• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

8" to 9" rear end swap issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter thehueypilot
  • Start date Start date May 10, 2005

thehueypilot

Active Member
Feb 25, 2004
1,084
0
37
Medina,Tennessee
May 10, 2005
#1
  • May 10, 2005
  • #1
I just finished installing my new 9" Currie rear end with 4:11 gears and a Detroit Locker and Explorer rear disk brakes. For anyone interested in what hidden adventures await them here they are:

1. Drive shaft needed to be shortened 2 inches. $80.00

2. New special u-joint required to adapt Mustang drive shaft to bigger 9" yoke. $22

3. New u-bolts required which caused mtg plate to be modified to fit the bigger bolts. The under rider traction bar plate holes were not far enough apart so I had to cut the ears off and weld it directly to the mtg plate. (My labor for welding $0.)

4. Parking brake came with universal kit.....which did not work so I went back to the stock cables which do work. Wasted $110 on a part I did not need but can't send them back because you must cut them to fit. I actually have good functioning parking brakes for the first time in 10 years. (Yes they are not really needed but if you have a State or Military Post car inspections they are required to be functional.)

5. I had a drain plug installed ($50) but they installed it on the very bottom of the diff. housing. I should of specified that it be mounted slighly off center so the jack would not hit it everytime I have to lift the car.

6. Speedometer is about 10 mph off so I had to order a new gear. I hope it works because I have to adapt a early model gear to a late model AOD transmission. CJ Pony Parts had it under part number HW1295. $11

7. Since I already had disc brakes (SS Brakes = Junk (my opinion) The brake lines attached with no modifications. The stock rim would only work with one 1/4" spacer and slight grinding of the caliper. The SS brake calipers took two spacers and major grinding and the parking brakes never did work. (Yes it was a bad design to start with but why continue to sell them if you know they do not work!)


All in all it was not that hard to install just took longer than expected because of the unforseen issues. I have not been to the track yet to see the fruits of my labor as far as 1/8 mile ET improvments but will go this weekend if it does not rain.
Total cost = $3,207.00
 

12sec67

Active Member
Oct 6, 2003
1,301
1
36
San Diego, Ca
May 10, 2005
#2
  • May 10, 2005
  • #2
when i did my swap from 8"with 3.55's to 9" with 4.11's i didn't really gain anything because you have so much more rotating mass... disc brakes+ calipers, 31 spline axles, and heavy duty housing...wieghs approx 75lbs more than an 8" then add the rotating mass! keep that in mind when your at the track.
 
S

steel1212

Active Member
Jun 24, 2004
1,180
0
36
Frankfort, Ky
May 10, 2005
#3
  • May 10, 2005
  • #3
I'm getting ready to bolt in my 57 ford 9 inch I wonder if I'll run into the u joint problem?
 

68rustang

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
Cleveland, OH
May 10, 2005
#4
  • May 10, 2005
  • #4
12sec67 said:
when i did my swap to 4.11's i didn't really gain anything because you have so much more rotating mass... disc brakes+ calipers, 31 spline axles, and heavy duty housing...wieghs approx 75lbs more than an 8" then add the rotating mass! keep that in mind when your at the track.
Click to expand...

Where is the extra rotating mass? A slightly larger OD ring gear, and slight larger OD axles are about all I can think of. Rotating mass-wise anyway.
 

12sec67

Active Member
Oct 6, 2003
1,301
1
36
San Diego, Ca
May 10, 2005
#5
  • May 10, 2005
  • #5
68rustang said:
Rotating mass-wise anyway.
Click to expand...


all i'm sayinging is that it is a big difference...8" to 9"...bigger heavier axles, housing, rotors, caliper drag, locker......... he will see.
 

thehueypilot

Active Member
Feb 25, 2004
1,084
0
37
Medina,Tennessee
May 10, 2005
#6
  • May 10, 2005
  • #6
I do know my 8" with traction lock was not going to last much longer. I was really disappointed at how fast the clutches wore out. They lasted only two seasons.
 

Dark Knight

Founding Member
Feb 1, 2000
2,578
0
0
Chandler, Az.
May 11, 2005
#7
  • May 11, 2005
  • #7
you probably could have told them what size u-joint you had and they could have put in the same yoke.. or had them change the end on the driveshaft when it was shortened..
 

68rustang

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
Cleveland, OH
May 11, 2005
#8
  • May 11, 2005
  • #8
12sec67 said:

all i'm sayinging is that it is a big difference...8" to 9"...bigger heavier axles, housing, rotors, caliper drag, locker......... he will see.
Click to expand...

Well then you are not talking about rotating mass

Anyway the 8" to 9" weight "problem" is over stated:

http://www.ultrastang.com/Rearinfo.asp?Page_ID=1

Well let me rephrase that. The is a weight penalty for going with a 9". But that penalty is outweighed by the strength advantages over a 8". There are pro's and con's to any swap.
 

thehueypilot

Active Member
Feb 25, 2004
1,084
0
37
Medina,Tennessee
May 11, 2005
#9
  • May 11, 2005
  • #9
68rustang said:
Well then you are not talking about rotating mass

Anyway the 8" to 9" weight "problem" is over stated:

http://www.ultrastang.com/Rearinfo.asp?Page_ID=1

Well let me rephrase that. The is a weight penalty for going with a 9". But that penalty is outweighed by the strength advantages over a 8". There are pro's and con's to any swap.
Click to expand...

I did consider an 8.8" because the articles said they had a lot less friction and were almost as strong as a 9" rearend if built properly. I found out that built properly meant it would cost twice as much as a 9" rearend. Go figure?
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
May 11, 2005
#10
  • May 11, 2005
  • #10
Huey, looking at your engine specs I would expect more rwhp output than that. The torque is impressive but that cam has HUGE lift and the 225s should get major top end HP figures I would think. Not that there's anything wrong with 340rwhp but it just seems low. Is it what you expected?

I for one am suprised your 8 lasted at all behind that monster!
 

68rustang

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
Cleveland, OH
May 11, 2005
#11
  • May 11, 2005
  • #11
thehueypilot said:
I did consider an 8.8" because the articles said they had a lot less friction and were almost as strong as a 9" rearend if built properly. I found out that built properly meant it would cost twice as much as a 9" rearend. Go figure?
Click to expand...

I don't know about being twice as much $$$. I put an 8.8" out of a 95 GT under my 68. I got the 8.8 as part of a whole parts car. Other than that I have a few hours in cutting off the four link brackets and welding on spring perches and $12.95 for the actual perches. I know its not as strong now as a 9" but being into it for only $12.95 give me TONS of upgrade room before I approach even the price of an 8" much less a 9". 5.0 mustang parts are dirt cheap too.
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
May 11, 2005
#12
  • May 11, 2005
  • #12
Edbert said:
Huey, looking at your engine specs I would expect more rwhp output than that. The torque is impressive but that cam has HUGE lift and the 225s should get major top end HP figures I would think. Not that there's anything wrong with 340rwhp but it just seems low. Is it what you expected?

I for one am suprised your 8 lasted at all behind that monster!
Click to expand...

In his defense. Autos dyno like crap. I only have 275 to the rear. But I run a little faster that what I should for that little to the rear. AND you can't break parts without traction, which I am sure is a problem in that car.
 

thehueypilot

Active Member
Feb 25, 2004
1,084
0
37
Medina,Tennessee
May 11, 2005
#13
  • May 11, 2005
  • #13
Edbert said:
Huey, looking at your engine specs I would expect more rwhp output than that. The torque is impressive but that cam has HUGE lift and the 225s should get major top end HP figures I would think. Not that there's anything wrong with 340rwhp but it just seems low. Is it what you expected?

I for one am suprised your 8 lasted at all behind that monster!
Click to expand...

I had a high speed miss on the dyno so I could not get a good full pull. It turned out to be spark plugs too hot and gap too big. I would like to go back to another dyno now that I got all the issues ironed out but I haven't found a good one yet that is close by.
 

thehueypilot

Active Member
Feb 25, 2004
1,084
0
37
Medina,Tennessee
May 11, 2005
#14
  • May 11, 2005
  • #14
10secgoal said:
In his defense. Autos dyno like crap. I only have 275 to the rear. But I run a little faster that what I should for that little to the rear. AND you can't break parts without traction, which I am sure is a problem in that car.
Click to expand...


Yes traction was a problem when your traction lock kicks in and out during a burnout and sometimes off the line. Early model Mustangs also have a size limitation when it comes to tire width when not tubbed out. I am running 9.5" wide Quick Time Pros which are not as sticky as a true drag slick. I am hoping for 1.60, 60' and 7:50's in the 1/8 mile.
 

shotsy

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
233
0
0
Oklahoma City
May 11, 2005
#15
  • May 11, 2005
  • #15
68rustang said:
I don't know about being twice as much $$$. I put an 8.8" out of a 95 GT under my 68. I got the 8.8 as part of a whole parts car. Other than that I have a few hours in cutting off the four link brackets and welding on spring perches and $12.95 for the actual perches. I know its not as strong now as a 9" but being into it for only $12.95 give me TONS of upgrade room before I approach even the price of an 8" much less a 9". 5.0 mustang parts are dirt cheap too.
Click to expand...


did you have to shorten the 8.8 or was it close enough to run without cutting it? What is the stock length of the 8.8 I guess would be a better question?
 

Jester67

Member
Sep 21, 2004
908
1
18
TN
May 12, 2005
#16
  • May 12, 2005
  • #16
shotsy said:
did you have to shorten the 8.8 or was it close enough to run without cutting it? What is the stock length of the 8.8 I guess would be a better question?
Click to expand...
Yes inquiring minds do wont to know.
 

68rustang

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
Cleveland, OH
May 12, 2005
#17
  • May 12, 2005
  • #17
shotsy said:
did you have to shorten the 8.8 or was it close enough to run without cutting it? What is the stock length of the 8.8 I guess would be a better question?
Click to expand...

If you search by my user name or 8.8 you will find pictyures of my car with the rear end under it. Right now It is not shortened and I am using late model (95) sized wheels They BARELY clear the quarters. When the car is actually back on the road I will need to play with the backspacing a little.
 

67GTCOUPE

Founding Member
Dec 20, 2000
653
0
0
Land of Ice and Snow
May 14, 2005
#18
  • May 14, 2005
  • #18
Edbert said:
Huey, looking at your engine specs I would expect more rwhp output than that. The torque is impressive but that cam has HUGE lift and the 225s should get major top end HP figures I would think. Not that there's anything wrong with 340rwhp but it just seems low. Is it what you expected?

I for one am suprised your 8 lasted at all behind that monster!
Click to expand...



CAMSHAFT. It is all in the cam, it most likely has too much duration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
66 Coupe Progress Thread
  • DTCRAWLEY
  • Apr 19, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
43
Views
981
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 17, 2026
DTCRAWLEY
D
D
Brakes 1966 Mustang convertible 289, Auto - Disc brake conversion issues
  • DRGunn427
  • Feb 26, 2025
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
2
Views
623
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Jun 30, 2026
manicmechanic007
O
SOLD FS: 18" FR500 chrome wheels and Toyo tires
  • optionizerSS
  • May 21, 2026
  • Other Classifieds
Replies
1
Views
100
Other Classifieds Jun 2, 2026
optionizerSS
O
Rear diff rebuild opinions
  • MrPerfect2
  • Oct 30, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
202
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 31, 2025
AeroCoupe
J
2004 Mustang 3.8L V6 vibrations above 65 MPH and differential leaks
  • joeybuddy96
  • Mar 16, 2026
  • SN95 V6 Mustang Tech
Replies
16
Views
538
SN95 V6 Mustang Tech Tuesday at 2:38 PM
joeybuddy96
J
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?