8.8" vs 9"
- Thread starter gzminiz
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
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.
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.
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.
The fully built 9" is a hefty beyotch, but it is a strong unit without doubt.
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
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.
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.
(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.
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.
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
Stanger'66 said:
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......
Similar threads
