wayfarer Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 Any up-dates on this project? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted October 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 No updates as of today. I have been cruising in the 38 with the old 3 speed. Sure wish the 5 speed was installed, but I will wait until this winter. The wife has kept me busy all summer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayfarer Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Nice Car! ...and that is a pretty fancy 'hood latch' that you have there... Keep us posted. It seems like a great alternative to the t-5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Today I spent some time to measure the 5 speed/36 engine alignment and fit into the 38 frame. Looking at the shifter and steering wheel, the bench seat should be okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fstfish66 Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 nice project,, 3.9 first gear will make thing happen quick,,, i have a 3.09 first gear in a classic,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted November 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 With the stock 3 speed trans, first gear is not very low, but third gear is not very high. Speed past 45MPH makes the engine have alot of RPM. I am thinking of using the stock rearend, I believe a 3 1/2 gear ratio, or I could use my Ford Ranger 3.73 rearend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fstfish66 Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 the ranger rear end is not that much different in gear ratio,,but may be more dependable or serviceable since its newer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted December 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 I spent some time with the Ranger rearend in my spare 38 Coupe frame. The Ranger rearend is just not wide enough. I tried several different wheels that have different backspacing. The 70s wheels and new tires on the Plymouth now with the stock rearend fit very nice, but the Ranger rearend being 3 inch less than the Plymouth will not fit good, no matter what wheels/tires I use. So either adapt the stock rearend with a driveshaft adapter or hunt for another rearend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayfarer Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) Is your axle 59½" drum to drum? Kinda narrow, but there are plenty more to choose from. The Jeep Cherokee and Dakota are only about 60" so no benefit there. Check here: http://www.carnut.com/specs/rear.html Edited December 7, 2011 by wayfarer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted December 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Thanks for the info. My 38 rearend drum to drum on the outside is 61 inch, backing plate to backing plate is 56.5".... . The Ranger rearend drum to drum on the outside is 58 3/8 inch, backing plate to backing plate is 53.5 inch. My stock rearend has an outside tread of 67 inch width with 7 inch 70's Mopar wheels, 235/75-15.........This is a great fit. Not much room in the wheels wells also. The 38 frame has a width of 48 inch, so not much room to work with. The Jeep rearend of 60 inch outside, maybe be a good fit, and may need a small spacer. I do not know the size of the Dakota rearends.... I believe the Explorer rearends are 60 inch. 1990 - 95 drums,,,,,95 and up,,,disk.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Davey Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 I have an early Dakota (pre91) that is about 62" from outside to outside. The early models also had 5 studs on 4.5" center so stock wheels will fit. The backing plate measurements can be deceiving since some Dakotas had very wide drums (about 3") but small diameter. Lots of available ratios, try to get one out of a 4X4 or a V-8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted December 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 A 62 inch Dakota may work ok, I could go to a smaller tire instead of the 235-15 if necessary. There is alot of difference from backing plate to outside of drum on rearends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plymouthy Adams Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 the track is listed as 62.4 for the Dakota with the 8.250 gear...the 8.25 gear even if from a later model will still accept the early 5 lug axles by just slipping the locks and swapping out..now using the front clip with 6 lug is a bit different story if you have a Gen II or later..to my knowledge and research it is not a simple swap out ofparts..machine work will be involved.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falconvan Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Robert, What clutchplate, pressure plate, and throwout bearing did you use on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted March 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 I have a new 9 inch Ford Ranger clutch disc. I will use the Plymouth pressure plate and bearing. I just received some material to have a couple pilot bearings made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falconvan Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 I have a new 9 inch Ford Ranger clutch disc.I will use the Plymouth pressure plate and bearing. I just received some material to have a couple pilot bearings made. Thanks Robert, are you having some piolot bushings made from brass? Im just about sold on trying this; it looks like a great alternative to the T-5 swap. Im thinking of using an 95 and up Explorer rearend; 59 1/2" plus rear disc brakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted March 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 I bought a 6 inch piece of brass 1 1/4 diameter to have a couple of pilot bearing made. I bought a 2000 Explorer to get the rearend out of, but I am doing some repairs on it to make it a vehicle for my wife. Now I will have to go on the hunt for another Explorer for a rearend.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51wayfarer Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Is anyone running an Explorer 8.8" in a pre-war "X" frame car? Are there any issues with driveshaft clearance considering the approx. 2 3/16" pinion offset on the Explorer rear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted March 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 I set the 5 speed in my spare frame, and test fit a 1995 Ranger rearend. I have not measured my Explorer rearend yet, to see how it compares with the Ranger rearend. The Ranger rearend is just not wide enough, tires are very close to the frame. Driveshaft clearance seems to be no problem. Driveshaft will need to be about 40 or 41 inch long.... Explorer 2 wheel drive have a driveshaft of about 41 inch long... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51wayfarer Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Thanks for the pic. I had assumed the trans output shaft was further forward in the chassis, enough to possibly create a driveshaft clearance issue at the "X" intersection as it veers off to the passenger side. Looks like an offset pinion presents no problem in your '38. I just bought a '41 Plymouth coupe and am planning on running an Explorer disc brake rear. Haven't taken delivery of the car yet, so no ability to do a mock up. Frame diagrams of the '38 look very similar to the '41, mostly just a wheelbase difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51wayfarer Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 BTW, lots of Ranger and Explorer info here if you haven't checked it out yet. Your early Ranger axle should be 56.5" WMS to WMS, 3" narrower than the Explorer. http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/Axles.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted March 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Yes, the 41 frames are very similar to the 38. I am on the "Ranger station" very often, alot of good info there. I am on a site for Explorers also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51wayfarer Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Oops, just saw that you have a '95 Ranger rear, which I believe is wider than the earlier rear. Anyway, the Explorer rears are 59.5" at the WMS, both early drum brake and later disc brake versions through 2001. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falconvan Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Are you making those pilot bearings to sell, Robert? I'll take one if you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Horne Posted March 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 I have enough material to have 4 bearings made. I need two, and can sell the others. My cousin is a machinist by trade, and has a small home shop also, so hope he can take time to do these for me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.