Posted all over are axle widths saying that 57-59 Ford wagon and Ranchero are the narrowest axles at 57.25 inches. I have always ignored that thinking all the car 57-59 axles are the same width. But, since I have never had either a wagon or Ranchero, I can't compare mine with said cars.
Are they actually any different at all in total width at wheel mount surface?
Another pet peeve of mine on axle listings is with respect to 68-69Torino and Fairlane axle widths. I have had a 68 Fairlane and have a 68 Torino and they are basically the same car with a different name. Axles are identical width. Look at the chart and it could be either of 2 lengths for a 68 Torino. Which is nonsense to me. Am I missing something?
Can anyone tell me why these contradictory width listings are so pervasive? I have three bookmarked sites on axle widthsand all of them have this conflicting info on 68 Torino vs Fairlane.
I expect the wagons and Rancheros are only listed because they are "big" bearing? Retractable should be on that list as well. All 57 - 59 axles were the same width.
Weren't Torino and Fairlane different lines then? Torino was a unibody and the Fairlane was frame on?
Torino/Fairlane/ from 1968 to 1971 were unibody 1972 and later Torinos were full framed. I never understood the Ford marketing either in 1970. You could buy a Torino, Fairlane and Falcon which were all the same body style.
QuoteI never understood the Ford marketing either in 1970. You could buy a Torino, Fairlane and Falcon which were all the same body style.
The 70-71 body was the same basically. TORINO and FAIRLANE designations were different trim levels, TORINO being a high trim level. The 1970 1/2 FALCON was the continuation of the FALCON name and used as a low trim level FAIRLANE. The 70 1/2 FALCON came through as either a 2DR/4DR Sedan or 4DR SW.
I think all 57 axles are the same. A few years back I needed a left side axle for my 57 bird. took one from one of my 57 RHT's put a new bearing on it and it fit perfectly. I remember I was very suprised, checked it out in the interchange manual and all was good.
Thanks for the replies. Confirmed all my presumptions, although I was not aware the bearing size differed on 57-59 wagon, Ranchero and retractable.
I have multiple retractable and regular 57-59 axles and thought the only difference in them was the brakes. Still think the other 57-59 Ford axles should be on those lists too, being they are much more abundant than the enumerated models.
Never had a Falcon, but both my 68 Torino convertibles (Fairlane and Torino) were basically the same cars with slightly different options and nameplates, fancier trim on the Torino.
All unibody panels and glass are the same, bumpers, etc.
Both had 8 inch rear axles.
Both had 4 wheel drum brakes.
Both had black vinyl interiors with padded dash. But Torino has factory buckets instead of Fairlane bench and there are some additional chrome emblems on Torino doors and dash.
Both came with clocks in the instrument panel that I swapped out for factory optional tachs.
Fairlane had a last year of production 289 (ex-wife blew it up and I installed a 1972 Torino 351C).
Torino came factory with a 302, but PO owner had installed a 1972 Cougar 351c and its C6.
I replaced the C6 with a toploader and added a factory console. Have a rebuilt factory disk brake setup to install yet. Need to change rear gear or whole axle too, cuz 2.79 factory gear is too darn steep. That's why I have been looking at these lists figuring I must have something that will fit.
But, I don't.. So, need to either buy a lower 8 inch gear or to shorten one of the 61, 63 or 76 nine inch rears I already have. I do have new 69 Torino CJ leafs to install too though, so maybe I should just go to a shortened nine inch with a 3.30 gear that came from a 57 Custom 300.
Have a later rebuilt 3.89 center section for nine inch too, but that is probably too low w/o OD... Have read that axles and brakes from the 8 inch will bolt to the 9 inch (assuming both are 28 spline axles), so perhaps the 63 Galaxie axle is the best prospect to shorten as it should have small bearing ends? Car is just a Sunday sunshine cruiser, so idt it needs 31 spline axles or big bearings really.
I parted a 76 Torino and still have that 9" axle. Think it is the widest one here, wider than a 63 Galaxie axle sitting with it.. Only longer ones here are several old 3/4 ton Chev and Dodge trucks, and maybe my 97 Suburban. That Torino was a full frame car as mentioned in replies.
Also kept the 76 Torino spindles and disk brakes for 61 Galaxie Sunliner project sitting in new pole building now. I was able to get it and the 68 Torino, 64 XL convertibles and a 60 Impala hardtop out of collapsed old pole building before that end of the roof came down.
Whole 90 foot long roof came down over several days like a row of dominos from 3-4 feet of snow on it February 2019. Quite a number of other project cars were damaged, some severely, some minor damage only. Worst damage was a 57 two door hardtop I hauled back from Missouri. Roof beam right in the middle of top. Big V shape in the roof now. Broke rear glass and windshield. Even bent the trunk lid I had just recently put on it.
Well, better get back to the messy job of cleaning up my 57 convertible underside. Despite being a MN car, the ttrunk floor was mostly intact. Just replaced the spare tire well, gas tank front crossmember and below trunk body panel (CA cop car to the rescue on all those parts), plus a little sheet metal trunk floor welding in repairs around the body mounts behind rear tires. Rest of the trunk floor is solid and pretty much down to bare metal on both sides.
But, it is getting there. Found the left leaf spring front frame bracket is slightly egg-shaped. What are some repair suggestions? I thought about welding a washer or new metal with a round hole over it, but the self-locking nuts only tighten past the mount by the thickness of the existing metal in the first place.
Or, weld in just the compromised front edges of the hole and hope my carbide bits are hard enough to cut the weld bead to dress it up afterwards. Or cut a good bracket off a 57 frame and weld it on? Trouble with that approach is that the body is in the way to duplicate the top welds and if only doing a part of the mount then that points back to just fixing the hole itself...
Brushwolf, not only do the wagon/police/Ranchero/Retractable/T-Bird vehicles have larger bearings, but the bearing retainer plates are larger and use 1/2 inch bolts, the others use 3/8 inch bolts. John
Ah... So I can check to see if a big bearing early axle by just taking a drum off... I have one parts retractable that is very rough and I remember being skeptical as to whether it was the original axle. Brake drums were gone, so I can easy check with that tip.
Thanks, Mike
Mike, you don't even have to take the drums off. Look at the nuts which hold the backing plate to the axle housing. 9/16 wrench size indicates 3/8 bolts, 3/4 wrench size indicates 1/2 bolts. John
Even better...
Ford had a dizzying number of models in the Fairlane series for 1970-71.
70 1/2 Falcon super elcheapo. (there were a few with the 429 Super CobraJet!)
Fairlane was the mom&pop car.
Cobra was the upstyle Torino hardtop boy racer with the cheap interior.
Torino was the upstyle body w/nice bench interior.
Torino GT was upstyle with bucketseat interior and laser stripes.
Torino Brougham was base style body w/added trim and deluxe nylon interior.
They even had two different roof styles for the two door hardtops.
Ron.
Didn't know the Falcon name went on that late in the US although Australia picked it up later. Have never seen a Falcon later than the mid-60's around here. Darn few of any year. Your post reminded me of a decent 68 or 69 Torino 2 dr hdtp that I cut up for parts for 68 Fairlane convertible. Regret that, but had to save the convertible..
As you indicate for 1970, my 68 Fairlane was the modestly priced offering that was not particularly sporty. It came with bench seating, column shift automatic, the last of the 289's, PS, but no PB. Regular steel wheels and hub caps. I added some 68-69 GT wheels as well as a 351c, factory option tach from a Torino, etc. It was a fun summer car and very reliable.
Decades later I picked up the 68 Torino, which is the GT version, but it still only had come from the factory with a 302 originally, also had PS, no PB and had drums brakes all corners, 8 inch rear, exactly the same as the Fairlane. The car came with a bunch of extra parts and interesting old documents cuz the car was in the same family for nearly 30 years and spent most of that time as a workbench in their garage. Son sold it in the aftermath of a divorce, so I picked it up.
However the Torino did have the factory GT wheels, factory AC, black stripe, buckets with no console and the same column shift. PO had installed a 351c with headers and aftermarket intake and floor shift. It now has toploader 4 speed and I got a nice factory console off EBay.
Have a refurbished set of factory disks and spindles ready to install, a NOS booster and a new proportioning valve, but I need to come up with a lower geared 8 inch or a 9 inch rear and am too busy with the 57 right now. Intend to rebuild the entire 68 front suspension along with brake install, plus add the heavier 69 CJ rear leaf springs too. Those springs have been sitting here for more than a decade, but life keeps getting in the way...
.
QuoteAnother pet peeve of mine on axle listings is with respect to 68-69Torino and Fairlane axle widths. I have had a 68 Fairlane and have a 68 Torino and they are basically the same car with a different name. Axles are identical width. Look at the chart and it could be either of 2 lengths for a 68 Torino. Which is nonsense to me. Am I missing something?
Can anyone tell me why these contradictory width listings are so pervasive? I have three bookmarked sites on axle widthsand all of them have this conflicting info on 68 Torino vs Fairlane.
It is on the net so it has to be true :003:
This is a continuation of incorrect information, much the same regarding brake valving. Once entered somewhere and if not corrected immediately, it shotguns.
Below find Ill's showing from another forum where an attempt was made to correct the incorrect size listings -
Yes, those corrections are certainly an improvement. Especially with the Torino widths that are so unclear in most such lists.
But, it still would lead someone with little experience with 57-59 Fords to think they could only use a Ranchero or wagon rear if looking for something with the 57.25" width. Those from other models not mentioned are so much more plentiful that I think such lists should be changed to include all 57-59 Ford with just a notation of the wagon, Ranchero, retractable as having bigger brakes and bearings.
Hemmings list does have it partly right with the Torino info, but then goes on and says 57-64 Ford full size are all 57.25". Quick Performance gets the 57-59 Ford right (hurray!), but 71-71 Mustang shows 1 3/4" narrower than most lists. Inclined to measure my 73 Mach clone to see who is right.
Most lists also skip right past the 60-63 full size axles as well. 60's are probably few and far between, but 61-63's. IDT so.. Maybe they just don't know and no info is better than wrong info. But those are more common around here than many axles they do list.
You have any widths for those? What forum is that corrected list from?
Quote from: brushwolf on 2021-01-11 08:10
Yes, those corrections are certainly an improvement. Especially with the Torino widths that are so unclear in most such lists.
But, it still would lead someone with little experience with 57-59 Fords to think they could only use a Ranchero or wagon rear if looking for something with the 57.25" width. Those from other models not mentioned are so much more plentiful that I think such lists should be changed to include all 57-59 Ford with just a notation of the wagon, Ranchero, retractable as having bigger brakes and bearings.
Hemmings list does have it partly right with the Torino info, but then goes on and says 57-64 Ford full size are all 57.25". Quick Performance gets the 57-59 Ford right (hurray!), but 71-71 Mustang shows 1 3/4" narrower than most lists. Inclined to measure my 73 Mach clone to see who is right.
Most lists also skip right past the 60-63 full size axles as well. 60's are probably few and far between, but 61-63's. IDT so.. Maybe they just don't know and no info is better than wrong info. But those are more common around here than many axles they do list.
You have any widths for those? What forum is that corrected list from?
It was a MUST FORUM but am not sure if all is correct (carousing with browser). i just showed that as an example others have run into the problem also.
The 57/59 axle housing should be listed as one (IMO) but with notation of bearing size exception on certain models (IMO). HOOSIER HURRICANE's notation on determining if a small or large bearing housing should be mentioned in the listing.
My 2nd computer had a seizure last night and is also in ICU. Once I get my stuff straight I will go back in my files to see if I have an older chart that is more accurate.
And there has to be an accepted method of measure for all so that this doesn't continue. I will post Ill's once it is in recovery.
Yeah, I think you could come up with an improved axle width list and maybe sticky it somewhere here.
I think what happened to the chart is a combination of poor description and English. Below is my interpretation as how the chart should read.
Any and all of this is unverified and am using others measurements.
(http://57fordsforever.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8547.0;attach=31288;image)
*****************************
FORD REAR HOUSING WIDTHS
Flange To Flange Width -
56.37 in - 1964-1965 FALCON
- 1970-1977 MAVERICK/COMET
56.87 in - 1974-1977 MUST II
57.25 in - 1957-1959 FORD
57.37 in - 1965-1966 MUST
58.00 in - 1977-1981 GRANADA
- 1966-1977 BRONCO
59.37 in - 1967-1970 FAIRLANE
- 1967-1970 MUST
60.87 in - 1971-1973 MUST
61.25 in - 1960-64 FORD *
63.37 in - 1972-1973 FAIRLANE
* 60-64 FORD Width Added From Post # 20 Reference
Anyone have the 1960-64 Galaxie measurements?
Ron.
I have a 9" from a 57 four door in my 62 Fairlane and it is 57.25". Its the small bearing but has had many drag strip runs with slicks, as well as street miles and I have not had any problems. Obviously the large bearing rears are stronger, but any 57-59 rear will be 57.25" wide and would be serviceable.
James
Just something to keep in mind. The 57 big bearing axles may be more desirable but no one makes replacement brake drums
Carnut.com has 60-64 full size axle at 61.25 (same width as 71-73 Mustang). I have a 63 Galaxie axle here, but under 4 ft of snow, so can't check it any time soon.
Quote from: hiball3985 on 2021-01-20 12:45
Just something to keep in mind. The 57 big bearing axles may be more desirable but no one makes replacement brake drums
That is surprising that there would be no replacement drums available for retractables, but I have not looked for years...
Is the big bearing housing better than the small bearing housing? Other than the housing ends, is there a difference. I've had several of both and saw no difference. I have not cut up any of these housing because they had value. I always sold them. I think the round back housings are the least desirable, weakest of all 9" housings. I always select a pickup or van housing because these are the strongest, more available, usually least rust pitted, biggest tubes, thickest tubes, and round tubes. The only thing going for the '57-59 housings is that they are narrow and have a drain plug. I have bolted several under the '60s unibody Fords because they are nearly a bolt-in substitution for a 8" housing. I think the first gen Bronco rear housing was the narrowest and had big bearing ends along with maybe 31 spline axles. Unfortunately the spring pads are on top and good luck finding one.
PIC...always keep a few spares.
PS I do have complete rear, big bearing drum brakes for the Raunch Wagon.
Gary, you're talking about the '57 round rears being least desirable, but that is from a racing/performance standpoint. I've been told over the years that the '57 is actually the most desirable overall.....because of that smooth round rear cover plate, for hot rods that have their butt up in the air. No argument they may not be as strong as others, but most of us aren't going to break one.
Yeah, always heard that too. 57 is prettiest, 31 spline pickup axle if strength has priority. Only Ford axle I ever broke was in a 53 Victoria that had a Chrysler motor and the original axle. Broken differentials seemed to be mostly a Chev thing in the hometown of my youth..
As it seems someone (and I won't mention names) had their head up their posterior ...
My "pretty" 57 differential has the big bearing ends (late) and the 31 spline axles with trac-loc..........you can almost have it all. It is not a "N" case.
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2021-01-20 18:20
One source of rear drums - https://www.classictbird.com/Shoes-Drums/products/35/1/0
Expensive. There is a seller on EvilBay that is more reasonable but doesn't state COUNTRY of ORIGIN.
B7A 1126-A - Sedan Rear
B7A 1126-B - S/W - RHT
Their illustration shows a front drum and hub?
1126-A Rear says 55-56, are they the same as 57?
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2021-01-20 18:41
My "pretty" 57 differential has the big bearing ends (late) and the 31 spline axles with trac-loc..........you can almost have it all. It is not a "N" case.
About 10 or 12 years ago, a local ad listed a 1958 Edsel rear end, drum to drum for $200. Since I have never had any problem at all selling any of the 57-59 Ford 9" rearends from parts cars, for $500.00 within a day or 2 of listing them, I drove right over and bought to rear. It was not until I got home and looked more closely that this particular rearend had been removed from a 58 Edsel Corsair or Citation, which were based on the Mercury chassis, rather than the Ford chassis that the cheaper Ranger and Pacer models were based on. This Edsel rearend was not only wider, but also had the oddball 5 x5" wheel bolt pattern on the axles and brake drums. It also had a 2.69 axle ratio, which was too tall for my use, so I just put it aside for a few years. Afterwards, when I was getting to the point of needing to upgrade the rearend for my 59, my measurements showed that I could almost fit 275/60R15 tires on the back, and if the rearend was narrowed 3/4" per side, they would fit nicely. Since I was installing a 428 Cobra Jet engine, and 4 speed Toploader, and also planned to drag race it on occasion, with slicks, that I would need to do some strength upgrades. So I ended up selling the original 59 rearend, and had the "white Elephant" Edsel housing cut down to 3/4" narrower per side that the original rearend, and ordered a new pair of custom length aftermarket 31 spline axles for the new width. To make installing the 275 tires easier, we elected to replace the stock 11" rear brakes , to 10" rear brakes from an early 90s Ford Explorer. Although the drums are 1" smaller diameter, they are also 3/4" wider, so the net surface area is actually a bit more than the stock brakes. To use the Explorer backing plates required using the later big bearing "Torino" ends, as the backing plate pattern was different. My buddy builds a lot of custom drag race and street car rearends, so this work was an everyday job for him. So I now have a Nodular cased, 31 spline Detroit Locker rearend with 3.50 gears for daily use, another Nodular with a 31 spline spool and 4.33 gears for track use, and if a long freeway is planned, a stock cased, 31 spline open with 2.91s . And the 3 1959 car 9"s that I sold went onto live in a Ford Maverick, a Chevy Nova, and a 56 Chevy "Gasser", as they bolt right into those cars. Back in the early 70s, I had a 65 Plymouth Valiant Signet with a 273/235 HP "Commando" 4 barrel engine with a 4 speed, and when I blew the stock rearend up, I bolted in the 9" from my old 59 Country Sedan Wagon. Seems that most of the smaller "Big 3" compact and Pony cars, all used rearends of the same width and 43" leaf spring centers of the 57-59 Ford cars, so in addition to the desirable rounded look housing, the size makes the 57-9 rearends still a hot commodity for swapping.
Quote from: hiball3985 on 2021-01-21 08:22
Their illustration shows a front drum and hub?
1126-A Rear says 55-56, are they the same as 57?
THANK GOODNESS YOU CAUGHT THIS!It seems CASCO is using partial FORD PN's to ID their wares. I
a$$-u-me(ed) the 57 Bird would take the same drum as the SW-RHT as both use the same axle tube sizing and bearing. I was wrong. The 57/58 BIRD drum is unique.
I apologize profusely. I will remove the above post.
The CASCO ILL shows the rear drum (1126) at the top of the ILL and the front drum and hub at the bottom.
Here is a source (I hope) of the SW-RHT rear brake drum - https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rear-Brake-Drum-1957-1959-Ford-Retractable-Wagon-NEW-/312279180697
I would ask the name of the manufacturer, country of origin and return policy.
Hope this makes up for my dumb-a$$ mistake above.
RE: your "egg shape" problem on the bracket...can you make it perfectly round...then cut a piece that will fit in the newly made hole,, and weld it in...grind it down and then re-drill it? Just a thought.
That is a good idea actually. Could have tack welded a piece, perhaps a very large washer centered over the hole, use a. carbide to make egg-shaped hole closer to round, then a multi-bit to expand the centered hole large enough to accommodate an insert with correct size center hole, perhaps a piece of seamless pipe, a large rod or bolt drilled dead center, cut to thickness on band saw, weld it on both sides, grind it down and no evidence of any repair.
However after a few days and no suggestions made, I ground both sides clean, found and cut out some tabs of some metal the same gauge and drilled a hole the correct size, sanded it down good thinking I would just get longer bolts if necessary... But when the bolt and nut were installed to position the piece, it now looks like the threads on the new bolt are actually long enough to still get the locking nuts on with a few threads to spare.
Thinking that when I removed them that they were not fully tightened down cuz I knew that I would be dropping axle and springs later (25 years later it turns out...). So, I did have some unused threads yet to utilize. I did the same with the front suspension rebuild cuz I read somewhere not to fully torque the A-arms bushing bolts until the full weight of the assembled car rests on them to avoid over-taxing the rubber in them.
Anyway, I tacked these small plates in place (both sides of frame so they are the same...), removed the bolt to make sure the new hole had aligned with what appeared to be the original perimeters of the old hole, then fully welded the plates around their perimeter. This should work fine, although it is a detectable repair if you have extensive knowledge of 57 Fords.
I like your idea better, but not going to change it at this stage. Not wanting to make "perfect" the enemy of "good enough".... Time is running out before annual trip to Florida and I need to keep moving and get all the newly bare metal underneath the car covered again before we leave.
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2021-01-21 09:36
THANK GOODNESS YOU CAUGHT THIS!
It seems CASCO is using partial FORD PN's to ID their wares. I a$$-u-me(ed) the 57 Bird would take the same drum as the SW-RHT as both use the same axle tube sizing and bearing. I was wrong. The 57/58 BIRD drum is unique.
I apologize profusely. I will remove the above post.
The CASCO ILL shows the rear drum (1126) at the top of the ILL and the front drum and hub at the bottom.
Not your fault. They list things incorrectly. That why I'm hesitant to buy from some people.
Glad I could sorta help. Understand the need to get to the finish line with the project too.
I didn't see the thread when you first posted it. Maybe someone else will be able to use the idea down the road. :003:
Yes, I gathered that you have been relocating and also got Covid on top of it. Possibly in Missouri... I am going through MO next week to 10 days on the way to the Redneck Riviera (Florida Gulf Coast).
Am thinking I may take my box of latex gloves with and toss them after each gas fill. Another guy in Michigan who contracted it says he cannot think how he could have contracted it, except for pumping gas. Cuz he had avoided everyone and touched nothing except pay at the pump CC use..
I am fond of Missouri and had planned to spend an overnight there, but now if I do I will possibly be worried again thinking that you contracted it there. I suspect I would survive it anyway, but find I wish less to tempt fate than in my younger days and wish to spend the time in Florida productively and not on the couch or in bed.
Minnesota gets more difficult all the time. Maybe I need to build a pole building down there too, in case it gets worse here. But, I have too many family members in MN AND too many toys to drag them all down there.
Or perhaps I just need to drink more than every year or so, and worry less...But I am concerned my children grandcbildrena and great-granchilden are going to have a lot tougher row to hoe than I have.
Well...good news...according to the doc...one of the myths is oh so not true...you CANNOT get it from a gas pump. I told her I had heard that and had a hard time believing it and she said I was correct.
As for getting it in Missouri...I have been in over 10 states, and she said that with my recent travel record there was no way to know where I got it. She told me that many people are exposed...and never ever get sick, and may well carry the stupid thing around with them for a time. Also told me that the time between being exposed and actually getting sick can be up to 7 days. So who knows where I contracted it from. My wife got it too...and her version? The "I have a bad cold" version. She is fine now, went to the doc yesterday and he said she is done. So...makes no sense.
As for coming through Missouri...I am leaving WA on Wednesday. But need to come back one more time to get my boat. After that ANY time you come through...let me know, and if time permits...would love for you to stop by and we can throw a steak on the BBQ...crack open a brewski and talk '57's...or what ever else comes to mind!
(that goes for any and all here...just let me know you're in route...so I can grab those steaks and brews!) :003: :006:
Quote from: hiball3985 on 2021-01-21 17:01
Not your fault. They list things incorrectly. That why I'm hesitant to buy from some people.
Thanks for the kind words but that one was entirely on me. The FORD PN is B7A 1126-B and I searched and came up with the CASCO site (THUNDERBIRD dedicated) that used a partial FORD PN 1126B which I immediately thought was the same or close. It is not. Their 1126A is for 55/56 and 1126B for 1957.
Regardless, CASCO is a class act. It was my oversight that tripped me.
These vendors will use partial FORD PN's leading you to believe that are GENUINE when they are not. If they use a true FORD PN they have to pay a royalty.
A lot of these vendors are not that sharp on the Ford numbers. The 57 battery tray they all sell carries the number B7A-10732-B when it should be -A.
It has been on the market for over a decade.
Ron.