Just joined? Please introduce yourself.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Rear end Dimensions

  1. #11
    Registered Member Maddog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Member #:777
    Posts
    1,324
    No one slammed you or your list. Mark pointed some errors out and I said it has bad info, which it does. You're taking it personally because you posted it, I guess. You'd know it if I were slinging shit.

  2. #12
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Member #:571
    Posts
    4,671
    Maddog, that's not the way I read what you posted.

  3. #13
    Registered Member Maddog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Member #:777
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick_L View Post
    Maddog, that's not the way I read what you posted.

    here';s what I posted:"

    "Bad info"

    I guess you guys can read anything into what ever you like. I don't like typing a bunch of BS on threads. I'll expand further. The list is probably 90% good, but has some glaring errors for a Chevy person, at least one that has some knowledge of Camaros, Chevelles Novas.. I would have no idea if the Ford stuff is good or not, and don't really care. I don't really care what a rear end width is as I would normally have the original in most any given car. If I was to change it would be built to fit what ever I was trying to do so I wouldn't rely on finding something stock. This whole thing is a dumb waste of time. Anyone that wants to improve that list go ahead, it won't be me.

  4. #14
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Member #:571
    Posts
    4,671
    Here's some minor corrections that I see:

    Granada/Versailles is 58.50" with discs (and all the Versailles had them), Monarch should be included
    Granada/Monarch is 58.25" with drums (those two could have either drums or discs)

    I think the 58.00" early Bronco number is slightly off, s/b 57 something.

    63.50" for 67 Fairlane is in error, more like 60". The 61.25" on another line may be the right number.

    The 55-57 Chevy width is 60.25".

    67-69 Camaro and 68-74 Nova are the same, not sure if they are 60" or 60.25".

    For both of the above the discrepancy is probably as simple as whether you measure across the brake drums or the axle flanges. That may be the difference between what's listed for other cars vs. other lists too.

    Thing is, as time goes on, finding these axles at a junkyard price is increasingly difficult. Not only that, your choices and prices on aftermarket 9" Ford or 12 bolt Chevy axle assemblies and parts have never been better. So this kind of list while useful, is not what it once was.

  5. #15
    Administrator 567chevys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Member #:3
    Location
    Woodland Washington
    Posts
    2,413
    Thank you Rick

    I will try to correct them ,
    I will try to some more research and make sure they are closer than they are now.

    Thanks Sid

    1955 2 DR Post
    1937 Chevy Coupe
    2023 Ford Super Duty F350 TREMOR
    2019 Corvette Z06
    1955 Chevy Nomad
    1935 Ford 2dr Slant back I have 4

  6. #16
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Member #:625
    Posts
    3,409
    66-69 Fairlane, Torino, cyclone, 66-70 falcon, 67-70 mustang, cougar are 60.

    67-69 Camaro and 68-74 Nova are the same, not sure if they are 60" or 60.25". Add to that 64-67 Chevelle.

    Coming in at 61 inches, 70-81 Camaro, 68-72 Chevelle, 70-72 Monte

  7. #17
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Member #:625
    Posts
    3,409
    As bad as the Ford / Chevy info is I am positive Mopar junk is just as bad, but I never took the time to learn it. The only reason I know Ford is from running that junk until I built up a supply of 12 Bolt/ Dana 60 stuff. Now I am gathering some 9.3 Olds stuff.

  8. #18
    Registered Member NickP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Member #:1653
    Location
    De Queen, AR
    Posts
    4,157
    Quote Originally Posted by 567chevys View Post
    Thank you Rick I will try to correct them , I will try to some more research and make sure they are closer than they are now.Thanks Sid
    Things to consider. When a list, regardless of the supplier or author is presented, many aspects can, as pointed out by Rick_L need to be understood. Measurements, where and how measured can impact the accuracy of the final width. Were one to want to regenerate the list it might be a good thing to clarify what a width is, i.e. bare housing, bare housing with backing plates, housing with backing plates and axles and housing with backing plates, axles and either drums or if stock with disc hat/rotor.Case in point: 1966 to 1977 Ford Bronco. I can, with some degree of knowledge tell you that the housing, bare, is in fact 53.3125" bearing flange to bearing flange. If you add the brake backing plates then you add 1/8" per side yielding a total width 53-9/16". Ford, depending upon year of manufacture and application has 4 different axle flange offsets. Here is where the differences really come to play. They are as follows - 2.00", 2.2500", 2.375" and 2.500 Each its own animal with its own specific attachments for backing plates and or disc brake units. If you're purchasing ANY rear regardless of manufacture, make certain it has ALL of the parts or one might endure unnecessary pain and anguish when trying to assemble a complete unit.So, back to the Bronco: We have a total width of 53.5625 so far. Listed, is 58. Working backwards, 58"-53.5625 = 4.4375 4-7/16/2 = 2.218 This doesn't equate to any of the axle offsets known. Enter here measurement methods and accuracy of the equipment.

  9. #19
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Member #:571
    Posts
    4,671
    I do believe that all of the dimensions in the chart are either "over the drums" or "over the axle flanges" (only a slight difference). This is the way most of these charts are done.

    My thought is that this is the right way to present info on junkyard axle assemblies because people want to know whether they can use them as is for width. It's also what you can measure directly when looking at a complete axle assembly.

    Not that bare housing widths aren't to be discussed, as Nick says there are other factors too.

  10. #20
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Member #:625
    Posts
    3,409
    I confirm my suspicions about things being the same in this manner. I ran a tape on a 68 Mustang axle assembly found it to be 60 inches overall, then looked in my Hollander interchange manuals to see what axle shafts fit that housing. If the axle shafts interchange overall width has to be identical.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •