My 40 Ford project pickup came to me with no rear differential. I need some advice on what to look for that is the correct tread width or can be made into the correct width that meets the HAMB criteria for pre 65 components. All input welcome and appreciated.
59-1/2 is stock So 1st and 2nd gen camaro S10’s Explorers etc I know you are looking more Hamb specific in years so why not find another banjo or a quick change? They seem to pop up for sale quite often here and on my local classified and flea-bay
Well, they didn't build Mavericks 'til '69, but 57 Fords had 9"ers. Any year 9" can be cut to your desired width. As far as rear end width is concerned, I see this question asked all the time. Here's how I do it. I like to use graph paper. Measure total width at outside of fenders. Measure width at inner fenders. Plumb bobs make it easy to get these measurements. Make a quick scale sketch of this on the graph paper. The graph paper makes it easy. Now measure the section width of you desired tire. Or lacking that go to Tire Rack or some similar site and get those specs. Draw that tire and your wheel on your sketch in the wheel well so it fits (or not). Now draw your wheel's backspacing into that wheel. If you have made an accurate drawing you can now count the spaces and come up with you rear end width. If you have added dimensions to your drawing, simple math will now give you the width.
I really don't think having a post-65 rearend under the truck is going to get you tossed from the site
I’m new so I’m still learning the rules. This site is a little more threatening to me than I am used to. I am still posting to the site I have have been an active supporting member since 2005. But Ultimately I will build this 40 Ford Pickup the way I want to. It is my first pre war build and I do need help. Thanks for everyone’s input all.
Vandenplas is correct. That 59 1/2 in. measurement is from WMS to WMS. Using an 8 inch is much better than a 9 in. Lighter, smaller, cheaper. Plus, they look better under the 40. The pre '65 HAMB criteria does not pertain to components. Besides, who cares? Build it your way.
If you can tolerate the wheels set in 3/4" on each side, a first-generation (1966-1977) Ford Bronco axle 9" is 58" wide. It even has the classic 5-on-5-1/2" wheel bolt pattern. Ratios, stock, can be found at 3.50:1 and 4.11:1 (good if you have an overdrive transmission). But, yeah, an 8" is totally fine. An Explorer 8.8 is an easy score, in a variety of ratios, drum, or disc, and often with a limited slip differential. That has a 5-on-4-1/2" wheel bolt pattern.
I'm LMAO here... that's funny stuff right there.. Yes, "bad assed hoodlums" abound on here..and a few "beta males too". You'll be fine.. welcome.. BTW, choosing wheel type before figuring the width from Flange to Flange, is the only way to insure a good fit. Meaning if you just love deep dish wheels rather than skinny 40 wheels, you can get into tires sticking out if you use a generic width quote. .
Thanks folks, I'm pretty good with the wheel thing as evidenced by my treatment of my post 65 Barracuda. (Not Cuda') mine is an A body not an E body. I use CAD a lot for building most things. It served me well setting up my Barracuda.
All have given you great choices , I myself am a Bronco guy in early chassis . They are gettin tough as hens teeth near me . Dana 44 rear in a Mail Jeep or CJ , IH Scout is a good choice also , just a bit tuff on gear swapping compaired to 8 or 9 in stuff . One Ford that was not discussed is a 46 47 Truck it’s open driveshaft banjo . Bad Azz looks but not super strong
I passed on one here in my area a year ago. It was missing brake backing plates & drums. I had just read up on that issue and found a good website page on it. That guy claimed two different sizes of axle bearings, and I think 3 different plates? or drums....different width shoes..and plates are not interchangeable on some.. .
I narrowed a 62 Olds rear end down to 57.5 inches. It was a perfect marriage. Sent from my iPad using H.A.M.B.
Some more choices.... '62-65 Ford Fairlane/Mercury Meteor, '63-65 Ford Falcon/Comet, '64-66 Mustang (V8 cars only on the Falcon/Comets and Mustangs), these will all be 8" rears unless somebody has swapped a 9" in. Widths will vary slightly, but all will be within the 'window' of widths that will work. All have the 'standard Ford' 4.5"-on-5 bolt circle. Keep in mind that these and the 9" have been out of production for 40 years, so finding a good one may not be as easy as it used to be. The late '80s/90s Ford Explorer/Ranger PU 8.8 rears have a lot going for them; there's tons of them out there (which will usually mean cheap), stronger than the 8" and nearly as strong as the 9", most have the good 31 spline axles, good ratio selection, positraction in a lot of them, and either discs or drum brakes depending on the year. These will also have the 4.5"-on-5 bolt pattern.
holla, I am also new to the site and I mostly like keeping up with the conversation for there are some fellow car builders that can show me a trick or two, when you get to be a dinosaur like me and you can still be willing to learn more the modern world deals you more options.
Mid '80's Jeep CJ7. Width is close IIRC and its 5 on 5 1/2 and the spring pads are under the housing not on top like a Bronco. Early Bronco stuff is getting pricey as well. Different ratios are available. JMO.
2012-ish Mustang.59 inches wide.Discs,posi,centered pinion.Best part .....guys are still wreaking these cars so your not looking for collectors items.
I have a ‘55/‘56 Chevy car rear under mine. I don’t know the total width but it runs the 5 on 4.75 bp.
S10 4x4 rear is what I installed 10 years ago. 2” wider than the 2 WD rears Depends on your application as well. No behemoth power travelling down my driveshaft
I'm using a '74 Nova 10 bolt. Tucks right in there. Sent from my SM-G965U using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
There are several threads here about rear end widths. I found this information on an older thread that might be of interest. https://m.roadkillcustoms.com/rear-end-widths-classic-american-cars/
The Jalopy Journal
