Register now to get rid of these ads!

57 ford 9in?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by nickk, Aug 20, 2011.

  1. nickk
    Joined: Feb 2, 2011
    Posts: 749

    nickk
    Member

    Ive found a local 1957 ford car 9in for cheap, I never really considered putting anything other then a banjo under a model A coupe but i heard these fit good. anyone got pics of thier car with one or one similar? and id really like to know the width from backing plate to backing plate to compare to a banjo if anyone also knows :D id really appreiate it!!
     
  2. Deuce Roadster
    Joined: Sep 8, 2002
    Posts: 9,520

    Deuce Roadster
    Member Emeritus

    IF ... it is really a 57 Ford 9 inch ... it will measure about 57 and 1/2 inches. That measurement is from the wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface. :D

    [​IMG]
     
  3. nickk
    Joined: Feb 2, 2011
    Posts: 749

    nickk
    Member

    thanks! of course when i go to look at it im gonna pull out the measuring tape 1st to make sure
     
  4. Deuce Roadster
    Joined: Sep 8, 2002
    Posts: 9,520

    Deuce Roadster
    Member Emeritus

    The 57 Ford 9 inch is very possibly the most desired rear end by 1932 Ford folks. Every REAL 57 Ford rear end I have had ( over a dozen :) ) had a factory drain plug in the bottom of the housing. 1957 Fords had unusual ( by todays numbers ) gear ratios. They had 2.91, 3.56, 3.89 and other not common ratios.

    I have a 57 rear end under my 32 3W ... :)

    [​IMG]

    You can even get a nice 7 inch rim under the fenders.

    [​IMG]

    The only down side to them is that the brake drums are difficult to buy new and expensive when you do find them.
    I always upgrade the backing plates up to a 64/65 Ford. They have the self adjusting mechanism and the drums are easily found and reasonably priced.

    .
     
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. mgtstumpy
    Joined: Jul 20, 2006
    Posts: 7,627

    mgtstumpy
    Member

    A friend's car, he added local GM disc brakes to it and only gained a minimal track increase. Stops on dime and everything fits nicely under fenders.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. porknbeaner
    Joined: Sep 12, 2003
    Posts: 41,143

    porknbeaner
    Member

    That's a late model rear. the '57 Ford rear was a smooth back.

    The '57 rear isn't a 9" either by the way, it has an 8 3/4 ring. You can put a 9" center in there but stock it is an 8 3/4" rear.
     
  7. mgtstumpy
    Joined: Jul 20, 2006
    Posts: 7,627

    mgtstumpy
    Member

    :eek: Oops, should have checked first. Forgot 57 has smooth housing.
     
  8. Porknbeaner: I've never heard that they were 8-3/4 & I've got 3 of them & never measured.

    I learn something every day. I just got a unmolested one about 2 weeks ago from Ohio but it's still on my trailer here in Oregon. Guess i'll have to break it down & check which ratio it has & check the ring gear diameter. Do your records show only 4 or 5 ratio's as others have stated?

    Thanks Movin/on
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2011
  9. porknbeaner
    Joined: Sep 12, 2003
    Posts: 41,143

    porknbeaner
    Member

    Most of them that I have had were either 3.56 or 3.89, I had one out of a post car once that was pretty close to 3.0 it could have been a 2.91 I suppose. I don't think they came with a much deeper gear than the 3.89 the carrier is too small. I don't think that ford offered much in the line of gear ratios stock.

    I have a '58 wagon rear here that was a 3.56. '58 though the early '60s they were not a true smooth back they were a dimple back.

    Here is a pick of a '58 rear. If it has these dimples it is not a '57 rear. '57 was the only year for the true smooth backed rear.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Reindeer
    Joined: Mar 3, 2005
    Posts: 220

    Reindeer
    Member
    from Finland

    I put one such rearend under my 30 Cabriolet with stock spring and stock trailing arms reinforced and modified to ladder bars with single large uniball mounted just under the front universal joint. The wheels were 15x7 with 235/75-15 tires. Wheel wells and fenders stock width.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Marty Strode
    Joined: Apr 28, 2011
    Posts: 4,088

    Marty Strode
    Member

    3.10 and 4.11 were two other ratios available 1n 57.
     
  12. Deuce Roadster
    Joined: Sep 8, 2002
    Posts: 9,520

    Deuce Roadster
    Member Emeritus

    IF ... you are not running a good bit of horsepower ( I saw where you will have a Y-block 272 ) ... a 5 lug Maverick could be a better choice for a Model A. It is a 8 inch ( less horsepower loss ) and it is the most narrow 5 lug Ford rear end made. It is almost 2 inches more narrow than the 57 Ford ( 1 inch per side ).

    Brake parts are easier to find and purchase also. :)
     
  13. Ford blue blood
    Joined: Jan 4, 2009
    Posts: 586

    Ford blue blood
    Member

    Ever try finding backing plates for the 8"? They don't exist except in wrecking yards and then they are most likely worn the same way the ones you are trying to replace. Take a good hard look at the Rangers, the 95 - 01 Explorer is 59.5 and can be easily narrowed by useing two short axles, easy to get parts and has the "drum" style emergenct brake inside the top hat.
     
  14. hellsgaterods
    Joined: Dec 8, 2010
    Posts: 534

    hellsgaterods
    Member

    if you need to replace the drums on it, they are hard to find and expensive. i used 53 mercury drums on mine and they were the right size. 11x2
     
  15. BCR
    Joined: Dec 11, 2005
    Posts: 1,263

    BCR
    Member

    57 also has a one year only pinion seal. It is huge compaired to other 9's and very expensive. If the front seal looks like it is 4' instead of 3" it is a 57.
     
  16. Deuce Roadster
    Joined: Sep 8, 2002
    Posts: 9,520

    Deuce Roadster
    Member Emeritus

    Actually ... backing plates off a 9 inch Ford will bolt right on ... if the 9 inch Ford has the small bearing.

    [​IMG]

    :)
     
  17. nickk
    Joined: Feb 2, 2011
    Posts: 749

    nickk
    Member

    thanks for all the information, now from everything i know i should easily determine wether it is a true 57, and the guy said it may not have brakes on it "he dont remember" lol, but even if it dont i know what will work! thanks guys i do appreiate the help
     
  18. Ford Fairlane
    Joined: Aug 22, 2004
    Posts: 178

    Ford Fairlane
    Member

    The 57 Ford's the had overdrive came with 4:11 gears.
     
  19. porknbeaner
    Joined: Sep 12, 2003
    Posts: 41,143

    porknbeaner
    Member


    Fairlane that actually sounds correct. It seems to me that for mid '50s door slammers the rear of choice was the OD '57 as they had a deeper gear than the regular cars.
     
  20. so what year did ford actually make a true 9" rearend for a car? that 8 3/4" stuff is new to me.
     
  21. porknbeaner
    Joined: Sep 12, 2003
    Posts: 41,143

    porknbeaner
    Member

    I don't think thay made a 9" rear until the early to mid '60s. I think about the time the quit making the round back rear.
     
  22. nickk
    Joined: Feb 2, 2011
    Posts: 749

    nickk
    Member

    i got my "57" rearend today, turns out, its not a 57, it wasnt even the right lug pattern, its 5 on 5 1/2, no smooth back either, and the seals was smaller then 4 inches, and it was only 57ins wide, with self adjusting brakes, haha thanks to yalls help i was quickly able to realise it wasnt a 57, but i did buy it, pretty sure its a 9in, but i can only personally tell by the hogs head, but it dont have one. no clue what it came out of being that short with that lug pattern (32 spline) its also missing a drum so i needa find out what its off of so i can get one. im gonna try to get more information on the drum size and post a picture to see if yall may know what its out of, and yet it may have been shorten once before
     
  23. nickk
    Joined: Feb 2, 2011
    Posts: 749

    nickk
    Member

    its actually 59inches wide :/ kinda worried because im not running fenders and using 28/29 wire wheels on my 30 coupe, but the drums are 11inches in diameter on the inside and the pads are 2 1/4 inches wide, any ideas of what its from?
     
  24. 50shoe
    Joined: Sep 14, 2005
    Posts: 640

    50shoe
    Member

    Early bronco sounds like. Good rear too.
     
  25. BCR
    Joined: Dec 11, 2005
    Posts: 1,263

    BCR
    Member

    If you can take all the nuts off of the pumpkin with a socket it ain't a 9", it is an 8". If you need a 9/16" wrench on two of the bottom nuts, it is a 9".
     
  26. nickk
    Joined: Feb 2, 2011
    Posts: 749

    nickk
    Member

    thats the way i know

    but gonna go try the other real quick
     
  27. nickk
    Joined: Feb 2, 2011
    Posts: 749

    nickk
    Member

    theyre all 9/16 if that tells ya anything
     
  28. rallisracing
    Joined: Nov 3, 2008
    Posts: 199

    rallisracing

    57's rear ends were considered a nine inch, and the narrowest was the 57 Tbird at 56 inches.57 -59 station wagons, Rancheros, retractable hardtops and convertables had bigger diameter axles,which required bigger ID bearings.... and all were 28 spline. they were stronger to carry the xtra weight, but were no where near as stong as the later 31spline axles. If it fits and you have one, use it..limitless possibilities on gear ratios from 6.50 to 2.56- just in case you want to run Bonneville...
     
  29. nickk
    Joined: Feb 2, 2011
    Posts: 749

    nickk
    Member

    i like the way you think :D just wondering if itll be too wide looking with the model A wire wheels
     
  30. BCR
    Joined: Dec 11, 2005
    Posts: 1,263

    BCR
    Member


    Yep all 9/16 but what I was trying to say is if you need a wrench to remove the pumpkin its a 9. If you can take the pumpkin out without using a wrench (only socket) it is a 8"
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.