How much does a Ford banjo rear end weigh? Compared to a Ford 8"? This would be converted to open drive. I'm thinking the torque tube and such adds quite a bit of weight, and without it it'd be about the same as the 8". Specifically, I'm wanting a wide five year one. Thanks, Kurt
Don't have a scale, can pick up & carry one, rather not with the tube wishbones & driveshaft. As far as un-sprung weight, a tube coupled to the trans throws that off I would think. If it's just for the wheels I would get adapters. If it's exposed, nothing better for looks is a banjo IMO
Most often you'll convert the banjo to open drive, i'd ballpark a banjo at 50-60lbs and the 8" over a hundred; unsprung wt on a V8 banjo is about 50% and unsprung wt of the 8" is dependant on how you setup the spring mounting.
I have a '36 banjo with tube and arms removed and it weighs more than 50 lbs in my estimation. It takes two guys to comfortably lift it up into the back of the truck. I'd figure it weighs closer to 100-150 lbs. Josh Quick Quick Speed Shop
Just so happens I've got a '35 rear on the shop floor. No brake assemblies, d/s, t/t, or radius arms. 90 lbs.
Way more than 50 lbs! I guess 100. Edit: Uncle bob, I see you've got it nailed. I'd bet the beefier 38+ rears are a few more lbs than that '35 too.
Jeez, Uncle Bob, that's good info, you couldn't throw a couple of brake assemblies on the scales too could you?? Might as well close the loop. Mart.
Ok, ok i just went out in the rain and weighed a complete 33 banjo, without the drive shaft and torque tube...166 lbs. A 35-38 i would guess would be atleast 10 lbs. more due to wider center section and larger diameter axle bells.
It won't be exposed. I already have a Mustang II 8". The only thing is, I won't be running hubcaps, so the adapter plates would show and it wouldn't look right without that wide-five hub look. I've also got a pair of artillery wheels that I could put on the rear, but I don't know if they'd go good with the wide-fives on front. What do y'all think? Thanks, Kurt
Just so happens...............................yesterday I blew the '46 brake assys apart to soak in the tank so can't give you an exact number, but when I've shipped out brake assys with drums and hubs they run 60 lbs or so the pair. Pretty much in line with harv's numbers.
Okay, somebody else asked about the other parts so here are some examples from the pile: '35 torque tube 22# '35 tubular drive shaft 12# '47 solid drive shaft 16# '37 rear radius rods 15# '35 rear radius rods 28# Those last two are kinda interesting, eh?
Good stuff! '35-48 are basically the same stuff, so weight dif would likely be the extra metal in slightly longer axles and bells along with crud, oil, etc. A lot of locating hardware on Ford, as pointed out aboove, goes into sprung weight. Go from Ford to open, and of course any ladder bars work about that way, but if you go to wagon type springs as many have you go from having the heavy part of one spring bolted to frame to having the heavy part of two springs bolted to axle...a huge migration of extra weight. Unsprung weight is a critical handling and ride issue for light rods, sprung weight is not much of an issue because rodders only need more horsepower to control THAT problem. The higher unsprung weigh is in proportion to sprung, the worse the handling. I talked with a guy who ran in the last flathead stockcar racing association in the east a while ago, and he said that the people who tried to run 9" rears found that the handling deterioration made them uncompetitive...the rear of choice ended up being expensive champ type QC's with as much aluminum as the driver couls afford. Lightening parts were not available much back then for 9"...these cars were '33-36 Ford coupes, genrally, well stripped and gutted. A sort of primitive rule of thumb is that anything unsprung should be 10% or less of car weight...obviously this gets to be fairly close to impossible on a light roadster that has to use affordable parts, but keeping that unsprung down as much as possible is something to always keep in mind. A collection of rear axle weight figures would be very useful, I think...not that many rods really need the brute strength of thing like 9" rears, but most traditional rods could use less weight jumping around down there.
i bought a 48 banjo and brought it home on top of my taurus wagon. I thought the windows were going to pop out....It was tire to tire and had torque tube both radius rods. I really wish i had gotten a pic. It was heavy!!! Got alot of laughs onthe way home too.
just had to carry one without all the same stuff and that sounds right on the money, but is still is heavy with one person esp if you small like me
Ford never could make up his mind, but there still around because of the superior metel in them, and 1 of the most adaptable rear end's in the world, I've seen them used as horse walkers!. What does a Henway?
The Jalopy Journal
