8" ford rear, far from indestructable.....

8" gears should fit 8"carrier

grainboy said:

I The question is, will my 3.50 gearset fit the 2.80 carrier?

Click to expand...

ANY 8" ring & pinion will fit any ANY 8" carrier.

grainboy said:

I launched my car hard, and broke the pinion support clean off the pumpkin of my 8" rear tonight. Sad part is, it has 3.50 gears. I have the complete center from a granada, with a 2.80 ratio. The question is, will my 3.50 gearset fit the 2.80 carrier? I may scrap the gear change, just so I can get back on the road. Those aftermarket centers with posi sure are expensive. I would have never dreamed I could damage the open carrier rear with my little 302. One thing is for sure, the Z clutch works good!

Click to expand...

post pics!

If you don't break anything . . . you're not doing it right.

if you don't break anything, you're not doing it right! Think of it this way, though, if you can upgrade that 8" to be more reliable you'll have a better-handling rear than someone like me who put a 9" pig with wilwood internal drum disc brakes and a reinforced center section. I ended up with one of the heavier rears out there, pun intended.

there's a guy on here (might have been ratio411) who's broken like 4 of them. just keeps getting em cheap and popping em in I guess

grainboy said:

I launched my car hard, and broke the pinion support clean off the pumpkin of my 8" rear tonight. Sad part is, it has 3.50 gears. I have the complete center from a granada, with a 2.80 ratio. The question is, will my 3.50 gearset fit the 2.80 carrier? I may scrap the gear change, just so I can get back on the road. Those aftermarket centers with posi sure are expensive. I would have never dreamed I could damage the open carrier rear with my little 302. One thing is for sure, the Z clutch works good!

Click to expand...

Personally, I would just swap to a 9". I had a shop fab up a housing for me for like $200 and got a rebuilt 3rd member with posi and the gears I wanted on ebay for $400ish. Reused my 8" axles/brakes/etc and had myself a cheapo rearend. You sound like you're looking at not much less than that to put that 8" back together.

you can swap an 8.8. I have dumped mine at 4500 on slicks and horrid-azz wheelhop without snapping anything (I had to check though)

SadbutTrue said:

Personally, I would just swap to a 9". I had a shop fab up a housing for me for like $200 and got a rebuilt 3rd member with posi and the gears I wanted on ebay for $400ish. Reused my 8" axles/brakes/etc and had myself a cheapo rearend. You sound like you're looking at not much less than that to put that 8" back together.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Why keep fooling with an 8-inch when you could install a 9? --Break an 8-inch once, shame on it. Break an 8-inch twice, shame on you.

I've seen claims by some on the forums that a 9-inch rear is 75-100 lbs. heavier than an 8-inch.

Contrary to popular belief that the 9-inch rear end is a mega-heavy pig, in reality a 9-inch drum brake rear --like a '57-'59 Ford passenger car 9-inch, is only 24 lbs. heavier than a comparable width '65/'66 Mustang 8-inch rear. That doesn't constitute as being excessively heavy in my book, and certainly is nowhere close to the 75-100 lbs. more claims by some.

Even the '77-'80 Versailles factory disc brake 9-inch rear end, considered the "heaviest of the heavy" is only 45 lbs. heavier than the '65/'66 Mustang 8-inch. --Still, nowhere close to the 75-100 lbs. mark.

In more recent years, companies like Curries has produced parts to beef up the 8-inch. However, the parts to do this are very expensive and in the end, it isn't any stronger than a run-of-the-mill factory-stock, entry-level, wrecking yard 9-inch.

Weight comparison between 8-inch vs. 9-inch in following link [scroll down page to "FORD REAR END WEIGHT COMPARISON"]

The Ford 9-inch Rear End


..If you can't locate a 9-inch at the salvage yards, you should have no problems finding an 8.8" that could be modifed to work. It isn't as strong as a 9-inch, but is much stronger than the 8. Then again, there's always the aftermarket to build a complete 9-inch assembly. Probably won't be cheap but in the end, you'll have something bullet-proof that isn't going to go tits up on you.

ultrastang said:

Exactly. Why keep fooling with an 8-inch when you could install a 9? --Break an 8-inch once, shame on it. Break an 8-inch twice, shame on you.

Click to expand...

What about 3 and 4 ? lol 12sec67 broke 4 of them all on street tires.

I broke the bearing cap bolts off of the stock 8" in mine. It was on 17" street tires. I never had wheel hop untill I put the 17s on it. The very first time I side stepped the clutch with those wheels it hopped and snaped the rear end. I went to the 9" cause it has bigger bolts. here are some pics of the failed 8".




View attachment 287060

SadbutTrue said:

there's a guy on here (might have been ratio411) who's broken like 4 of them. just keeps getting em cheap and popping em in I guess

Click to expand...

yeah, that was me when I had a 302 with heads and a cam

the 4th one I broke the locker into 2 pieces!

I know the 8's are weaker, but still think if set up properly they should be able to handle 350-400HP on the street. Now that should be good for most people out there that are warming over a 302 rated at less than 250HP stock and dumping it into there stang. HP junkies and clutch dumpers, sure go with the upgrade but i would think plenty of people should be able to get away with servicing the rear they have with fresh bearings to get them back to spec, add some arp hardware back there, and they will last another 40 yrs.

There should be less parasitic hp loss than the 9" giving better fuel economy and less weight allowing better ride quality, again this is for "street useage". There is also the issue of people throwing in a 40 yr old rear that has never had maintenence, is using the non ribbed center, or was not set up properly leading to "carnage of 8" with pics threads".

Just some of my thoughts on why it shouldn't be an automatic decision to throw a different rear into a classic stang.