LocostUSA.com
https://www.locostusa.com/forums/

Solid rear axle options
https://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1231		 Page 4 of 5
Author:  gtivr4 [ September 9, 2008, 3:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Some info on Volvo axles from my build log:
59" (approximate) from WMS to WMS
5x108 bolt pattern (rare, but almost all Volvos used it, and FWD offset seems like a good option)
integrated drum emergency brake
Solid rear disc brakes, with (very small) dual piston calipers.
Input is offset just a hair under an inch to the passenger side.

Weight: All up, 175lbs including brakes, fluid, everything. Calipers weigh in around 37 lbs (so axle without disc brakes (but including drum components) and fluid is about 137lbs)

It's a Posi (a locker actually that only locks up to 25mph, but there is a way to make it engage at faster speeds), 4.10 gears. Apparently it's very closely related to a Dana 30 axle, so other LSD units are pretty readily available.
Author:  RacerDan [ March 5, 2009, 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
Just a quick question.... Since I don't have my chassis finished, I can't take any measurement for the rear axle. I want to be on the lookout in case I run across a steal. In building a +442, is 61" wms about the right length?
Author:  monte montemagni [ June 23, 2009, 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options - McSorely 442 / Firebird / Camaro
Might suggest a Camaro / Firebird axle for the 442 chassis. I'm in the middle of it and it seems to be working out nicely. I stripped the brackets off the 10 bolt (7.65" ring gear) posi and welded control arm brackets similar to the book chassis. As well, I went with a 2x3 channel bracket (3/16th) drilled for the control arms mounted to the outside of the frame, slightly ahead of the book chassis location, to, (pics attached). Got the idea from another build (address below) that documents some cool work by a pro. I ended up with 17" control arms (1"x.120 chrome moly) as well as a bullet proof set up for a slightly healthier car. Picked the diff. up for the price of a lunch with a posi in, it along with disc brakes. Changed the gears to 3.73s and ordered (Jegs) Mosier axles which are available with any (Ford?) bolt pattern. 15x10 Housiers pictured mount up with good clearance for everything else.

http://underwood-racing.com/project_seven.htm
Cheers,
Monte
Author:  RacerDan [ June 23, 2009, 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
What year on the Camaro?
I've got a good friend who builds street rods....big chevy guy. He sent me an e-mail just about the same time you did suggestion the Camaro axle.
Author:  iadr [ July 8, 2012, 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
I don't see enough Toyota 7.5 aka F-series axle in this thread. :) edit: (oops missed top of page 3, but there was a lack of terminology)
I did a lot of research and it is a nicer design- use of material/aesthetics/drop out 3rd member-, than the Volvo-Dana, or the Ford 7.5 which were the close runners ups.
For 4 on 4.5(114mm) use early Cressida (wagon uses live axle later than sedan) and very early Celica Supra,
For bigger, higher performance cars & for the 5 on114.3 bolt pattern, use Previa with large vented discs and 3.73 or 4.30.
For budget, use pick ups with drums - two widths- 85>down is narrowish, 86-up is wider (2wd low option trucks only, as 4wd is 6 bolt and if you do find one not equipped with the larger 8.0, I'd be surprised).
Lots of ratios- from 3.07 up to the 5.XX:1's.
TruTrac or the well supported and rebuildable/upgradable OE clutch LSD.
I'll post more when I have one in my possession.
This is to replace the Suzuki Sidekick axle, which is also a decent 7.5 central unit, but no street type LSD's just lockers, an odd 5 on 5.5" bolt pattern, and only 4.3 to 5.8-ish gears. I needed 3.73. So, nicely made and designed as it is, not useful as a whole...
Author:  962porsche [ September 21, 2012, 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
being the owner of a chassis shop when ever i do rear axle jobs in my shop i always try and sell the car owner on using winters rear axles . there are many reasons why i do this .
the 1st is cost your getting a new axle at a low cost .
then there is the fact you can change your gearing quick and ez . if it takes you more than 3 minutes to do a gear change you must have lost or missplaced a part some were .
then there is the fact that they offer so many deferent lockers ( LSD) DIFF'S it makes your head spin .
then the axles are light weight and strong .
this may not be important to the DIY people out there buy it sure is to me . by the time you finish screwing around with trying to make some POS axle work in a car it was not designed for . cleaning it up and cutting it down welding on all the crap i can just pick up the phone and order what i need . time is money for me !
Author:  iadr [ January 14, 2013, 2:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
Just weighed a Toyota 7.5/190mm from a 1984 pick up, not HD/1ton/4WD, just a plain jane cab'n'half- 168lbs.
That's with brake cables, oil, drum brakes, and a pound or two of gunge...as pulled at the wrecker. I hope to compare it to a Volvo Dana 30 from a 1973 164E one of these nights soon.
As I go into greater depth here, I think I can maybe take a little off while going to both a disk brake update and a switch from open diff to Truetrac torsen.
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/ ... 691/page1/
The nice thing with these diffs (aside from the super easy to work on drop out 3rd member & co-operative axle retention system) is they come in both 4 and 5 lug versions. To get 4 look at 80-81 Supras, and on Toyota vans (the early ones). To get 5 on 4.5 PCD look for Pick ups, or for Previas. The Previas are both significantly wide and heavy. The 1980-1985 pick up axles are much lighter than the 1986-early 90's? ones due to having smaller axle tubes. Torsen and clutch type LSD are easily bought. If you want to watch you can occasionally pick up an LSD used from a IRS Supra or Altezza/IS300 using the same diff in an IRS configuration, which are clutch type and rebuild-able.
Author:  iadr [ January 14, 2013, 3:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
gtivr4 wrote:
Some info on Volvo axles from my build log:
59" (approximate) from WMS to WMS
5x108 bolt pattern (rare, but almost all Volvos used it, and FWD offset seems like a good option)
integrated drum emergency brake
Solid rear disc brakes, with (very small) dual piston calipers.
Input is offset just a hair under an inch to the passenger side.

Weight: All up, 175lbs including brakes, fluid, everything. Calipers weigh in around 37 lbs (so axle without disc brakes (but including drum components) and fluid is about 137lbs)

It's a Posi (a locker actually that only locks up to 25mph, but there is a way to make it engage at faster speeds), 4.10 gears. Apparently it's very closely related to a Dana 30 axle, so other LSD units are pretty readily available.


As a volvo guy I can specify some things-

The width you mention is for 700 series (740/760) cars.
The more common 240's are 55.6 (1410mm). The 140/140 which introduced this axle as early as 1967 in some models (look for disc rear brakes), are a touch wider, maybe 15mm, so 56.X" LSD selection is limited mainly to the OE centrifugal one, and Truetracs. Clutch type have not been produced in 15+ years, and service/rebuild parts in longer than that. Efforts by a few members of the Volvo community to try a Jeep unit were apparently dropped inconclusively.

The bolt pattern is shared with all Taurus family cars- from Windstars to T-birds/Cougars (specific years), Lincoln LS, Jag small sedans.

The Volvo axles were Dana (aka Hardy Spicer) until the early 80's- in 1984/85 they took manufacturing inhouse and changed up certain dimensions. The diffs interchange but the ring gear grew in size.
When I weigh mine this week , I will follow up here with a post of a photo comparing the early (30) and late (1031/1041) scanned from a Jags than Run Guide to Volvo V8 swaps.
Author:  geek49203 [ January 14, 2013, 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
From my GM notes:

- S10 rear end is 54.25" between WMS, which is good for a +2 width (49.875" between backing plates). This is what I used.

- 4WD "Blazer" axle is about 4" (overall) wider than the 2WD axle, around 58". You have a much better chance at disk brakes and factory Posi than the S10 rear.

- ZR2 axle is about 8" longer than the 2WD, around 62"

- 96 Camaro is 64.72 from outer axle flange to outer axle flange". I think that most are the 7.65" 10-bolt variety. The rims on this Gen IV (93-02) have a lot of offset -- the wheel mounting surface is like a FWD car, in that they are towards the outside of the rim -- unlike the S10 axles where the mounting surfaces are in the middle of the axle. There are tons of V6/T5 examples languishing in back yards, etc.

I hear that the GU2 and GU4 rear axles have diff's that are smaller than the GU5 and up, meaning that you can't buy some 4.10 gears and stuff them into those two axles. Here are my notes on some GM rear axle codes (found in the glovebox in the S10, and I assume the Camaro):

GU2 2:73 ratio (standard on 4 gen Camaro automatics 95)
GU4 3:08 ratio (Standard for V6?)
GU5 3:23 ratio (also G92) (1993 automatic Z28, Performance option, 4 gen Camaro, v6?)
GU6 3:42 ratio (1994 to 2002 6-speed Z28)
GT4 3:73 ratio (also GQ1)
GT5 4:10 ratio
Author:  RichardSIA [ November 12, 2013, 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
I did not see what engine is planned in the OP?

An axle I am sort of surprised no one has mentioned is the Alfa-Romeo Spider unit.
4 x 108mm PCD, same as the Ford.

Later models do have an LSD along with the nicely finned alloy canter section.
Steel tubes on each side so shortening is pretty strait-forward.

I am using one in my Marcos 1600 GT upgrade to replace the weak Cortina unit and it's tiny drum brakes.
I may put one into a Spitfire 225 Buick V6 project I have as well.
Author:  Blub4 [ November 12, 2013, 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
I am not sure if this is already been said. But I know when I had my YJ jeep there were tons of people swapping the stock axles for Dana 44's. I bet you could find them cheap. Mine had the stock axles and 33's, I never broke anything four wheeling so I bet they would be fine for a light car. If I remember correctly the wheel to wheel measurement was 60 inches. Also there are lots of aftermarket items like stronger axle shafts, LSD's, lockers...... and the bolt pattern is 5X4.5. Only thing I am not sure about is what gearing was in it and if the stock choices are anywhere close to what we need.
Author:  Dave1976 [ July 10, 2016, 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
In the world of mass production vehicles, the current thing is the Explorer axle, because it is a good lug pattern, is readily available, is extremely strong, offers disc brakes, good range of gearing, many have aggressive ratios and lsd, and great aftermarket support. It is a narrower version of an F150 axle, all the same bearings even. So I swapped one under my 87 S-10, the thing is guaranteed overkill for any of these cars in this forum. Start with a Ranger or Mustang 8.8, then if you manage to break their 28-spline shafts, the aftermarket has many choices of 31-spline upgrades.
But since the salvage yards all sell the Ranger 8.8s for under $100, there's no reason to try anything less. Available gearing ranges from 2.47:1 - 5.71:1, so you can make something work. Explorer discs are small and not vented, so you may as well start with drums.
Another serious problem with the Explorer disc brakes is their internal drum parking brake. Better to use GM calipers that do the parking brake as part of the caliper. I like 84 Z28 for 1" rotors, or 77 ElDorado for 1.25" rotors. You don't need 4-piston Brembos on the rear, no matter what.
Building adapter mounting brackets is easy and cheap.
Author:  RichardSIA [ September 29, 2016, 3:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
Some flange to flange widths for those interested in or willing to user older rears.
NOTHING modern that I can find comes in this narrow.
Seems all modern cars are right around 60".

Alfa Romeo Spider, 53", disc brakes, 4.56 gears (4.10 after 1980) LSD is common.
Not good for excessive HP as they are a banjo type center.

Triumph TR4A, 50", drum brakes, 3.70 or 4.10 gears, open diff.

70's? Buick Apollo 7.5 that I have is 54", LSD, drum brakes, not sure of ratio but I think it's about 3.08.

I was unable to access the spreadsheet from a couple of pages back.
Author:  JPS Europa [ September 29, 2016, 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
Dont forget that there is always the option of custom axle tubes and axles. I did this for the Alfa rear in the Hodgepodge to get exactly what I wanted...it was too narrow and a bit off center. It cost around $600 at a shop that does custom rears for primarily drag cars, duelie modifications and just general rear end and differential work.
Not entirely Locost, but also not entirely crazy. It took a week.
Author:  nick47 [ September 29, 2016, 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Solid rear axle options
Anything under 54" flange-to-flange will likely be too narrow for a book frame. Even 54" will limit your wheel and tire width. My MGB rear axle is 52", and I had to add 1" spacers just to fit the skinny MGB wheels and tires.
Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/