All options depending on the source and year. The 7.5" gets a bum wrap because they can only handle lower power numbers. But some cars don't need a big badass 8.8". Just like some cars don't need a 9" when an 8" does the job just fine. If a car needs/wants an 8.8"the Explorer is a great option. The Ranger 8.8" is also an option if it's more available.
The Jalopy Journal
