Register now to get rid of these ads!

Help with Ford/Edsel 9" differential

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Pop's Garage, Dec 22, 2008.

  1. Pop's Garage
    Joined: Jan 30, 2008
    Posts: 16

    Pop's Garage

    Bought a hot rod project with a rear-end supposed to be '58 Edsel 9"

    Looks exactly like 57 Fords that I have used in past, but drums - which are rusted/cracked and unusable seem different. The drums are 11" in diameter and approx. 2.5 inches deep (brake shoe surface). The drums have a raised center section to allow the drum to offset toward the center of the differential. Measurement from rim to wheel mounting surface is 3". Center hole is 2.375. Wheel pattern is 5 x 4.5 "

    The tag on the diff. has no numbers except the ratio: 3.56 It is about 50.5 inches in width backing plate to backing plate, has smooth center section with dimples and drain on bottom. Has "small Ford" backing plate.

    If it is an Edsel . . . Kanter shows drums to be 200. plus - too pricey for this old man.

    Can you please help?

    1) Is it an Edsel or Ford . . . what's the difference?
    2) Do you know a source for replacement drums for Ford or Edsel?

    Thanks in advance.
  2. missysdad1
    Joined: Dec 9, 2008
    Posts: 2,168


    I hope somebody has an answer to this question. I put a '58 Edsel 9" under my coupe fifteen years ago because it was a lot cheaper than a '57/'58 Ford 9"...then I learned why! After much searching I managed to find a good used drum to replace the one bad one, but they are still smaller than Ford brakes as I recall. My car can use all the "stop" it can get, so upgrading the rear drums would be a really good thing. Thanks for asking the question.
  3. Deuce Roadster
    Joined: Sep 8, 2002
    Posts: 9,520

    Deuce Roadster
    Member Emeritus

    Most of the Edsels I have looked at came with the larger axle bearing. :) But maybe some did come with the smaller ones ... I do not know for sure. A 1965 Ford Galaxie can have the smaller bearing and have 11x 2.5 brake drums. You might have to use their backing plates also.

    Just a POSSIBLE solution ... :D
  4. turdytoo
    Joined: May 14, 2007
    Posts: 1,555


    Sounds like that unobtainable 57-59 station wagon/ Ranchero brake to me. I welded up the drum pilot, lug holes and od on the axles flange. I redrilled the bolt pateern 5 on 5 1/2 and duplicated the F-1/ F-100 drum pilot. I used the complete brakes off of the old 44 Spicer out of my '56 F-100 that was replaced by a 60 F-100 nine inch. All my rear brake parts are the same.
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. turdytoo
    Joined: May 14, 2007
    Posts: 1,555


    Some have 5 on 5 bolt circle.
  6. bluebolt
    Joined: Jan 9, 2008
    Posts: 305

    from Benton LA

    Last edited: Dec 22, 2008
  7. Pop's Garage
    Joined: Jan 30, 2008
    Posts: 16

    Pop's Garage

    Thanks for the input . . . the differential has the "small Ford" backing plate pattern . . . so would probably be wise for me to find a set of later Ford backing plates and drums - replacing the existing Ford/Edsel (whichever they are) backing plates.

    Attached Files:

  8. backyardbeliever
    Joined: Sep 15, 2006
    Posts: 298


    58 edsel is 5x5 lug pattern, 59-60 is 5 x 4.5
  9. Von Rigg Fink
    Joined: Jun 11, 2007
    Posts: 13,432

    Von Rigg Fink
    from Garage

    had this same Drum issue on my Montego 8" the drums seem to be the same you have..and yes they were expensive as I didnt buy them..from the advise of another HAMBer..I bought 11"x2" drums for a ford ranger i believe..they dont look the same..but they do work and are as deep and same important measurements as the stock drums be sure you have the 5 on 4.5 pattern..if you do..Pm me and i will get you the part number off the box of new drums i have, probably save you the trouble of getting all new brake backing plates and hardware..
  10. skyspop
    Joined: Sep 9, 2002
    Posts: 388


    so whats the width difference between edsels & ford?
  11. Pop's Garage
    Joined: Jan 30, 2008
    Posts: 16

    Pop's Garage

    Don't know - but this one is approx. 50 and one-half inches between the backing plates.
  12. dave lewis
    Joined: Dec 12, 2006
    Posts: 1,309

    dave lewis

    Pop, I have some spares from a project i am working on. Also, I do not think that they will be all that hard to find replacements for....Let me look at the parts store in the morning...
    (working on a 57 fairlane far everything seems to match the 59 ranger i have...)
  13. Goztrider
    Joined: Feb 17, 2007
    Posts: 3,067

    from Tulsa, OK

    I wonder if you can swap out the backing plates between the Edsel and the Ford to solve this problem?
  14. The37Kid
    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 21,978


    This looks like a good place to ask, sorry if I'm hijacking the post. If I want to use a "period perfect" Ford 9 inch rear do I have to use a 1962 or older rear or is a narrowed later 9 inch going to look the same externally?

  15. This is a 62 Ford half ton nine inch.

    They come 61 1/2" measured outer drum to outer drum. (Wheel flange mount.)

    The main difference appearance-wise is the two dimples pressed into the rear of the housing.
    I believe these are to improve oil flow to the ring gear.
    A lot of guys fill these in so as to get a smooth housing back.

    I believe this rear axle housing was used for several years beyond 1962.
  16. Deuce Roadster
    Joined: Sep 8, 2002
    Posts: 9,520

    Deuce Roadster
    Member Emeritus

    The backing plate to backing plate measurement is basically worthless ... :eek: because of the differences in brake drum widths.

    The best way to measure is this way :)


    Most rodders actually like the 57 - 58 - 59 Ford car rear ends ... because they are right at 58 inches wide ... measured the way above ... and they have a round, smooth butt. They also have a drain hole in the very bottom of the housing. I suggest you go here ... ... and read this. It is a very good tutorial site on the 9 inch Ford.
  17. Pop's Garage,

    You may be able to do what I did vis a vis brake drums.
    Mine got lost in the shuffle during the California to Arizona move a few years back.

    The rear axle flange etc. pictured has 1 3/4" linings which made finding a drum for a reasonable price difficult.
    I'm guessing you may have 2 1/4" wide linings and from what I learned at the parts house and cruising the junkyard the wider drum may be easier to find.

    A critical measurement will be axle flange to edge of backing plate.
    I understand there are three - and possibly more - backing plates for the nine inch and the main difference is the offset or depth of the backing plate.

    This pic shows mine.

    The overly long studs came with the alloy axles and believe it or nut, 48 Ford hubcaps fit over them.

    Where I ran into problems is that I have a bunch of slot mags, some 4 1/2" pattern and most are Uni-Lug (that don't require a special washer) for both the 4 1/2" and 4 3/4" bolt pattern.
    Really helps since the front hubs are 4 3/4" and rear is 4 1/2".

    What I found out was that I needed the 57 Ford brake drum and they were $120. a pair and that was with a good discount.
    (Find out who the hot rodders are at the parts house.)

    When I measured the brake lining width, I was surprised to find they were 1 3/4".
    My 32 roadster runs the same rear housing and it has 2 1/4" linings.

    Perhaps it would have been easier to set up 2 1/4" drums on this car, but I wanted a less powerful brake in the rear and figured the 1 3/4" linings would help in that vein.

    I ended up getting a pair of drums for the 62 Ford half ton.
    A bit surprising to find they came stock with the narrower brakes.

    When I got the alloy axles I specified 4 1/2" pattern since I had a couple sets of 10" wide wheels.
    That's where things got interesting in the brake drum dept.
    62 Ford half ton linings and drums are easier to find than are the $$ 57 drums.

    I'd made a wheel drill jig plate some time back and that was used to drill the drums - which were originally 5 1/2" pattern - to the 4 1/2" pattern.

    Drilling drums at home is easy to do.
    Even without a drill jig.

    Since the drum face is flat and - if I remember right - the brake drum lug holes are 9/16" there's a little leeway for accuracy, but not much.

    There are guys here on the HAMB who've drilled drums and axles using the plastic wheel pattern checker gizmo for a jig.
    Pretty sure most of them used transfer punches to mark the drum/axle, but if you go slow and use your head, it's easy.

    The nice part was, the 62 half ton drums new only cost $40. each.
    Better than screwing around with junkyard drums that are rusty and cost $30. each....:cool:
  18. Only thing I can add to Deuce's how-to-measure post and pic is you can add 1/8" each side for the thickness of the brake drum at the mounting area.

    And . . . memorize how he does it so we're all talking the same language.
  19. popshelper
    Joined: Dec 27, 2008
    Posts: 1

    from SoCal

    Great avatar! Looks like a good project.
  20. Paul2748
    Joined: Jan 8, 2003
    Posts: 1,822


    I have the 2 1/2 inch shoes on my 57/59 reat - I was told they were TBird (60's). They have the four (two each shoe) holding pins for the shoes. Needed inner hardware, got new stuff for a pickup.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!


Copyright © 1995-2013 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.