Looking for a better rear end

grumppyoldman

grumppyoldman

Well-known member
I'm wanting to go to a stronger rear end for my 55 Faielane, it has an 8 inch in it now. I rebuilt it to give me some time to find a better one. Some on here have mentioned one from a Ford ranger that is the same width and might get one that has a locking differential. I think it was mentioned that the rear end was an 8.8 inch. If anyone of you have that info. I would like to have it, i'm in no big hurry, but am concerned about the 8 inch may not be strong enough for my engine. It is a 302 c.i., Edelbrock Performer intake with Weber 4 barrel, headers with duels. It has a cam, but I don't know which. It idles kinda rough, so I know it's more than a mild one. I like to get into it once in a while and don't think the 8 inch is going to last, have no idea what the HP of the engine is, but when I shift the C4 from low to 2nd it squells the tire. God that's fun. Al
 
If you get a rear axle from an old Ranger, make sure it had a 4.0L V-6. The 4 cyl. Rangers came with a smaller axle. Pretty sure all of the Explorers came with an 8.8".
Also, if there is still a tag on one of the rear gear cover bolts, it will have the gear ratio on it. If it has an "L" after it, that means it's a limited slip (posi).


Sal
 
If that is a later 8" FORD rear w/ removable carrier, it should be more than strong enough. Otherwise you should consider a 9". Changing gears under the car makes no sense.
 
I am running a 9” under my 56. I put this in many years ago so do not know the year but believe it was a late 50,s so bolted right in. From the axle ends should have 31 spline axles, but hat pulled them to be sure. Finding a early one would be a problem.
 
57-59 Ford 9" is a bolt in. They were orginally 28 spline axels but 31 spline will fit if you want a 31 spline center section. Been running 28 spline for years with no issues. Would take a lot to break a 28 spline. I ran a 300 horse 312 hard for years and finlaly twisted off an orginal axel. Running 400 horse 312 now and haven't broken anything yet.
 
Many years ago I ran a '63 Fairlane with a well built 289 and 8" rear end with no failures. The size of the tires determines the load on the rear gears. You can't get big enough tires under a stock bodied '55 Fairlane to hurt a 8". I have a '88 Ranger with a well built 302 and 7.5" limited slip that I punish often with no problem. Have fun!
 
grumppyoldman said:
I'm wanting to go to a stronger rear end for my 55 Faielane, it has an 8 inch in it now. I rebuilt it to give me some time to find a better one. Some on here have mentioned one from a Ford ranger that is the same width and might get one that has a locking differential. I think it was mentioned that the rear end was an 8.8 inch. If anyone of you have that info. I would like to have it, i'm in no big hurry, but am concerned about the 8 inch may not be strong enough for my engine. It is a 302 c.i., Edelbrock Performer intake with Weber 4 barrel, headers with duels. It has a cam, but I don't know which. It idles kinda rough, so I know it's more than a mild one. I like to get into it once in a while and don't think the 8 inch is going to last, have no idea what the HP of the engine is, but when I shift the C4 from low to 2nd it squells the tire. God that's fun. Al
Click to expand...
This will help you to select one and how to I.D. them: https://therangerstation.com/tech_library/Ford-8_8-axle.shtml Check out the video I posted a link to here: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/8-8-rearend.1051093/
 
estout81 said:
Many years ago I ran a '63 Fairlane with a well built 289 and 8" rear end with no failures. The size of the tires determines the load on the rear gears. You can't get big enough tires under a stock bodied '55 Fairlane to hurt a 8". I have a '88 Ranger with a well built 302 and 7.5" limited slip that I punish often with no problem. Have fun!
Click to expand...


You have better luck with them I did. I had a 66 mustang with a fairly stout 289 and blew the spider gears on a 8". Hit 2nd. gear and kablooy. Got a tow home. :)
 
With the right parts, a 8 inch can be made very stout and handle lots of horsepower. Traction locks are available. Other wise, a 9 inch from a 57/58 (bolt in) are strong, lots of aftermarket stuff for them.
 
I used a Ranger Supercab 4X4 with a trailer hitch. It had an axle 56 and 5/8 flange to flange, 3.73 traction loc, and I don't remember what year. About 92 or 93 when the cab got wider, the axles did too. Get the narrow one. The small engined Rangers had small brakes, don't go there. I beat on that 8.8 for years with a built 312, and someone else is beating on it now. It never failed me.
 
I have one of the narrower Ranger rear ends that I'm considering for my '54 Ranch Wagon. The WMS to WMS dimensions are just a tab bit less than the original rear end which should make removing the rear tires easier and there is enough back space so the narrower width isn't an issue. The Ranger rear had the smaller brakes but the larger brakes from the later and wider Ranger rear end are a true direct bolt on. I plan on running a stock 302 with an AOD so I'm not worried about the Ranger rear end not being strong enough.
 
The early Mustang GT had a 7.5" rear end same as Ranger except four bolt axle and drums. They were also limited slip. Had a '83 GT Mustang. Put over 200K trouble free miles on it.
 
Ole Don said:
I used a Ranger Supercab 4X4 with a trailer hitch. It had an axle 56 and 5/8 flange to flange, 3.73 traction loc, and I don't remember what year. About 92 or 93 when the cab got wider, the axles did too. Get the narrow one. The small engined Rangers had small brakes, don't go there. I beat on that 8.8 for years with a built 312, and someone else is beating on it now. It never failed me.
Click to expand...

So is the Ford explorer the same rear end? Is that a drop out carrier? As I remember I thought that was a Spicer type carrier.
 
A 57 - 59 Ford is 57.25" flange to flange. The 95 - 01 Explorer is 59.5" flange to flange, common as dirt, 3.73 and 4.11 all had T-locks, can be narrowed easily by getting a second "short side" axle, all were 8.8 and while not bullet proof will handle most anything a street tire will give it.
 
Ford blue blood said:
A 57 - 59 Ford is 57.25" flange to flange. The 95 - 01 Explorer is 59.5" flange to flange, common as dirt, 3.73 and 4.11 all had T-locks, can be narrowed easily by getting a second "short side" axle, all were 8.8 and while not bullet proof will handle most anything a street tire will give it.
Click to expand...
You might want to get the 15" Explorer wheels with the axle for two reasons they will clear the Explorer disc brakes and because they have a more positive offset than the old 50's Ford wheels and they will offer more wheel well clearance. ;)
 
Last edited:
I'm running 14" Thunderbird spoke wheels that I've just put on new wide white Coker tires. I need to keep the same bolt pattern, so my wheels will fit the axle. the tire dia. is hurting my engine RPM, so I would like to change to a taller rear ratio. Al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top