Ford 8.8 in FB
01-01-12, 06:58 PM
#1
Ford 8.8 in FB
After reading about other people's issues, I'm convinced I need to upgrade my rear end. I currently have a GSL-SE rear with the following mods:
- Oil fill added higher on housing for more capacity
- Inner axle dams extended to top of housing, with small drain holes added
- Tri-link / panhard conversion
I'm currently making about 350 RWHP, and I plan to increase the load on the rear axle by:
1. Making more power by increasing boost
2. Increasing traction by running stickier rear tires
3. Increasing grip by altering trailing arm geometry
After a good bit of research, I've decided to upgrade to an 8.8. I'm going to retain the 3 link setup by adding a third link attachment point at the top of the center housing, and I also plan to retain the panhard rod.
I'm looking for experiences with 8.8 conversions (or any others) -- good, bad, whatever.
- Oil fill added higher on housing for more capacity
- Inner axle dams extended to top of housing, with small drain holes added
- Tri-link / panhard conversion
I'm currently making about 350 RWHP, and I plan to increase the load on the rear axle by:
1. Making more power by increasing boost
2. Increasing traction by running stickier rear tires
3. Increasing grip by altering trailing arm geometry
After a good bit of research, I've decided to upgrade to an 8.8. I'm going to retain the 3 link setup by adding a third link attachment point at the top of the center housing, and I also plan to retain the panhard rod.
I'm looking for experiences with 8.8 conversions (or any others) -- good, bad, whatever.
01-01-12, 07:08 PM
#2
My 7 is my girlfriend.
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,162
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From what I've read the thing is heavy as hell. Mike tic is running near 400 hp using the stock housing with an OS Giken diff and Moser axles. Probably a cheaper and easier alternative.
01-02-12, 05:57 AM
#6
With my current setup, I haven't broken the rear diff (original tri-link geometry and street tires). You see, I can't really lay down any power until 3rd gear, so the wheelspin in 1st and 2nd is acting like a fuse.
Once I correct this stuff, I think I'll need something stronger. If I recall, most of the IMSA cars ran Ford 9" diffs. I'm sure they wouldn't have run such a heavy (and inefficient) rear end if it wasn't necessary. . . and they were making less power.
01-02-12, 06:10 AM
#7
The center housing on 8.8 live axle cars is cast iron, with steel axle tubes pressed in and plug welded. The architecture is very similar to a GM 12-bolt. All that said, the center section on the Mustang Cobra with IRS is aluminum. I actually considered trying something crazy like welding aluminum axle tubes, spring perches, brackets, etc. to that center section. I'm sure it could be done, and it would probably save some weight, but I think it would cost a lot of time and money to get it right.
Trending Topics
01-02-12, 09:28 AM
#8
I have one, and it IS heavy as hell.
I went with a 4-link setup, and it does have more drivetrain losses than I prefer, - but it is bulletproof. I have ZERO traction issues and it hooks up with drag radials all the time. (But that is the magic of a 4-link).
That being said, when I did mine, Granny's kit wasn't an option. Now, and I wish I kept the stock style mounting perches like Granny's. that way I could have kept the stock springs/shocks, and even brakes.
If you MUST have more than 350ish wheel horses, you will have to upgrade something in the rear. I do think Mikeric's differential with Moser Axles is the way to go (on a car running street tires), without adding all the weight.
If you're planning to drag, and or run sticky tires, - then look into Granny's kits.
Good luck and keep us posted.
I went with a 4-link setup, and it does have more drivetrain losses than I prefer, - but it is bulletproof. I have ZERO traction issues and it hooks up with drag radials all the time. (But that is the magic of a 4-link).
That being said, when I did mine, Granny's kit wasn't an option. Now, and I wish I kept the stock style mounting perches like Granny's. that way I could have kept the stock springs/shocks, and even brakes.
If you MUST have more than 350ish wheel horses, you will have to upgrade something in the rear. I do think Mikeric's differential with Moser Axles is the way to go (on a car running street tires), without adding all the weight.
If you're planning to drag, and or run sticky tires, - then look into Granny's kits.
Good luck and keep us posted.
01-03-12, 06:15 AM
#9
In their test, they swapped rear axles into the same car and made dyno runs. The rear ends they test are a 12-bolt (almost identical architecture to a Ford 8.8), a Dana 60, and a Ford 9". I attached the most important graph below. It shows the 12-bolt as being more efficient than the others.
I don't know for sure, but with modern concerns over fuel economy, it would explain why Ford switched from the 8"/9" design (low pinion / low efficiency) many years ago to the 12-bolt / 8.8" design (high pinion / high efficiency).
The FB rear end seems to have a fairly low pinion location, with a design that is more similar to a scaled down Ford 9", but I have no data on its efficiency.
Now weight is another factor. There's no doubt that the larger ring gear axles are heavier.
01-03-12, 09:58 AM
#10
I have no idea. I am not an engineer.
It's just a ALOT heavier than an my original SE axle and harder to turn (at least by hand it was).
One thing I really am glad I did with the rear was put a taller gear (3.73) on it.
Now first gear is not useless, and I can do 110 mph in third gear (redline).
It's just a ALOT heavier than an my original SE axle and harder to turn (at least by hand it was).
One thing I really am glad I did with the rear was put a taller gear (3.73) on it.
Now first gear is not useless, and I can do 110 mph in third gear (redline).
01-05-12, 06:02 AM
#11
1st gens only
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We put a 8.8 in our 83 RX-7 Lemons Car so we could run matching wheels front and rear. The rear end is definitely heavier.
(not sure of the amount but I can manage a FB rear end myself and the 8.8 pretty much needs two people)
It is wider by about two - three inches. Running 02ish 17X8 Mustang GT wheels it sticks out about two inches each side in the rear. We just cut the stock mounts off and welded them the 8.8. The lower shock mounts worked just fine with some spacers. I've got some pictures of part of the process somewhere. We had to modify the watts link. It seems to handle about the same without any funkyness but keep in mind this is all track work and is a crappy car to begin with. Running a 3.55 ish rear end.
If I could do it over I would have just gotten the Moser Axles since its just road course stuff. With the taller tires it the 3.9 would have worked just as well. As it is now its a little tall. Planning on 3.73's and a panhard setup now.
Good luck. Let me know if you need the pics but keep in mind this was a low buck semi ghetto install. The mounting points wont really matter since your running a panhard either.
Here are some pics of the car before the last race. http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/reader-rides/6984/
(not sure of the amount but I can manage a FB rear end myself and the 8.8 pretty much needs two people)
It is wider by about two - three inches. Running 02ish 17X8 Mustang GT wheels it sticks out about two inches each side in the rear. We just cut the stock mounts off and welded them the 8.8. The lower shock mounts worked just fine with some spacers. I've got some pictures of part of the process somewhere. We had to modify the watts link. It seems to handle about the same without any funkyness but keep in mind this is all track work and is a crappy car to begin with. Running a 3.55 ish rear end.
If I could do it over I would have just gotten the Moser Axles since its just road course stuff. With the taller tires it the 3.9 would have worked just as well. As it is now its a little tall. Planning on 3.73's and a panhard setup now.
Good luck. Let me know if you need the pics but keep in mind this was a low buck semi ghetto install. The mounting points wont really matter since your running a panhard either.
Here are some pics of the car before the last race. http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/reader-rides/6984/
01-05-12, 11:16 AM
#12
Not a bad looking machine.
- Is the rear axle out of a Mustang?
- How does the cross-car pinion location compare?
- If you take the suspension to full jounce, does the pumpkin hit the floorpan? i.e. Does this axle require you to raise the rear of the car?
- Did you keep the Mustang brakes? Did you need to run a prop valve to get the bias correct?
Any pics would be appreciated.
- Is the rear axle out of a Mustang?
- How does the cross-car pinion location compare?
- If you take the suspension to full jounce, does the pumpkin hit the floorpan? i.e. Does this axle require you to raise the rear of the car?
- Did you keep the Mustang brakes? Did you need to run a prop valve to get the bias correct?
Any pics would be appreciated.
01-05-12, 12:13 PM
#13
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
How do you know / how did you measure the drivetrain losses? I was led to believe that the high pinion location (low hypoid offset) on the 8.8 made it very efficient. Here's a tech article from Carcraft that shows a comparison of rear end efficiency --> http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles...wap/index.html
I don't know for sure, but with modern concerns over fuel economy, it would explain why Ford switched from the 8"/9" design (low pinion / low efficiency) many years ago to the 12-bolt / 8.8" design (high pinion / high efficiency).
The FB rear end seems to have a fairly low pinion location, with a design that is more similar to a scaled down Ford 9", but I have no data on its efficiency.
Now weight is another factor. There's no doubt that the larger ring gear axles are heavier.
I don't know for sure, but with modern concerns over fuel economy, it would explain why Ford switched from the 8"/9" design (low pinion / low efficiency) many years ago to the 12-bolt / 8.8" design (high pinion / high efficiency).
The FB rear end seems to have a fairly low pinion location, with a design that is more similar to a scaled down Ford 9", but I have no data on its efficiency.
Now weight is another factor. There's no doubt that the larger ring gear axles are heavier.
the test is weird in a way, because engine power isn't constant, so its actually hard to read the graph, and B, how come all the curves don't line up? granted its better than nothing....
01-05-12, 05:34 PM
#14
i have the same issue with mine 3 broken gslse diff so now i just take easy out of the hole
After reading about other people's issues, I'm convinced I need to upgrade my rear end. I currently have a GSL-SE rear with the following mods:
- Oil fill added higher on housing for more capacity
- Inner axle dams extended to top of housing, with small drain holes added
- Tri-link / panhard conversion
I'm currently making about 350 RWHP, and I plan to increase the load on the rear axle by:
1. Making more power by increasing boost
2. Increasing traction by running stickier rear tires
3. Increasing grip by altering trailing arm geometry
After a good bit of research, I've decided to upgrade to an 8.8. I'm going to retain the 3 link setup by adding a third link attachment point at the top of the center housing, and I also plan to retain the panhard rod.
I'm looking for experiences with 8.8 conversions (or any others) -- good, bad, whatever.
- Oil fill added higher on housing for more capacity
- Inner axle dams extended to top of housing, with small drain holes added
- Tri-link / panhard conversion
I'm currently making about 350 RWHP, and I plan to increase the load on the rear axle by:
1. Making more power by increasing boost
2. Increasing traction by running stickier rear tires
3. Increasing grip by altering trailing arm geometry
After a good bit of research, I've decided to upgrade to an 8.8. I'm going to retain the 3 link setup by adding a third link attachment point at the top of the center housing, and I also plan to retain the panhard rod.
I'm looking for experiences with 8.8 conversions (or any others) -- good, bad, whatever.
01-05-12, 05:44 PM
#15
The graph is only charting RWHP from the same car, with the different rear ends. It seems like a reasonable way to compare efficiency to me -- although I would have put the first rear end back in the car and run it again to make sure there was no drift caused by other factors (engine temp, transmission temp, ambient temp, etc.) The 12 Bolt and the Dana 60 track similarly; the 9" doesn't. The different loss profile vs. RPM does look suspicious. I'll see if I can find more data.
01-05-12, 06:14 PM
#16
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
The graph is only charting RWHP from the same car, with the different rear ends. It seems like a reasonable way to compare efficiency to me -- although I would have put the first rear end back in the car and run it again to make sure there was no drift caused by other factors (engine temp, transmission temp, ambient temp, etc.) The 12 Bolt and the Dana 60 track similarly; the 9" doesn't. The different loss profile vs. RPM does look suspicious. I'll see if I can find more data.
it also would have been nice if they revved it higher, but some info is better than none!
the 9 inch is cool because you can swap pumpkins, however its expensive and heavy vs the 8.8 which i think would make the 8.8 a better choice.
01-06-12, 03:31 PM
#17
rotorican85
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: en el culo de texas...
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my -se has a 8.8, 4.10 richmonds, dutchman axles and is a street driven car. it does take some getting used to but nothing out of ordinary...the damn gear whine from the richmond's is what's annoying. i even went as far as rechecking all clearances and its all where it should be.
however, when launching on slicks, i had to learn how to drive all over again!!!
i was used to slipping the clutch a bit to ease into it with the stock diff, but with this 8.8 i can launch bouncing off the rev limiter at 8300 and just drop the clutch and hold on!! it's a helluva lotto fun once u get used to that!
however, when launching on slicks, i had to learn how to drive all over again!!!
i was used to slipping the clutch a bit to ease into it with the stock diff, but with this 8.8 i can launch bouncing off the rev limiter at 8300 and just drop the clutch and hold on!! it's a helluva lotto fun once u get used to that!
01-07-12, 12:03 PM
#21
love the braaaap
A good while back I was talking with someone that was going to do a toyota 8" swap. Never really heard much about it, but I did read up on them a bit and it seems like a good midrange axle. They come in a width thats reletively close to what the 1st gen needs. I have heard they are good up to at least 400hp, possibly more and there is plenty of aftermarket support from the offroading world, as far as gearing and brake options go.
01-07-12, 08:45 PM
#22
The Toyota 8" looks like a reasonable option. It looks similar to the Mazda FB rear end in general design. I imagine it weighs a little more than an FB rear axle since everything's a little bigger. Efficiency looks like it would be similar to an FB rear end, since the pinion offset is similar.
I checked for the most efficient option, and it looks like the old banjo style rear axle is the best. With those designs the pinion contacts the center of the ring gear (spiral bevel design), as opposed to the more common rear end where the pinion contacts below the centerline (hypoid design). There is less shearing of the pinion surfaces with the spiral bevel design, so there is less friction and higher efficiency. Another advantage of the spiral bevel design is that the central "pumpkin" is often aluminum, so it's lighter. A potential downside is that this design raises the relative location of the driveshaft, which may create an issue with clearance to the tunnel. Packard was one of the first OEMs to move to the now more common hypoid design, and shrinking the tunnel was their primary motivation.
I attached the image of a Winters Non-Quickchange banjo-style rear end. It's like a quickchange, but it foregoes the extra gears, making it quieter, lighter, and cheaper.
I checked for the most efficient option, and it looks like the old banjo style rear axle is the best. With those designs the pinion contacts the center of the ring gear (spiral bevel design), as opposed to the more common rear end where the pinion contacts below the centerline (hypoid design). There is less shearing of the pinion surfaces with the spiral bevel design, so there is less friction and higher efficiency. Another advantage of the spiral bevel design is that the central "pumpkin" is often aluminum, so it's lighter. A potential downside is that this design raises the relative location of the driveshaft, which may create an issue with clearance to the tunnel. Packard was one of the first OEMs to move to the now more common hypoid design, and shrinking the tunnel was their primary motivation.
I attached the image of a Winters Non-Quickchange banjo-style rear end. It's like a quickchange, but it foregoes the extra gears, making it quieter, lighter, and cheaper.
01-20-12, 12:23 PM
#23
Full Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: nyc
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello everyone. I am going to past bunch of random info from mustang forums what i gathered for my 8.8 swap.
This information might be helpful for those interesting adapting ford rear end to widebody rx7- because it shows widths of different 8.8's
My car has widebody kit, and rims i have are vintage compomotive with ford pattern, So it is very possible to kill 2 birds with 1 stone- get mustang 8.8 rear that will match width of my flares but wheel bold pattern as well.
One thing is that i am not sure what "posi track" is?(it is sort of not pull posi?)- as mentioned below- but maybe someone can hint me on that. Also mentioned there is slight offset of pumpkin on Cherokee and blazer rear ends
hope this info will help somebody sure it will save me dollars as cherokee width with my compomotive rims will be 1/2" shorter each side to my rx7 wide body kit- no need for cutting and adding tube.
thanx
aka Hugging Corners
This information might be helpful for those interesting adapting ford rear end to widebody rx7- because it shows widths of different 8.8's
My car has widebody kit, and rims i have are vintage compomotive with ford pattern, So it is very possible to kill 2 birds with 1 stone- get mustang 8.8 rear that will match width of my flares but wheel bold pattern as well.
One thing is that i am not sure what "posi track" is?(it is sort of not pull posi?)- as mentioned below- but maybe someone can hint me on that. Also mentioned there is slight offset of pumpkin on Cherokee and blazer rear ends
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...6-mustang.html
The 8.8 is found in Rangers and Explorers most commonly but the Explorer rear end is more sought after as it is a 31 spline vs 28. Also, 95 and up Explorers have disc brakes that can easily be utilized. Explorer Sport editions (two door) as well as the later Sport Tracs always came with a stock Posi-Trac. These are identified by an "L" after the first number of the ratio on the tag that gets bolted to the diff cover. From example if you had 4.10 gears and a locker, it would read: 4L10. If it was a stock 3.5 without a locker it would be 350. The explorers came stock with 3.5's, 3.73's (optional locker) and 4.10's with a mandatory locker option. Your best bet is a 95 and up Explorer Sport rear end as they have have the 31 spline axle, locker and are perfect to modify for an early mustang.
The early Mustangs measured 57.25" flange to flange. The Explorer rear end is 2.5" wider (59.75"), however, it has an off set pinion 2.48" to the passenger/right side. What I've heard people can do is cut the drivers side tube by 2.48", weld in a new end and correct for the offset, as well as creating a perfect width axle for an early mustang. Now instead of going out and buying a custom width axle shaft, you can use a second passenger side shaft that is already the right size. This is the part I am not sure about, and that is what I would like to check with someone that has done this swap before.
I have heard from a few people that you can reuse the spring perches by just welding a slightly wider plate to adapt it to fit the stock mustang leafs.
Another thing to take into account is that the axle tube larger than an 8inch/9inch at 3.25". Also, in case you don't know, the shafts are held in place by C-clips, so if they do brake, your entire wheel/hub/shaft/brakes can side right out of the tube on you. My brother this this 4x4ing in his ranger and it caused all kinds of problems. If you really plan on beating on the rear end, C-clip eliminators are a good option.
These axles are very strong stock. That is why you see tons of guys starting to catch on and use them. The Chevy guys are onto them as well and I've seen several in Chevs at shows. They will handle upwards of 500hp without any problems (no more power than 90% of guys will have).
xxxx
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...ang-swaps.html
If you find both your lucky. Best thing to do is just go to the junkyard and get the rear end and then get the gt40 heads from an explorer that has them. At my junkyard i couldn't find any v8 explorers, but then again i wasn't looking but most were v6s. When picking a rear end look at the tag on the cover and the numbers you want to look for are 3L55 3L73 and 4L10 which are 3.55 3.73 and 4.10 rear ends equipped with not a locker (none had a locker) but fords traction lock which is essentially a posi. altho i can tell you that my 2 rear wheels lock up every time i hit the floor, lol.
xxxx
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...ml#post1749485
Yep, '95' and up have the disc brakes.
xxx
GEAR RATIO-i find it very important You can look on the label plate on the drivers door for the codes, here is what they indicate) http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f11/e...-swap-1001827/
41
Open 8.8"
3200
3.27
43
Open 8.8"
3200
3.08
44
Open 8.8"
3200
3.73
45
Open 8.8"
3200
3.55
D1
L/S 8.8"
3200
3.27
D2
L/S 8.8"
3200
4.10
D4
L/S 8.8"
3200
3.73
D5
L/S 8.8"
3200
3.73
L - Limited Slip Differential C - Conventional Differential
.....
1.) Spring Perch location and angle (been discussed)
2.) Overall width, my 8.8 from a 2003 explorer is about a 1/2" wider than stock. Not too big of a deal unless you already maxed out your tire/wheel sizes.
3.) The disk brake set-up may require a different master cylinder to accomodate the different volume of brake fluid required to fully actuate the rear brakes. And/Or a proportioning valve to adjust/balance your front to back brakes.
4.) If you have your car lowered, the offset pumpkin will likely cause the diff yoke/driveshaft to hit the passenger side tunnel under the back seat at least at the bumps in the road. This can be fixed with a hammer if you don't mind.
5.) The rear drive shaft yoke may have to be changed, but I'm not sure about this - my drive shaft is still in the shed and I plan on going to an AOD so I'll have to check both of my yokes.
6.) Your rear wheels will need to clear the new disc set-up. 14s won't unless your backspacing is near nil which is highly unlikely.
7) The shock plates and U-bolts will have to be changed to accommodate the difference in axel tube diameter. My 8.8 was 3.25 inches where the stock 4 lugger was 3. Currie carries these.
xxx
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...ang-swaps.html
IMO i would get a rear end that suits your needs then look for the Tubular aluminum driveshaft that comes on a 2wd ford explorer
xxx
The 8.8 is found in Rangers and Explorers most commonly but the Explorer rear end is more sought after as it is a 31 spline vs 28. Also, 95 and up Explorers have disc brakes that can easily be utilized. Explorer Sport editions (two door) as well as the later Sport Tracs always came with a stock Posi-Trac. These are identified by an "L" after the first number of the ratio on the tag that gets bolted to the diff cover. From example if you had 4.10 gears and a locker, it would read: 4L10. If it was a stock 3.5 without a locker it would be 350. The explorers came stock with 3.5's, 3.73's (optional locker) and 4.10's with a mandatory locker option. Your best bet is a 95 and up Explorer Sport rear end as they have have the 31 spline axle, locker and are perfect to modify for an early mustang.
The early Mustangs measured 57.25" flange to flange. The Explorer rear end is 2.5" wider (59.75"), however, it has an off set pinion 2.48" to the passenger/right side. What I've heard people can do is cut the drivers side tube by 2.48", weld in a new end and correct for the offset, as well as creating a perfect width axle for an early mustang. Now instead of going out and buying a custom width axle shaft, you can use a second passenger side shaft that is already the right size. This is the part I am not sure about, and that is what I would like to check with someone that has done this swap before.
I have heard from a few people that you can reuse the spring perches by just welding a slightly wider plate to adapt it to fit the stock mustang leafs.
Another thing to take into account is that the axle tube larger than an 8inch/9inch at 3.25". Also, in case you don't know, the shafts are held in place by C-clips, so if they do brake, your entire wheel/hub/shaft/brakes can side right out of the tube on you. My brother this this 4x4ing in his ranger and it caused all kinds of problems. If you really plan on beating on the rear end, C-clip eliminators are a good option.
These axles are very strong stock. That is why you see tons of guys starting to catch on and use them. The Chevy guys are onto them as well and I've seen several in Chevs at shows. They will handle upwards of 500hp without any problems (no more power than 90% of guys will have).
xxxx
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...ang-swaps.html
If you find both your lucky. Best thing to do is just go to the junkyard and get the rear end and then get the gt40 heads from an explorer that has them. At my junkyard i couldn't find any v8 explorers, but then again i wasn't looking but most were v6s. When picking a rear end look at the tag on the cover and the numbers you want to look for are 3L55 3L73 and 4L10 which are 3.55 3.73 and 4.10 rear ends equipped with not a locker (none had a locker) but fords traction lock which is essentially a posi. altho i can tell you that my 2 rear wheels lock up every time i hit the floor, lol.
xxxx
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...ml#post1749485
Yep, '95' and up have the disc brakes.
xxx
GEAR RATIO-i find it very important You can look on the label plate on the drivers door for the codes, here is what they indicate) http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f11/e...-swap-1001827/
41
Open 8.8"
3200
3.27
43
Open 8.8"
3200
3.08
44
Open 8.8"
3200
3.73
45
Open 8.8"
3200
3.55
D1
L/S 8.8"
3200
3.27
D2
L/S 8.8"
3200
4.10
D4
L/S 8.8"
3200
3.73
D5
L/S 8.8"
3200
3.73
L - Limited Slip Differential C - Conventional Differential
.....
1.) Spring Perch location and angle (been discussed)
2.) Overall width, my 8.8 from a 2003 explorer is about a 1/2" wider than stock. Not too big of a deal unless you already maxed out your tire/wheel sizes.
3.) The disk brake set-up may require a different master cylinder to accomodate the different volume of brake fluid required to fully actuate the rear brakes. And/Or a proportioning valve to adjust/balance your front to back brakes.
4.) If you have your car lowered, the offset pumpkin will likely cause the diff yoke/driveshaft to hit the passenger side tunnel under the back seat at least at the bumps in the road. This can be fixed with a hammer if you don't mind.
5.) The rear drive shaft yoke may have to be changed, but I'm not sure about this - my drive shaft is still in the shed and I plan on going to an AOD so I'll have to check both of my yokes.
6.) Your rear wheels will need to clear the new disc set-up. 14s won't unless your backspacing is near nil which is highly unlikely.
7) The shock plates and U-bolts will have to be changed to accommodate the difference in axel tube diameter. My 8.8 was 3.25 inches where the stock 4 lugger was 3. Currie carries these.
xxx
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...ang-swaps.html
IMO i would get a rear end that suits your needs then look for the Tubular aluminum driveshaft that comes on a 2wd ford explorer
xxx
thanx
aka Hugging Corners
01-23-12, 05:58 AM
#24
From the web: "Posi-trac is General Motor's term for their limited slip differentials. Ford calls theirs Trac-Lok and Chrysler is Sure-grip."
After doing a little more research, I'm leaning towards the Toyota 8". It's well-regarded in 4X4 and drag race circles for its strength, they're plentiful, they come in the right width, there's a good assortment of aftermarket parts (ring & pinions, differentials, etc.), they're not too big, and they don't weigh too much.
It won't be as strong as a Ford 8.8, but I don't think I'll need all that extra strength at my torque levels.
After doing a little more research, I'm leaning towards the Toyota 8". It's well-regarded in 4X4 and drag race circles for its strength, they're plentiful, they come in the right width, there's a good assortment of aftermarket parts (ring & pinions, differentials, etc.), they're not too big, and they don't weigh too much.
It won't be as strong as a Ford 8.8, but I don't think I'll need all that extra strength at my torque levels.
