The unit shown is a V8 model used in sprint cars and would handle limited torque due to the case and small ring gear compared to the Champ 301 model. You would not want to have more than 300 hp in my opinion but I have seem them handle more when used carefully on the street.
Thank you for the information. I am glad someone taught me correct before I spent a bunch a money on this rear end. Wow good to know. Cause the person who sold it to me informed me it was a Champ. Now I know it won't do what I need it to do. Well I think I will have to sell it or build another car someday and use it in that. I am planning on putting 600 horsepower under the hood. I would hate to be stranded on the side of the road cause I put too much power in a rear end.
In the late 1980s [IIRC] a guy outside of Milwaukee [Lebal?] bought the Halibrand product line and started making them at his factory in Milwaukee. Race driver Dean Billings was involved and they raced all over the USAC circuit. Billings went on to build QRS QC axles before suffering a brain injury at Sun Prairie. He still suffers from it today and the QRS tooling went overseas.
Pewsplace thanks for helping me out. I have compared images of the V8 and the Champ and I can see the big difference in the fins. Does the Part Number of the Champ have 301 in it? I have noticed guys talk about those numbers, Are there a set of numbers in the V8 that are on all the V8's?
Thought i'd add this to the pot. I bought this for my 40, I wont be using the IRS side plates, but it's pretty cool. I know absolutely nothing about it,just added for the curiosity value. Lots of good info here, gonna help me alot when the time comes, thanks.
My bucket has a Halibrand QC IRS: Bought it new in 1993. Never seen another one. Been running now for 20 years, probably 100k miles. Replaced all the bearings a few years ago.
When purchasing these adapter plates from Winters, either if its for "their" bells, or EF bells, the catalog make is sound as if you have to use their Winters Track locker?? Or can the OEM Ford/Timken open carrier be used as well?
Big Deuce, Start here, if you have questions after this let me know. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/...and-winters-quickchange.993472/#post-11203264 Bruce
It' probably for the clam shell seal, was that supposed to be a complete kit? I use a leak less urethane tubing!
like this, it replaces the cork! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-flathe...leak-kit-w-gaskets-transmission-/251255228584
If you don't want the whine, Winters sells some helical gears that will fit the Halibrand. I'm running them now.
Just a little info on the helical gears. They may be quiet but they are hard on the rear end! especially if racing!? The thrust of the gears going back and forth will ruin the cover and pinion retainer! Iv'e seen the insides of a few (center sections) that ran helical gears and you can see the extreme wear inside! You know that a little pieces of aluminum can lock up a ball bearing? Just saying, Joe
With the proper (thrust) washers, I hope! Still pushes on the studs/cover though. I'll stick with the safe whine!
Just built this Halibrand 201 Culver city Ca. Last week! Made to fit early 51 Mercury slide in axles! m
I have enough experience with the helical gears to offer an opinion. Halibrand was offering the helical gears before they went under. These were made by Clincher. I would imagine that this is what Winters sells also. Halibrand fit their rears with thrust bearings on the lower shaft (rear) and the two cover bearings. These are REALLY EXPENSIVE. If I recall in 1996 they were over $100 ea. I personally have run helical gears in my daily with standard bearings for over 3 years. They are super quiet and no problems. Like Sandman said though, they are not for racing and there are loads placed on the rear cover and the bearings every time you accelerate or decelerate. The reason this is not a BIG problem is that the bearings are so much overkill for the application that the average guy will not notice the difference in bearing life. Shimming the gears is a good plan regardless of the gear type but more critical with the helicals. As to the noise issue: Good quality change gears (even straight cut) should not be noisy. I find that most ring and pinions are set up way too loose. With aluminum side bells I shoot for 0.000" - 0.001" backlash. with steel 0.001" -.002"! I didn't just pick these numbers out of my a$$. The oldest Halibrand literature says too set them up at zero and warm them before getting on it hard for racing. Remember, the center section is aluminum or magnesium. As it warms, it expands which increases backlash. Set them up tight and you will be surprised at how quiet they are. As a side note. I was told that the Mickey Thompson stadium racers actually ran the R&P with preload and before the race they would drain the lube and run with whatever was clinging to the bearings and gears. Sounds like an ad for snake oil to me. But what do I know? I have customers that claim that using synthetic gear lube has quieted their Quickchanges. I don't doubt them, but I have never done a back to back test or felt the need. Of course, my hearing isn't what it used to be.
"As a side note. I was told that the Mickey Thompson stadium racers actually ran the R&P with preload and before the race they would drain the lube and run with whatever was clinging to the bearings and gears. Sounds like an ad for snake oil to me. But what do I know?" I wouldn't drink that Koolaid.
I have been running helical gears in my V8 QC for 19 years now with no problems. I have the good bearings and run a mixture of half 140 and half STP in it, in an effort to quieten it. My helicals are still noisy but about 1/2 the noise of straight cuts. Just finished a 6000 trip from Indiana to Victoria, BC and back and wore ear plugs the whole way. I have a cabriolet and with the top up it kind of resonates through the inside of the car, but with the top down I can hardly hear it.
Can someone help me understand what they're actually talking about in this article? They say they're using 9" Ford gears for quieter running, but they clearly aren't refering to what we call a 9" Ford today correct? The pinion of a drop out center 9" 1957 on up Ford would run way below center I think. It looks like they are using an 34-48 Ford ring gear with the center bored out. Are they simply doing this to run modern spider and side gears? If so why would they go to all this work rather than just boring out the ring gear and early Ford carrier like guys do with the Hot Rod Works side gears today? I'm intrigued by this setup though because it seems like you could do something similar and design it to use the guts out of a modern Auburn Pro-Series limited slip. Or maybe it would be easier to make it use Trac Lok or Powr Lok guts. Sorry for all the questions. I'm a machinist so this sort of thing interests me.
"Can someone help me understand what they're actually talking about in this article?" I'll give it a stab. To eliminate the keyed tapered axle shafts used in the Ford banjo rear end (and therefore V8 Quickchanges), Halibrand made a replacement differential that utilized side gears and spiders from a Ford 9". This allowed the use of push in axles. It is not a differential from a 9" Ford. The carrier housing was made from two castings and a standard Ford (Banjo type) or Quickchange ring gear is modified to be clamped between the two castings. From the date on the article, it seems that this was a new product about 1991. They were available until the doors closed in Kansas.
hotrodA, This is a different deal than what you did. The article is about a Halibrand manufactured replacement differential carrier. Does not use the original banjo carrier and the side gears are not modified.
Yes, that is correct. I re-read the article and I did, in fact, use the Ford carrier. There was another article in R&C with the how-to. Deleted it.
Hotrod, I'm interested in what you did. You reworked what Ford carrier, a 9" one to work with a modified banjo ring gear? Or are you saying you used side gears with a modified Banjo carrier? Any chance you could share the Rod and Custom article you reference? Or maybe just tell us what issue it is in?
The Jalopy Journal
