Red R

Postby Dan Little (Thelittles) » 28 Feb 2003 4:59

Image
Dan Little (Thelittles)
 

Red R

Postby SteveO (Steveo) » 01 Mar 2003 19:17

Hey there Dan,

Looking good! What's the color, Hemi Orange, Red?
How about the powerplant?
SteveO (Steveo)
 

Red R

Postby LITEMUP (Von) » 03 Mar 2003 4:39

if your into mods, check around for an early B-body rearend housing and axles. it is 1.5 inches narrower and will tuck those wheels under your wheelwells. (That is if you are scraping your tires. You may be perfectly content.)
LITEMUP (Von)
 

Red R

Postby Ted S (Teds) » 06 Mar 2003 21:31

no r/t s in 72-74.
Ted S (Teds)
 

Re: Red R

Postby Jimiboy » 30 Dec 2007 12:33

LITEMUP (Von) wrote:if your into mods, check around for an early B-body rearend housing and axles. it is 1.5 inches narrower and will tuck those wheels under your wheelwells. (That is if you are scraping your tires. You may be perfectly content.)


Is this thrue guys? Are these axles, housing the same size, fitting?
User avatar
Jimiboy
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: 22 Dec 2005 10:20
Location: Sweden

Postby Eddie » 30 Dec 2007 13:38

It might be. The early pre 1965 B-bodies used pinned axles though, you dont want this setup.
User avatar
Eddie
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 6212
Joined: 16 Oct 2006 21:26
Location: Terre Haute, Ind.

Postby Jimiboy » 30 Dec 2007 13:41

Ok, thanks! :thumbsup:
User avatar
Jimiboy
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: 22 Dec 2005 10:20
Location: Sweden

Postby Eddie » 30 Dec 2007 14:31

The deal with those axles Jimi is they were pressed on the hubs, pinned with a woodruf key I think, then they went to the flanged axle on the 8 3/4 in 1965/66 eliminating the pinned axle feature. This old style axle was very difficult to service and not the strongest setup. You can see the 'cotter key' on those pre flanged axles pre 1965 I think was the year.
User avatar
Eddie
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 6212
Joined: 16 Oct 2006 21:26
Location: Terre Haute, Ind.

Postby dave-r » 30 Dec 2007 18:11

8)

axle widths.jpg
User avatar
dave-r
Grumpy Old Man
 
Posts: 9842
Joined: 12 Oct 2003 21:45
Location: North of the Tyne, England

Postby Jimiboy » 30 Dec 2007 19:01

Oh, awesome, thanks Dave! :wink: I thought it was interesting to know...

Thanks for the info Ed... A bit difficult to understand in english, but i think i understand... :) :thumbsup:


:V8:
User avatar
Jimiboy
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: 22 Dec 2005 10:20
Location: Sweden

Postby Eddie » 31 Dec 2007 17:33

Thanks Dave, interesting, it's approx. 1 1/2" shorter than what you would need but given the spring pads will need to be re-located, the width might work to your advantage regarding wheel offset, it might make it better for wider wheels if it doesnt interfere with the wheel tubs.
User avatar
Eddie
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 6212
Joined: 16 Oct 2006 21:26
Location: Terre Haute, Ind.

Postby dave-r » 31 Dec 2007 18:31

Normally it is the springs that are the problem and not the axle width.

Axle width can be got over just by using the correct backspacing on the wheel. However that is no good if the springs are in the way.

Offset spring hangers are the way to go with stock or close to stock width axles.
Relocating the spring hangers inboard usually calls for a shorter axle than any of those listed as well as tubs.

The next option after that is to back-half the car of course.
User avatar
dave-r
Grumpy Old Man
 
Posts: 9842
Joined: 12 Oct 2003 21:45
Location: North of the Tyne, England

Postby Eddie » 31 Dec 2007 19:32

Cool, Thanks for that info Dave, good to know. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Eddie
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 6212
Joined: 16 Oct 2006 21:26
Location: Terre Haute, Ind.