Major Rear End Upgrade
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 1
From: East Central Florida
Major Rear End Upgrade
Several weeks ago I posted here on swapping a crummy, Dana, Rear in my 88 F150. I got some conflicting opinions from respondants. I asked for info from anyone who'd done this retro-upgrade. So lacking any experienced commentary I went ahead and did a swap anyway. Here's the skinny on it.
I installed a 9" from a '77 F150, replacing a 3.93:1 Dana with a far superior 3.50:1, Hotchkiss Type, 9" FoMoCo assembly. I used everything from a Dana for my suspension system including Anti Sway Bar & Shocks, on the 9 inch.
I was a little worried about a tang that aligns Anti Sway Bar Brackets, on a Dana which are in center case casting. There is no tang, or way to fabricate one on FoMoCo 9" assy. But it matters not if U bolts that clamp ASB Brkt to Dana are tightened down to torque spec. It works fine and does not move with use on the 9" FoMoCo rear.
I used 88 Brakes & wheel cylinders on 77 backing plates woith no difficulty. 77 F150 already had 3" rear brakes so 77 drums were correct. 88 Drums DO NOT FIT over heavier, 9" axle center since it's about 1/4" to 3/8" greater diameter than chintzy Dana axle centers. I did have to use 88 Park brake actuation cables because of location of primary cable on side of L/H frame rail as it is. 77 cables simply will not work as they are both typical and 88 cables are specific L/H & R/H application.
OEM U-Bolts & Spring Retainer Plates work fine. I did upgrade 77 Brake "Flex Hose" with 88 because they are slightly different configuration. 77 hose was
"Cut" by a yard ape @ Salvage Yard when yanking rear.
All in all, I think this was a vast improvement over that Dana rear. For one thing, 77 does not have ABS and mine was not working properly to add more misery to riding around with a Dana Rear that's a Chevy inside but FoMoCo on outside. So I yanked that sloppy, leaking, faulty ABS, Dana, Junk rear end & stuck a real rear under my F150.
I had to use a 3.25 X 3.5025 Blow Tie, "unequal" U-Joint. that's a 3-1/4" by 3-9/16" U-Joint Assy to mate a stupid oversized, unnecessary large U-Joint to both a 3-9/16" OEM drive shaft yoke size & 3-1/4" FoMoCo Pinion Flange.
But it was nothing complex, and easily done.
It handles, rides and drives better than Dana ever did. I attribute it to less unsprung weight. Also 3.50 ratio woke up 4.9L engine which I recalibrated ECM for. I noted a slight increase in Mpg from 14 to 16.2 highway. I don't notice a significant change in performance with it. 4.9L pulls about same, but slightly taller gear is nicer.
Engine likes extra mph in each gear of 5spd OD Manual. I had to shift into direct with 3.93 to pass with the Dana too, unless I had all day & plenty of room. Now 4th is taller & worth 7 mph more so 4.9L isn't gear bound @ 70 like it was with the Dana 3.93 set up.
On A Scale of 1 to 10, I give it following evaluations the way I see it:
10 for improved function & overall performance,
10 for handling,
10 for pure satisfaction,
9 for ease of retro fit & installation and . . . .
10 for "I'd do it again in a New York Minute".
In fact if I thought it was as easy as it turned out to be, and thought I'd notice such a good improvement as I did, I'd have done a retro-upgrade a couple years ago. Instead I nursed that "Blow Tie" Dana rear for too long, and when ABS screwed up causing random, imtermittent, rear wheel lock up on braking, especially when hard braking, I was fit to be tied. I don't need no stinkin Chevrolet parts in my FoMoCo vehicles.
It's beyond me why Ford departed from 9" FoMoCo front Loading, Hotchkiss Unit in 1st place. Never the less, after they did why did they choose a Spicer Integral salisbury type rear axle assembly?
FWIW, I used to purchase parts for that stupid rear at GM dealer. They have "Kits" like carrier pinion gear & shaft rebuild kit, 1/2 price of individual parts from Henry, or Aftermarket jobbers. . . .
To compound matters, Dana bought Spicer making it Dana-Spicer Corp. and stopped building original Dana Hotchkiss type, front loading rears, like MoPaR Muscle cars ran. Instead they went to the Spicer Design integral rear. These rears are hard to find a good used one, and if you do it's gonna be costly.
FBp
I installed a 9" from a '77 F150, replacing a 3.93:1 Dana with a far superior 3.50:1, Hotchkiss Type, 9" FoMoCo assembly. I used everything from a Dana for my suspension system including Anti Sway Bar & Shocks, on the 9 inch.
I was a little worried about a tang that aligns Anti Sway Bar Brackets, on a Dana which are in center case casting. There is no tang, or way to fabricate one on FoMoCo 9" assy. But it matters not if U bolts that clamp ASB Brkt to Dana are tightened down to torque spec. It works fine and does not move with use on the 9" FoMoCo rear.
I used 88 Brakes & wheel cylinders on 77 backing plates woith no difficulty. 77 F150 already had 3" rear brakes so 77 drums were correct. 88 Drums DO NOT FIT over heavier, 9" axle center since it's about 1/4" to 3/8" greater diameter than chintzy Dana axle centers. I did have to use 88 Park brake actuation cables because of location of primary cable on side of L/H frame rail as it is. 77 cables simply will not work as they are both typical and 88 cables are specific L/H & R/H application.
OEM U-Bolts & Spring Retainer Plates work fine. I did upgrade 77 Brake "Flex Hose" with 88 because they are slightly different configuration. 77 hose was
"Cut" by a yard ape @ Salvage Yard when yanking rear.
All in all, I think this was a vast improvement over that Dana rear. For one thing, 77 does not have ABS and mine was not working properly to add more misery to riding around with a Dana Rear that's a Chevy inside but FoMoCo on outside. So I yanked that sloppy, leaking, faulty ABS, Dana, Junk rear end & stuck a real rear under my F150.
I had to use a 3.25 X 3.5025 Blow Tie, "unequal" U-Joint. that's a 3-1/4" by 3-9/16" U-Joint Assy to mate a stupid oversized, unnecessary large U-Joint to both a 3-9/16" OEM drive shaft yoke size & 3-1/4" FoMoCo Pinion Flange.
But it was nothing complex, and easily done.
It handles, rides and drives better than Dana ever did. I attribute it to less unsprung weight. Also 3.50 ratio woke up 4.9L engine which I recalibrated ECM for. I noted a slight increase in Mpg from 14 to 16.2 highway. I don't notice a significant change in performance with it. 4.9L pulls about same, but slightly taller gear is nicer.
Engine likes extra mph in each gear of 5spd OD Manual. I had to shift into direct with 3.93 to pass with the Dana too, unless I had all day & plenty of room. Now 4th is taller & worth 7 mph more so 4.9L isn't gear bound @ 70 like it was with the Dana 3.93 set up.
On A Scale of 1 to 10, I give it following evaluations the way I see it:
10 for improved function & overall performance,
10 for handling,
10 for pure satisfaction,
9 for ease of retro fit & installation and . . . .
10 for "I'd do it again in a New York Minute".
In fact if I thought it was as easy as it turned out to be, and thought I'd notice such a good improvement as I did, I'd have done a retro-upgrade a couple years ago. Instead I nursed that "Blow Tie" Dana rear for too long, and when ABS screwed up causing random, imtermittent, rear wheel lock up on braking, especially when hard braking, I was fit to be tied. I don't need no stinkin Chevrolet parts in my FoMoCo vehicles.
It's beyond me why Ford departed from 9" FoMoCo front Loading, Hotchkiss Unit in 1st place. Never the less, after they did why did they choose a Spicer Integral salisbury type rear axle assembly?
FWIW, I used to purchase parts for that stupid rear at GM dealer. They have "Kits" like carrier pinion gear & shaft rebuild kit, 1/2 price of individual parts from Henry, or Aftermarket jobbers. . . .
To compound matters, Dana bought Spicer making it Dana-Spicer Corp. and stopped building original Dana Hotchkiss type, front loading rears, like MoPaR Muscle cars ran. Instead they went to the Spicer Design integral rear. These rears are hard to find a good used one, and if you do it's gonna be costly.
FBp
Posting Guru
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
From: CT
The original axle in a 88 F150 was a ford built 8.8, and it's a good axle. I have no clue why you would go to chevy for parts for a ford axle? And i'm almost 100% sure ford stopped using "light duty" dana rear axles (dana 44) in like 79... The swap you did was nothing special, many have done it without blinking an eye...
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 668
Likes: 3
From: NW Kans
i agree with fordperf300; 88 f150 had ford 8.8" rear end
never heard of dana 44 rear axle, only front
if the ABS wasn't working properly, it wasn't working at all and you still would have had regular brakes, ABS does not apply your brakes, only keeps them from locking up
with 3.50 gears, you will have higher top end and better fuel economy than 3.93, but your passing story is backwards; shifting to 4th from OD will rev your motor more but not give you more speed
lower gears will give you more "passing power", just like when an automatic downshifts when passing
as for the technical, won't argue with you there, never done it but it doesn't seem too difficut and it sounds like you did a good job with it, glad you like it
never heard of dana 44 rear axle, only front
if the ABS wasn't working properly, it wasn't working at all and you still would have had regular brakes, ABS does not apply your brakes, only keeps them from locking up
with 3.50 gears, you will have higher top end and better fuel economy than 3.93, but your passing story is backwards; shifting to 4th from OD will rev your motor more but not give you more speed
lower gears will give you more "passing power", just like when an automatic downshifts when passing
as for the technical, won't argue with you there, never done it but it doesn't seem too difficut and it sounds like you did a good job with it, glad you like it
