i just picked up a 1954 country sedan wagon. It currently has a new driveshaft from the installed C4 to the factory rear end. The car was originally overdrive , so it has the high 4.XX gears in the floating hypoid differential My question is this the same as a Dana44 ? Would the 57/59 passenger rear end be able to use this overpriced driveshaft? Thank you for all of the help
You might have to change the universal joint. Should be a 1310 or 1330 or combination of both, pretty common . Not sure about the length though.
Yes and yes the 57 -59 9 inch is the same width as well as 64-66 Mustang Sent from my SM-G965U using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
I appreciate the replies, I understand that the passenger cars have the same width rear end, but is the yoke in the same distance from the trans? Will the current driveshaft fit? Otherwise it would be better to just swap ring/pinion gears and not have to buy a new driveshaft too.
I’m no help but just wanted to say I really like that little wagon! I desperately wanted to buy that car when it was for sale up in Amarillo a year or so ago but couldn’t find the time to get up there. Glad it went to a HAMBer!
Funny enough that was a buddy of mine. We drug this car out of a garage where is was parked in ‘68. Timmy sold it and it made its way to Midland, where I live now. I’ve had a love affair with this wagon since 2011, excited that it found me again.
If he's looking to use an overpriced drive shaft, installing a 1957-1959 9-inch may not be a wise solution, unless he's already got one. The have become scarce, and thus the prices have shot up. Never mind that the brake parts seem to be out-of-production.
Your current driveshaft won't fit the newer rear axles; the '49-56 rear u-joint is a oddball piece and there's no 'conversion' u-joint that I'm aware of. But you may not have to have another one made; both Ford and some GM shared the same u-joints on some cars in the late '50s/'60s and beyond, find one with the right u-joints and length out of a boneyard and it could be a bolt-in. Your existing rear axle isn't a Dana 44; it's a Dana 42 and while it's very similar to the 44, there's very little parts interchange. Finding gears for them these days isn't easy either and even when you do, ratio selection isn't great. Ford didn't install the Dana in that many cars; while the wagons and T-birds got them as standard, only police/taxi got them in the other models.
Get a 8.8 or 7.5 from mid ‘90s Ranger pickup....they are 58”/58.5”, same wheel bolt pattern and can be found in various ratios. I have 3.27, 3.55 and 3.73 units on hand. I am not trying to sell them, merely pointing out what is out there. Funny thing though, the brake sizes differ and one of the 8.8’s I have has smaller brakes than does the 7.5, but they appear to have the same axle housing flange and can be swapped. Not only will one of those work for you, but they will look stock in your wagon to the casual observer.....maybe any observer.
What I used on my parklane is a 2000 explorer rear end I narrowed the housing 2 7/8 inches and used a second right side axle then used a driveshaft out of a 2006 crown Victoria police car cheap and very effective Sent from my SM-G965U using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Early Ranger, 1983-1992, are 56-1/2", both 7.5 and 8.8. That's just 1/2" under the 57" of stock (if I remember correctly), or 1/4" per side. If that makes or breaks the car, a pair of 1/4" spacers can fix that. If not, a newer Ranger 7.5 or 8.8 will do the trick. As a bonus, the 7.5 and 8.8 have solid axle flanges. They have no "extra" access holes in them. This means that they can be re-drilled, to about any pattern, like 5-on-5-1/2", by any competent machine shop, or by YOU, with a drill guide from @rottenleonard . I am not selling those, but he has sold me some, and they are a very nice product! Drums on an 8.8 can be 9", or 10", and the cables readily adapt to other Ford products. I have stock 1960 Falcon parking brake cables attached to my 1991 8.8. No mods.
The Ford 8" usually came with a 2.79 or 3.00 gear, others are obtainable and unless you're putting in a blower motor will handle quite a bit. I have one with 3.55 gears in the coupster.
There ya go, a bolt-in solution. The '54 and '56 share the same wheelbase, so this should work for you.
Auto Parts Warehouse, spec.: 'Crown Automotive' for drum brake hardware complete kits: Shoes are ordered as 'Bendix: drum dia. X width'. BTW: Gear ratio of '4.XX' is high numerically', but actually 'low' ratio. (4.10 : 1 is 'low'gear, while 2.75:1 is high...) MY son just brought me a current set of brake hardware for one of my 9" rears, (the 'narrow' '57 rear for my '54 Coupe) Bendix stuff is still available, just not ALL the parts houses stock it...
How about replacing the C4 with an AOD that is the same length? Sent from my SM-T350 using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
The only thing I had to do is get a u joint to match the front yoke to the drive shaft what's really good about this setup is rear ends are 150 and I got 3.73 posi and disk brakes. Drive shaft was 50.00 the way I did the shortening took 2 hours an extra rt side axle was 86.00 from rock auto .while I was at it I put in new axle bearings and seals.you do have to move the spring pads though and I used the explorer u bolts they are just long enough. Sent from my SM-G965U using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
I did the AOD swap too but the adapter for the y block cost more than all the parts to rebuild the 292 Sent from my SM-G965U using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Gimpy...thanks for correcting the year model range vs width. I got that wrong as it is the post ‘92 models that are 58.5” and that is what mine are....... I have a Studebaker Lark with a Dana 27 that I want to upgrade and, by chance, have it on a lift in my shop. Friday I had the rear wheels off and accurately measured the WMS/WMS and found it to be 58.25”.......Bingo, the Ranger rear axles I have are perfect for that. Based on some earlier data I had on Studebaker from the ‘mid ‘50s, I was expecting 56”/57” dimension. In any case, I think the Ranger 7.5”/8.8” are overlooked as good candidates for alternates to the ‘57/‘59 Ford 9” and Falcon/Mustang/Fairlane/Granada 8” and with better ratio selections. The only downside is I am not sure how many of the Rangers were produced, but there should be enough in the short run to be a source for awhile.
Sales numbers here: http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/ford/ford-ranger/ That should cover all our needs.
The Jalopy Journal
