8.8" vs 9"

70MachI · Jul 13, 2006

Ronstang said:
The Explorer 8.8 has 4" of offset in the pinion. If you do not shorten the long side the 3" necessary to fit a 65/66 car the offset is far too much for a 67/70 Mustang. Your only choice is to make it 65/66 length and adjust the offest on the rims or run spacers. This is a really bad rear choice for a 67 and up.

So do the Mustang 8.8s have the same offset as the explorers?

Ronstang · Jul 13, 2006

70MachI said:
So do the Mustang 8.8s have the same offset as the explorers?

No, it is my understanding that they are centered but I cannot directly confirm that because the only FOX 8.8 I have is under a friend's car holding it up at the moment so I cannot easily measure it.

66Runt · Jul 13, 2006

Mustang 8.8 does not have an offset

It's also lighter, and you can install a lighter disc brake system that has more swept area. So overall you end up with an easier install, quite a bit less unsprung weight, greater braking force, and less moving parts.
You can also get 5 lug axles and drums pretty cheap for this rear end.
I'd have to think real hard about chosing an Explorer over a 9". But the Mustang 8.8" was an easy choice for me.

Edbert · Jul 13, 2006

But one of the arguments for using an 8.8 is it's strength, so if the Stang-8.8 is that much lighter-duty than the Exploder, then isn't it logical that it is not as strong?

The fully built 9" is a hefty beyotch, but it is a strong unit without doubt.

65ShelbyClone · Jul 13, 2006

The biggest problem I ever heard about with Mustang 8.8s was the weakness of the 28 spline C-clip axles. It's one thing to break an axle, but it's another when the axle isn't held in by the wheel bearing. The gearsets don't seem to be much issue.

70MachI · Jul 13, 2006

I have had a lot of experience with the Fox 8.8s. Does anyone know the track width of the 67-70 9", Fox 8.8, and the SN-95? The wider the better since I am going to be running after market rims. Also the Lincolns have 3.73/3.55s and Disc brakes. Thanks

66Runt · Jul 13, 2006

I would agree with 65Shelbyclone on this one.

(IMO) unless you are building a drag specific vehicle (in which case you'd want a 9"), the Mustang rear will do what you want.
Lot's of Fox bodies putting down some serious HP through this rear. Hard to argue with that!
For a street application, it's also hard to argue with the exceptional weight advantage, and simplicity of the Mustang 8.8.

Red5oh · Jul 14, 2006

70MachI said:
I have had a lot of experience with the Fox 8.8s. Does anyone know the track width of the 67-70 9", Fox 8.8, and the SN-95? The wider the better since I am going to be running after market rims. Also the Lincolns have 3.73/3.55s and Disc brakes. Thanks

The width of the rears is well documented...

The physical axle housing for the fox and SN95's are the same. The axles and brake hardware for the SN95's put the wheels out another 1.5" which work great for some wheels.

70MachI · Jul 14, 2006

Red5oh said:
The width of the rears is well documented...

The physical axle housing for the fox and SN95's are the same. The axles and brake hardware for the SN95's put the wheels out another 1.5" which work great for some wheels.

Thank you for the help. I knew that the SN95s are 1.5" wider. I was wondering if any one knew the or point me in the right direction on the width of say a 67-70 9" Fox 8.8", Sn-95 8.8" and maybe even the length of a Mark VII car?

96 DOHC Cobra · Jul 14, 2006

The Fox Mustang (79-93) rear is the same width as the 67-70 Mustang (59.25"). The SN95 (94-98) rear is the same width as the 71-73 Mustang (61"). The 65-66 Mustang rear measures 57.25." The Fox rear fits a 65-66 but barely. It's so close to the fenders that your choise of wheels are a lot more limited. You have to have a lot of backspacing and probably run spacers on the front wheels. Forget about any deep dish wheels. The Explorer rear, when shortened on one side as recommended, measures 56.5" overall. A lot of people with shortened 9" rears under 65-66s choose this width. Slightly shorter than the stock rear, but now you can fit larger tires more easily. There are a lot of options available. It comes down to what you want and what you can afford.

96 DOHC Cobra · Jul 14, 2006

I'm not sure of the exact measurement of the MK VII rear, but it's wider than the SN95. I think about 62" overall. I would say that one is a poor choice. The housing is the same width as the Fox/SN95 but the axles are a lot longer for the disc setup they have.

70MachI · Jul 14, 2006

Well the reason I want the longer axles is because the rims I want to buy have a 6.3" back space. So I am trying to eliminate as many of the spacers as I can also the rim is 10" wide. Thanks for the insite.

Stanger'66 · Jul 14, 2006

Off topic but sort of on...
A local guy is offering a posi 9" with 3.00 gears for $150. I am sure I could talk him down. Seems like a good price, is it? Too bad I don't have the money for a rear right now...

65ShelbyClone · Jul 14, 2006

Stanger'66 said:
Off topic but sort of on...
A local guy is offering a posi 9" with 3.00 gears for $150. I am sure I could talk him down. Seems like a good price, is it?

Yes. I paid $310 for my 3.55 T-Lok 9" pumpkin alone. Not that I'm bragging, just saying scrape together the dough and go get it!

P.S: The '57 housing and axles were $150......

8.8" vs 9"

70MachI

New Member

Ronstang

New Member

66Runt

Member

Edbert

65ShelbyClone

70MachI

New Member

66Runt

Member

Red5oh

Member

70MachI

New Member

96 DOHC Cobra

96 DOHC Cobra

70MachI

New Member

Stanger'66

Member

65ShelbyClone

Similar threads

8.8" vs 9"

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency