Wagon, Ranchero Rear Axle width 57.25 What is the width of all other models?

[brushwolf]

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.

[Ford Blue blood]

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?

[rmk57]

  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.

[KULTULZ]

I 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.

[alvin stadel]

 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.

[brushwolf]

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...

[Hoosier Hurricane]

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

[brushwolf]

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

[Hoosier Hurricane]

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

[brushwolf]

Even better...

[SkylinerRon]

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.

[brushwolf]

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...










.

[KULTULZ]

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.

It is on the net so it has to be true   

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 -

[brushwolf]

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?

[KULTULZ]

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.