Engine and Transmission Tech

tips, technology, tools and techniques related to vehicle driveline components

Go to Thread: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicLog In


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(3450 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
79 MGB, Buick 215

authors avatar
Rear Axle Weights & other musings
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: February 14, 2015 09:22PM

Have any more?

Axle Weight Comparison
as published in British V8 Newsletter, Volume XI Issue 1, January 2003

Rear Axle Weights, as weighed by Dan LaGrou:

MGB: 167 lb.
Chevy S-10: 160 lb.
Ford 9" (early): 186 lb.
Dana 44: 195 lb.

As weighed by Dan Masters:

MGB: 165 lb
Ford 9" (with Tru-Trac diff): 221 lb

Dan noted: "My measurements were obtained with a set of bathroom scales, so the two pound difference is well within the inaccuracies of my scales. The 35 pound difference between 9" Ford weights is attributable to the Tru-Trac differential, and seems to be a reasonable value for the additional weight of the Tru-Trac. These weights included the brake assemblies as well as the axles."


MGB: 165
Ford 9": 186
Ford 9": 221 with iron carrier, TruTrac, and drum brakes, and a heavy duty housing.
Chevy S10: 160
Dana 44: 195
Ford 8": 149
All weights listed include drum brakes.

From Ted Lathrop
Ford 8" with aluminum carrier assembly and Wilwood disc brakes weighs 135 pounds.

From Carl Floyd
Jaguar E-Type IRS (with cage & splined hubs, no trailing arms) 308.4 pounds.


8 FORD AXLE WEIGHT
By William Lane
In the January - April 2003 issue of the newsletter,
weights were listed for various axles that might be used in an
MGB V8 conversion. Missing from this list was the Ford 8
axle. Recently, I dismantled an 8 Ford axle from a 1996
Mustang II and weighed the components:
Housing: 30#
Carrier: 60#
Axles* (2): 28#
Brakes Drums (2): 18#
Back plates, shoes, etc: 13#
Total: 149#
*Same diameter as the Ford 9


From the H.A.M.B

FORD REAR END WEIGHT COMPARISON

8-inch Rear End Assembly Weight : 170 lbs.

1. Housing: 36 lbs.

2. Axles: Medium Journal, 28-spline -15 lbs. ea.

3. Brakes: Small 10" x 1¾" Drum Assemblies - 22 lbs. ea.

4. 3rd Member: Reinforced Revision 8-inch Case - 60 lbs.




9-inch Rear End Assembly Weight: 194 lbs.

1. Housing: 38 lbs.

2. Axles: Large Journal, 28-spline - 18 Lbs. ea.

3. Brakes: Massive 11-1/32 x 2½" Drum Assemblies - 26 lbs. ea.

4. 3rd Member: Conventional Diff. - 68 lbs.
a. w/Traction-Lok Diff. - 71 lbs.

(24 lbs. Difference Between Drum Brake 8" & Drum Brake 9" Rear End Assembly).


From Corral.net

8.8 data.

199lbs with brakes.
156lbs without brakes.


Axle 15.0lbs each
Housing 72.2lbs
T-loc 28 Differential 18.3lbs
3.55 Gears 18.8lbs
Rotor 10.0lbs each
Varga Caliper 9.3lbs each
Caliper bracket 3.0lbs each
Gear cover 2.8lbs
Fluid 2.0lbs
Brake pad set 1.5lbs all four
MM Lower shock mount 1.0lbs
Bumpstop bracket 0.8lbs
Mooseballs 10.0lbs



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2018 11:47AM by MGBV8.


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(5610 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: February 15, 2015 02:46AM

[forum.britishv8.org]

The stock suspension, complete except for sway bar is 235 lbs (axle is 160) and the modified Jag IRS is 325 lbs, an increase of 90 lbs which in the RM and my car is nicely offset by engine weight.

[forum.britishv8.org]

Right, 90 lbs heavier than stock but with tubular half shafts and aftermarket lower control arms that can be reduced to 50 or less. It's a great option with an iron block engine such as the Ford or Buick, as it easily will balance the extra weight.

Yes the unsprung weight has been very considerably reduced. The brakes and diff are chassis mounted of course, leaving only the control arms, half shafts, uprights and spindles as unsprung weight and half of the weight of the control arms and half shafts is deducted as well since they are mounted to the chassis on the inside. The weight of the coil-over units is pretty minimal as well, nearly half of that also being deducted. So where the stock suspension has about 201 lbs of unsprung weight, the Jag IRS has about 50 to 75 lbs. depending on what components you use.

Jim


ex-tyke
Graham Creswick
Chatham, Ontario, Canada
(1025 posts)

Registered:
10/25/2007 11:17AM

Main British Car:
1976 MGB Ford 302

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights
Posted by: ex-tyke
Date: February 16, 2015 10:17AM

Wish I had weighed my 8.8 before installation!
Keep in mind that 8-9" of housing and axle shaft per side have been removed for our rides and typically, all superfluous suspension brackets and gussets are cut off - final weight would be considerably under Carl's posted gross weight of 199lb.


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(3450 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
79 MGB, Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: February 16, 2015 12:26PM

I sure hope so!


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(1900 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Rear Axle Weights
Posted by: mgb260
Date: February 16, 2015 01:51PM

Carl, The 8.8 found in 90-92 4.0 V6 Rangers is lighter than the Mustang and Explorer. Less brackets and smaller axle tubes. Same 28 spline axles as the 7.5. Actually everythings the same except larger center housing and ring and pinion gears.


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(3450 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
79 MGB, Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: February 21, 2015 01:56PM

Strengthening the GM 7.625 10 Bolt.

[www.hotrod.com]


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(5610 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: February 22, 2015 09:38AM

What I took away from that article was that their strengthening mods go to the axle size and housing rigidity, plus the differential. But there's no new news here. Stock R&P for instance. According to them, somewhere around 400HP you start to break gear teeth in the stock axle unless the housing is reinforced.

But wait. How is this different? I think the real concern is not breaking gear teeth but accelerated wear. I know it has been for me. I have yet to break teeth off in any axle on any car, though I certainly have worn out R&P sets. Spider gears, yes but not R&P. If they are set up right to begin with it takes an insane amount of power to break them and a good lubricant helps a great deal. But then again, I'm not a drag racer with a marginal axle. I just drive on the street, sometimes aggressively if conditions and traffic permits, and may occasionally put it on a race track.

Back around '85 Hot Rod did an article on drag racing the 9" axle. I studied that article because it explained what goes on inside an axle when high horsepower levels are applied, and specifically referenced it to reinforcing the 9" housing to withstand the added stresses. They described how the torque of the pinion distorts the housing, causing a momentary misalignment of the gear teeth. Only in very exteme cases of overload does this cause breakage but what the misalignment will do is create conditions for rapidly accelerated wear at the point of contact. In essence putting the entire load on a small area instead of spreading it out and causing a very small plastic deformation of the metal at that contact point. The author stated that because of this dynamic, an unreinforced housing would wear out the R&P set in the subject drag car in as little as ten runs down the 1/4 mile, whereas the reinforced housing had seen multiple seasons without a failure, and these results were typical in the drag racing world.

This translates directly to our axle choices. The grounds for rejecting the stock axle are:
-Weak axle shafts (in relation to R&P strength)
-Weak spider gears
-Limited gear choices (better now though)
-Expensive posi and gear choices.
-Wear in high HP applications. (have yet to hear of anyone breaking the R&P)

So why would you swap axles if you could get the preferred ratio, a strong posi, and adequate axle shafts for a comparable cost? You probably would not unless you have a high HP application, something over 300 HP at least. Properly upgraded, would the stock axle be capable of going head-to-head with the 7.625" 10 bolt? Based on size it should be better. Perry Stevenson explored the limits of the stock axle and until he went over 5 liters of blown drag motor on wrinklewall slicks, I believe it was holding up rather well.

However, a street car is often all about durability, not breakage. The stock axle is pretty durable except for those damnable spider gears, and the spindly axles always worried me even though I never saw any indications of twist. What concerns me about some of these axle swaps I see are the ones where the new axle is actually smaller than the one it replaces, or not as good in other areas. It's always a compromise of course so be mindful of what you are compromising. A Ford 8" gives you stronger spiders and axles, a great parts selection, easy set-up and light weight. The compromise is housing strength and mainly, gear efficiency. R&P strength is about the same. The 10 bolt gives a light weight and good parts choices, stronger axles and spiders, but a smaller R&P. Seems reasonable for a 6 or small V8 but for anything larger I'd be hesitant to use it if it will be driven a lot. YMMV

Jim



MG four six eight
Bill Jacobson
Wa state
(281 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 02:15AM

Main British Car:
73 MGB Buick 215, Eaton/GM supercharger

Re: Rear Axle Weights & other musings
Posted by: MG four six eight
Date: April 19, 2015 12:02AM

Narrowed Chrysler 8.75", with limited slip, Mopar performance aluminum housing, Wilwood 11.44 disc brakes and 2 piston calipers 160 lbs.
Aluminum housing saves 9 lbs. Wilwood brakes save 22lbs compared to 10" x 1 3/4" (same size as MGB) Chrysler drum brakes.

Pro's,
Plenty strong and will last practically forever
Limited slip was fairly common on Chrysler vehicles.
Some what easy to narrow with custom length axles available from Mosier. (lots of wheel bolt pattern choices available)
3.23 gears were used on a lot of vehicles and is a good ratio for MGB V8 conversions.

Con's,
Some taller gear ratios including the 3.23's are getting harder to find new.
Mopar aluminum housing is expensive:-o

Indifferent,

Driver's side battery box will need to be removed on chrome bumper cars when using Mopar aluminum housing.
Some "clearance adjustments" required using a BFH at the hump area behind the battery(s)!

Bill



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2015 12:08AM by MG four six eight.


joe_padavano
Joseph Padavano
Northern Virginia
(115 posts)

Registered:
02/15/2010 03:49PM

Main British Car:
1962 F-85 Deluxe wagon 215 Olds

Re: Rear Axle Weights & other musings
Posted by: joe_padavano
Date: April 20, 2015 10:54AM

Sorry, but weight numbers for a complete axle housing with brakes are kind of worthless without also knowing the width of the axles and the size of the brakes. Ford 9" and 8.8" axles come in a wide variety of widths, brake sizes, and mounting bracket configurations (coil or leaf springs).


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(3450 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
79 MGB, Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights & other musings
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: July 31, 2018 11:53AM

Added this to my original post.

Jaguar E-Type IRS (with cage & splined hubs, no trailing arms) 308.4 pounds.

JAg IRS Weight.jpeg
Jag IRS Weight 2.jpeg


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(5610 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights & other musings
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: July 31, 2018 12:28PM

Mostly sprung weight. Does a very good job of balancing out a heavier engine in the front. Weight can be reduced by various means. Lighter LCAs and half shafts are available in custom lengths. single coil overs, etc. For comparison with OEM, include springs, shackles and shock absorbers, etc.

Jim


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(3450 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
79 MGB, Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights & other musings
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: July 31, 2018 05:24PM

Well, since you mentioned OEM, the rear shocks don't really add much of anything. ;)

That was just for reference, since I had one to weigh.


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(5610 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights & other musings
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: August 01, 2018 10:15AM

Why?
Are you thinking about IRS?

Jim


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(3450 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
79 MGB, Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Rear Axle Weights & other musings
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: August 01, 2018 11:09AM

Probably not. Bill Yobi found this one near me, so I went & grabbed it for him. I had to help lift it in & out of my truck. Bill was thinking around 260 lbs. Not.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.