1934 Ford rearend

thirt4

thirt4

Senior Member
Today I spoke to a guy on the phone who is going to buy one of my spare gas tanks.
During the conversation, he asked what rear end was under my '34 coupe. I told him it was at this time, the stock banjo rear end, unknown gear ratio but I have been told to exchange it for an 8 inch or a 9 inch Ford.
He said on his '34 he has an Olds rear end that is too wide and does not know what to replace it with.

Does anyone have a "perfect" non banjo or Olds rear end idea that we should go with for our cars? I sort of like the 8 or 9 inch idea but am not sure if that is the way to go and if it is, I do not know what gear ratio I should run.
For my car, I will be using (I believe) the stock 3 speed transmission unless I find the "perfect" T5 5 or 6 speed to go behind my Merc that I have decided to attempt to put in it.
I do not know what his engine and transmission combo is yet but should tomorrow.
 
You are on the wrong forum. On this one the 34 rear end is just fine for all flatheads in 33-4 cars.
 
Ya think? Well, my question still stands please. Many other fellas ask similar questions and I see no gripes about theirs.
Question - Which more modern rear end would be best for my 1934 Ford coupe and what gear ratio with a stock 3 speed would be best for highway drives as well as around town?
Thank you.
 
I think Jim was suggesting that you might have better luck posing your question on the H.A.M.B., since its members are more likely to have tried other rear ends. Just sayin'.
 
I continue to think the street rodders are better voiced to offer opinions... At the risk of 'dating' myself, I have a 57-58 Station Wagon 9-inch under one of my 34's. It was about as 'perfect' as I could find, back in the day, being about 1-inch wider than stock 34. At one time, I believe this was the 'standard' street-rodder modification for the rear end (This was in the 70's.) There has to be better, more modern answers to this question, today. I've read that some guys have found an early Bronco 9-in is about 'right' for width. And, if I were looking, and was interested in a Dana 44, I'd probably be measuring a 72-82-era CJ-5. Just a thought, JMO.
 
Someone once posted a list of all modern rears with their overall widths given that could be considered for use in these early Fords. Maybe a search here would turn that thread up.
 
I believe the Maverick/Comet 8 inch rear is a common one that has been used. I put one in my street rodded 5w coupe and did not have to narrow it. I also think it is the one recommended when switching over to the aftermarket dual rear spring kits.
 
Fair enough guys. As always you have the best advice, it is a matter of when it soaks in to me that I realize that.
I apologize and I will go to that Hamb site and get signed up and in and post the question there and also search for that rear end list on here too.
Now, isn't a Dana rear end for trucks or real heavy stuff? Shouldn't a car rear end be lighter? I do not want to have to modify my frame at all to change rear ends.
Thank you.
 
I believe Dana made rear axle assemblies for both cars and trucks. They did make some really heavy ones but they also built a lot of car rear ends. JMO.
 
You would love a Maverick. I have one in my hemi powered 32. I run wheel adapters to get back to the early Ford pattern. No problems in 125000 miles.The other small advantage is that wire wheels will fit this combo. They are lighter so they ride better and the light weight helps acceleratin also. You will never break one as you don't have enough weight to load one.
I would keep you 3 sp and convert to open drive with parts from a truck. Any bigger late model trans will require cutting some of the frame and floor.
 
thirt4,You will have to alter or remove the saddle portion(where the 34 trans sits) of the frame to get the T5 in.Don't know about the floor but might be tight even using the s10 shifter.In a 35-36 the shifter is about an inch in front of the opening of the tunnel.I used a 57 Ford wagon rear in my 36 and it fits in perfectly using Chassis Eng rear leaf spring kit.
 
Now said:
IMO... There are Dana's for pickups, van's, motor-homes, like 60's and 70's. Several pickups in my family came with Dana 60's (late 60 to early 70's Dodge, Ford, and Chevy.) Dana 44's came in Jeeps, both CJ's and wagons/pickups. Also in some old Ford pickups. Also, in modern Jeeps. Also in the front of late-model 4x4's, like F-150, late Bronco's, Chevy Blazers. IMO, 60's are too heavy for an early Ford. But, 44's compare somewhat to the Ford 9-in. They are 8-7/8 ring gear (I think), pretty sturdy flanged axles, and the 5-on-5.5 wheel pattern. I believe you will find they are less massive than the 9-in - IMO more desirable than a 9-in, if you care about un-sprung weight and ride quality. Having said that, most fabricators choose the 9-in. I'd be looking to the other suggestions - like the posted suggestion of a Maverick/Comet. I look at a 9-in in an early car, and ask myself, why? It's certainly not needed for the power that most of us here have. The 'built' Chevy crowd could make better use of it. And, in my view, the ride suffers. I agree with you... a car rear-end should be lighter, and, sturdy enough for the job.
Another consideration... I'm not a big fan of 'bearing-on-axle' construction (axle is used for inner race of bearing). So, I'd be looking for a rear end that uses 'real' bearings on the axle.
I'm also not crazy about C-clips - I'd try to avoid.
I'm also not too crazy about the axle retainment used on both the 9-in, and the Dana 44. If the axle bearing fails on either of these, the axle, wheel, drum, and tire make a rather quick exit. It's happened to me, with both of these rear ends, and it is my understanding that this is fairly common. This might be a good reason to use disc brakes on the rear - they will retain the axle/wheel assembly in case of a bearing failure.
All of this... Just opinion with a little experience.
Click to expand...
 
Someone told you to use an 8 or 9 inch axle under it.

You may still be using the stock 3 speed gearbox (You believe).

You seem surprised that you will have to cut the frame and body to fit a 5 speed gearbox.

May I respectfully suggest that you retain the flathead, three speed and stock axle?

You seem to be unsure of what you want and could be in danger of blindly following ill conceived advice and ruining a nice car.

I may have read the situation wrong, and if so I apologise. But I would advise you to think long and hard before changing anything.

And this advice is from a person with hot rodding history.

Mart.
 
Andy said:
You would love a Maverick. I have one in my hemi powered 32. I run wheel adapters to get back to the early Ford pattern. No problems in 125000 miles.The other small advantage is that wire wheels will fit this combo. They are lighter so they ride better and the light weight helps acceleratin also. You will never break one as you don't have enough weight to load one.
I would keep you 3 sp and convert to open drive with parts from a truck. Any bigger late model trans will require cutting some of the frame and floor.
Click to expand...
Using the 1942-52 pickup 3-sp open drive parts in a 1932-34 chassis is not a bolt-in. The pickup trans mount arms are in a bad position with respect to the early crossmember and some sort of rear motor or transmission mount has to be fabricated.
 
Mart... I do believe you have hit the nail right on MY head! You have, for now, slowed me down on tearing a good car up.
I do want to put my '53 Merc full house in my coupe and I do have a very nice, stock, 3 speed transmission to replace the used one I am currently using. Both the engine and the transmission are in their shipping crates yet from the respective builders.
The rear end I have may need to be replaced as I really do want hydraulic brakes disc or otherwise on this coupe. These stock, manual brakes are apparently not dependable even though... I have used them now for over 10 years and they always work and stop me when I need to stop.
There are many, many things to do on this car that I am spending too much time deciding which to do first. I think I shall go to town and have a nice supper and relax. This has been a busy day.
On a good note, I just got back home from meeting with the new owner of a company called "Bitchin" products. I do believe he will be able to resolve my small rust spots in my floorboards if nothing else.
 
You are absolutely right about the mount. Surely not a bolt in deal.
My advice is like others have suggested. Leave it alone and just enjoy it. If you must have a different rear gear ratio, it can be done with the rear you have.
 
thirt4 said:
Mart... I do believe you have hit the nail right on MY head! You have, for now, slowed me down on tearing a good car up.
I do want to put my '53 Merc full house in my coupe and I do have a very nice, stock, 3 speed transmission to replace the used one I am currently using. Both the engine and the transmission are in their shipping crates yet from the respective builders.
The rear end I have may need to be replaced as I really do want hydraulic brakes disc or otherwise on this coupe. These stock, manual brakes are apparently not dependable even though... I have used them now for over 10 years and they always work and stop me when I need to stop.
There are many, many things to do on this car that I am spending too much time deciding which to do first. I think I shall go to town and have a nice supper and relax. This has been a busy day.
On a good note, I just got back home from meeting with the new owner of a company called "Bitchin" products. I do believe he will be able to resolve my small rust spots in my floorboards if nothing else.
Click to expand...
If your going to run a flathead and stock ****** stick with your 34 rear end,just install a set of 378 or 354 gears, the problem your going to have is putting a 8ba flathead is a 34, it wont fit! not without a butt load of work, Good Luck with your project
 
thirt4 - Depending on how much you use your car, mechanical brakes might be just fine.

If you use the car a lot, hydraulics would be a reasonable choice and could be done by "re-arranginf" Ford parts. However, if you use the car very sporadically, the mechanical brakes might be a better choice because the hydraulic system is subject to internal corrosion if not used/heated up regularly. The heat from usage drives out the moisture. FWIW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top