Page 1 of 1
Correct Rear End fo TA
Posted:
11 Apr 2010 16:41
by TAGibb
I need to replace my rear end with a correct 3.55 sure grip with the correct casting numbers. Can anyone tell me the correct casting numbers for a TA rear end?
Also, do you need a puller to remove the axels? Will I need to change the axels and/ or the draive shaft, or are they the same (I have a 741 case now with 3.08 gears.
Re: Correct Rear End fo TA
Posted:
12 Apr 2010 0:32
by Alaskan_TA
Can anyone tell me the correct casting numbers for a TA rear end?
You want a 489 case with the large yoke.
Also, do you need a puller to remove the axels?
Not normally.
Will I need to change the axels
No.
or the draive shaft
It depends on what you have. T/A drive shafts have the small yoke in front & the large one in the rear.
Posted:
12 Apr 2010 7:39
by dave-r
The axle shafts can sometimes be a bugger to pull out.
A simple way to make it easy is to take the brake drum off and reverse it on the studs with the wheel nuts started a few threads. Then wedge some wood between the drum and brake shoes and tighten the wheel nuts. You may need to do it twice with some thicker wood to extract the axle all the way.
Just make sure you have taken all the axle bolts out first or you will damage the drum.
Posted:
13 Apr 2010 15:42
by TAGibb
Hi Barry & Dave,
Thanks for the info. I do have a follow-up question. How do you determine if the yoke is the large size?
Dave
Posted:
13 Apr 2010 16:00
by dave-r
Posted:
14 Apr 2010 4:44
by patrick
Great information, Dave!
That pretty much says it all.
Posted:
14 Apr 2010 15:17
by TAGibb
I agree, the info on the link answers all my questions!
Thanks Dave!
Posted:
14 Apr 2010 15:32
by dave-r
Yes. The important bit for you was just one sentence.
"The 8-3/4" axle was offered with two size cross & roller style universal joint. These are referred to as the 7260 (2-1/8" yoke ID) and the 7290 (2-5/8" yoke ID)."
I think this is also true of the front slip yoke on the driveshaft. They are either 2-1/8" or 2-5/8".
So basically a half inch difference in size between the two types.
Posted:
15 Apr 2010 1:35
by Jon
patrick wrote:Great information, Dave!
That pretty much says it all.
I agree,,, that much information is going to take some time to digest though.