Guys,
I need to know something by tomorrow morning. I thought I'd ask on a new thread instead of keeping the Equa-Loc thread going.
As you guys know the biggest tires I can get in and out of my rear fenderwell on the highway is 215's. While everything is dismantled on my car I've decided to fix that. I've got to buy axles anyway so I'll just fix that problem also. My question is:
WHAT'S THE SHORTEST AXLE HOUSING LENGTH I CAN PUT UNDER MY CAR AND NOT WORRY ABOUT GETTING A TIRE INTO THE SPRINGS USING A STOCK 14" WHEEL . (THE AXLE HOUSING LENGTH I HAVE NOW IS 53"- EXACTLY). On their website Moser claims they can have the whole thing done in two days. Jim
Jim, just how low does your car sit that tire changing is an issue? Or are the tires so wide there's no wiggle room? With my 3 inch channel I figure that tire changes will always require two jackstands a floor jack and undoing the rear shackles. Figuring on running some run flat tires.
Zap- :unitedstates:
Zap,
My axle housing is 53". And, I run 205 tires so I can get them out of the wheel well. The rims I use are no problem but the tire's cross area is. The tire gets caught between the fender lip and the drum. The tires I have now are 8.375" at the widest point. The wheel lip is wide on my car. The body guy didn't trim them any when they came from EMS. The car has plenty of room under the fender for big tires if you want to drop the shackles. I won't put up with that. If I have a flat it has to be able to be changed along side of the highway. I have to calculate how big a tire I can put on without hitting the leaf springs. Jim
Forget it. I've measured all day long and the tires I have now are 1.200" away from the leaf spring now. To get a new axle that's only cut down 1/2" on each side is absurd. Let this thread DIE. Jim
Jim you can get a wider tire in there by going to a lager diameter wheel and a lower profile tire and still keep the same overall diameter. The lower profile lets you swing the wheel under the axle and then ease the tire past the wheel well.
Jim...As far as housing length, what would be your advise for someone who has yet to have their's built? I am of course talking about an unaltered car as far as spring perch location and wheel wells. Also I'm confused, I thought you had said your axel housing was 52". I figured when I had mine done, I'd have them shorten it 1/2" as you mentioned wouldn't be worthwhile for one already built and in the car. Rich
Rich, my last `57 had a 50 inch housing, 1.5 on each side shorter. I used 15X10 with 5 inch bs and 295 50 15 tires..looked cool. I was also able to run identical wheels with 28 X 10.5 slicks for drag use, easy to swap wheels and tires on it. The big drums are really the aggravating factor on these cars, causing the car to have to be raised to get the tires out of the narrow fender opening. I found that I could have fit almost the same size tire in the car without cutting if I had just moved the springs inboard alone. I moved the springs to the inside of the frame, but also minitubbed it (lots of work for little gain). Best bet is to either really tub it, or run a normal size tire. On my current Custom, I can fit a 255 70 15 on it without cutting, and I can still get it out. I built a set of 15 X 8 steel wheels with 5 inches of backspacing to accomplish this. They work great.
Rich,
You're exactly right. I found that the expense of 1/2" didn't mean that much to me especially knowing that you couldn't put that much wider tire on the car to begin with. As far as the housing length being 52" that was just mis-information by me trying to measure around the hump on the differential case. When you can put a tape measure straight thru the housing you can get the correct distance. In all the publications on housings they claim the Ranchero and Station Wagon housings are 52.250". I don't know that for sure. But after the last week of measuring I can give you Precise information on my housing and axles.
Housing = 53.000" (no backing plates involved), Spring perches = 42.625" center to center, Housing tubes = 3.000" OD, Axle mount pads = 2.375" wide X @ 5.000" long ( hard to get to ) with .500" from bottom of pad to axle tube and the leaf springs are 2.000" wide.
Theoretically the Flange to Flange distance will be 57.340", I say that because it would be the same mis-information by trying to measure around the axle hump, it would take 3 guys, two holding straight edges against the flanges and one measuring the distance between the straight edges away from the hump to get a precise measurement.
Axles = Axle length (flange to end of axle) LH = 26", RH = 30.375", Brake offset = 2.170", Pilot Hub Diameter = 2.435", Brake shoe width = 1.750", Bolt circle on Flange = 4.500" X 5, with 1.187" hole to tighten the retaining nuts, Flange Diameter = 6.000", Bearing surface diameter = 1.378" (RW207CCRA bearing) and the wheel studs are .625" knurled press fit. These axles had one small drilled hole in the center of the Pilot hub and two larger drilled holes to the side of the small one. In the articals I've read they say that these axles should be 31 spline axles, Wrong, mine were 28 spline axles.
I hope this helps you. My advise is don't take a 54 year old axle and expect a 390ci engine not to break it. I didn't expect to get this involved with having to know this much about my rear end but I had no other choice. Another piece of advise is let someone that makes axles make yours, a one size fits all axle doesn't cut it. As far as I know this is a stock rear housing and axles using a equa-Loc differintial from an early 60's galaxie. At least thats what the guy that put it together in the 70's told me. Jim
To achieve the look that I wanted I cut mine 3/4" per side. Price depends on how bad you want
it to look right in your eyes. It depends on wheel backspacing to keep them off the springs.
Have fun :003:
Quote from: JPotter57 on 2011-07-05 09:19
I moved the springs to the inside of the frame,
Once you did that, what did you do about a gas tank? Fuel cell in the trunk? Different tank?
Zap- :unitedstates:
Thanks for the info. My lack of mechanical know-how will warrant me ordering a complete build of my rear end to the specs that I want. I'll unbolt it..bring it to whomever when I'm ready, and pick it up ready to be bolted back in. If I were a younger guy, I'd want the experience of doing it myself..but at my age I don't want to have to be learning the expensive way..trail and error....I meant trial and error...but lol I'd probably be leaving a trail of parts on the pavement, so maybe that misspelling was appropriate.
Would converting the rears to disc afford more room for tire removal?
Rich
Rich, would be speculating and say yes. As the larger part of a rotor sits farther back from the hub face it should allow a bit more room up on top to squeeze a tire on. And that may on some cases just enough to get by.
Zap- :unitedstates:
Seems to me there would be more room with discs also. Do some good measuring. They cut
it to your specs. Curry Ent. did mine for me. I had to take it back to them once, as they failed
to cut it. All the work of re installing it and it wasn't narrowed. Typical computer screw up.
Quote from: shopratwoody on 2011-07-05 13:52
To achieve the look that I wanted I cut mine 3/4" per side. Price depends on how bad you want
it to look right in your eyes. It depends on wheel backspacing to keep them off the springs.
Have fun :003:
I have to agree with you. I had mine cut down 3/4" per side and it makes a big difference. I was able to fit bigger tires and I can use stock offset wheels. That will save you $100 easily per wheel and pays for itself right away.
Discussions like this sure help a guy in the planning stages...after reading this I now know when I do mine, it will be shortened a 1/2 per side, it will have trac-loc, and it will have disc brakes. I also know with all of the potential variables as Jim mentioned it is something I won't consider attempting myself other than installation of the completed unit.
Jim...when you measure straight thru to housing as you mentioned, are you still measuring to the inside of the flanges where the 52 1/4 that most sources give is measured to.
Zapato, yes, I used a 16 gallon cell, recessed into the floor, so it still had use as a trunk. It wasnt totally flat, but it didnt take up the entire trunk either.
Jim..now you're probably asking yourself why I would ask a stupid question like "are you measuring to the inside of the flange"...I just went back and looked at the great website Zap posted and realized that I had for years been misreading all the articles on housing length. I was thinking in terms of the housing, not the housing with axles, so when they all gave measurements for "inside flange" length, I had wrongly assumed they were talking about the inside surface of the housing flange. Even though it made no sense to me that everone I thought was measuring to an unmachined surface, other than assembled in a car it would be an easier surface to measure to, I wasn't thinking in terms of the "inside flange" being the one on the housing as opposed to the "outside flange" being created when the axle flange is added to the equation. I think I have it straight now..
Makes me want to change my name on this website to "Anonymous"
Rich,
53.000" is the measurement that is just of the housing. No backing plates. Face to face of the axle housing.
I've read all the material you're talking about. Anything on the web I could get my hands on, I read. A lot of that information didn't fit what I had. The only conclusion I could come to was that either they needed figures to throw in the spaces and generalized information or I had an oddball rear end. That's like everywhere you read that the narrowest rear end they made in a 9 inch rear end came in a 57-59 Ford Ranchero or Station Wagon. Duh! What about the cars. They made umpteen more cars than they did Rancheros or Station Wagons. And each chart looks like they copied the information from the same source.
As far as cutting down the housing 1/2-3/4" to enable more tire to fit I decided against it. If I didn't already have twelve tires and wheels to fit what I've got it would be a no brainer. I've got a set of powder coated factory wheels, painted factory wheels and a set of Cragar wheels already. I'm tired of calculating, I want to drive the car again.
I do want to say this: Between the " I destroyed my Equi-Loc thread and this New Axle Housing thread". James ought to edit the replies and re-label it as required reading for anyone concidering building a 57 Ford. There's a lot of good information that each one of us have put into those two threads that could help others. Jim
You're probably right about all articles using the same base source of info....I think that's why I was misreading for so many times...they all use the term "inner flange overall dimensions" when refering to housing length. That's erroneous..a housing does not have inner and outer flanges..only a rear member assembly. It's kinda like the Ford misleading use of sohc and dohc.
Jim, I noticed James had said he had a '57 with a housing that was narrowed 1 1/2 per side to 50"..that would make it the same as yours @ 53" before modification...so maybe not so oddball.
Anonymous
Rich,
That's correct. You see, James has been there. Most of the guys that answered these two threads have either been there or was trying to learn from it. When James talked about the 1 1/2" cuts, I related to that. When John told Moser his left axle was 26" instead of 26.250" I knew he had been there. I don't think a lot of the articals I've read have been there.
I was fortunate enough to track down everyone that had owned my car since 1971. I talked to them. The guy that changed it from an automatic to a three speed overdive was the one that changed the pig in it. The axles were the tapered 28 spline that they quit using a long time ago. There isn't even a metal indentification tag listed on the web like the one I have. It reads " L-3.70".
When the information age started, it was started by younger people that think that the 60's and 70's was the actual start of information. Anything older than that doesn't require anything other than guess work. And, think about the guys, especially younger guys that buy thier cars already done. They can't tell you if the oil galleries were drilled out in their engines or what deck clearance is for the pistons they used. Next time you go to a car show ask the guy what his brake offset is on the axles he's using. DON'T GET ME WRONG, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. It's just finding that correct information on the web is getting hard to find. If it weren't for websites like this you'd never know. I'm learning every day, I'm just thankful I can be a part of the information getting out there. Jim
Well,here's another question that'll tell you I haven't been into my rear member...Does a single wheel drive rear member have 2 axels, or is the follow wheel just a hub? I assumed they had two, but I realized I was doing just that...assuming...and if they do have 2, why?
Anonymous Again, lol
post #934,,,man I need a life..I'm even catching up to James and in less than 2 years
Rich,
You probably wish no one knew you just wrote that last post. Like my teachers all the way through school told me " there's no such thing as a stupid question, there's only stupid people that would make fun of you for asking that question".
John made a comment to me that suggested just because one of my axles broke I should have been able to drive home on the other axle. Well, I researched that one for half the morning. What I found out was a limited slip differential with one wheel in the air acts just like a standard rear end. They claim you can trick them though by applying your brakes. How that would work in my case is beyond me because one axle was broken and the resistance of the left wheel brake would have never been felt on the differential anyway.
Back to your question: Google " how a differential works". I bet you'll find a video like I did that will save a lot of typing. Jim
Actually my housing wasnt a `57 housing, it was a custom Moser housing, late model triangulated style, with 3.5 inch tubes, much stronger than `57 rear. I had it custom built with axles to the width I wanted. I found the spec sheet on it the other day, and it was actually 49.5 flange to flange with 2.5 inch brake offset, for disk brakes. I ended up using truck backing plates (1962 F100) and the stock 57 drums with the center register machined for the larger register on the axles. I never did get around to putting on the disks. It fit a big wheel and tire though, lol...and yes, it was a pain to navigate the tire and wheel around that big drum, would have been far easier if I had put disks on it.
If you take 3/4 inch out of each side of the original '57 rear end it allows you to use the more common 8" width rim with 4.5" back-spacing wheels. That centers the tire/wheel in the rear fenderwell. 8" wide with a 4.5" backspace is the common in-stock size for many wheel companys. To center an 8" wheel with the stock width rear end requires a 5.25" backspace.
I have used up to a 275 width tire under a stock fenderwell with the outer quarter lip folded flat in the close areas. A little clearancing in the inner fenderwell with a hammer and dolly where the tires might touch(shiney metal after a few miles) you can make room.
A rear sway bar really helps prevent rubbing too. The Thunderbirds of the Southwest bar or 57 cheby aftermarket bar works as long as the exhuast system is run up high.
The original '57 housing is right at 58 1/4 wide where the wheels bolt on. Cutting 3/4 off an original axle only leaves 1/2" of spline, but makes a great pattern for some decent axles, which they need anyway.
Guys,
I'm having a hard time posting this. Here's my 57 and the clearances I have in the wheel well. the top one is my set of cragars and Harmony tires and the bottom one is of a 8" wheel with 4.5" backspace and I threw a set of 9" slicks on it for drag racing. You be the judge. Jim
Edit: After downloading God knows how many pieces of graph paper to calculate backspacing and wheel clearance by changing rims, cuting axles and figuring section width on various tires, I come back to what James told me a couple years ago. " How many flats have you had in recent years". I've finally decided he's right. Today I'm going to go out to the hanger and loosen the shocks to see how far that will drop the axle. Then if I still don't have enough room I'll drop the spring shackles. I've had my car all over the country and I haven't had a flat on that car since I bought it in 2004. I can run any wheel and tire I want and have plenty of clearance by just having room to get the section width of a tire over the big drums we have. Jim
suede57ford,
I owe you a public apology. I've been thinking about this ever since I found out I could use different shocks and put a tire on my car without the hassle of section width. I measured my wheel opening again and found I could use an 8" rim with a 9" slick if I wanted. The backspacing would be 4.5" just as you said. Also each of these cars can have a different brake offset on the axles so that comes into play also. I honestly didn't think the wheel and tire you described could fit the wheel opening of a 57. Please accept my apology for contraditing you. Jim