8 3/4 question

[Funkychicken]

So my 64 has the big external nut at outside end of axle. Ive never messed with this style at all.. I am planning on putting a 67 model in car. As I was crawling around under car yesterday I noticed the axle flange for brake plates looks to be same 5 bolt as my 67. I haven't done any measuring at all just an observation. Is it possible to swap a 67 style axle shaft, retainer and bearings into the 64, assuming axle length correct? Also have newer bent housing with good ends was thinking of replacing the 64 ends but the axle swap would be easy enough if possible.

 

[icetech]

So my 64 has the big external nut at outside end of axle. Ive never messed with this style at all.. I am planning on putting a 67 model in car. As I was crawling around under car yesterday I noticed the axle flange for brake plates looks to be same 5 bolt as my 67. I haven't done any measuring at all just an observation. Is it possible to swap a 67 style axle shaft, retainer and bearings into the 64, assuming axle length correct? Also have newer bent housing with good ends was thinking of replacing the 64 ends but the axle swap would be easy enough if possible.

Yes.. the housing is the same, just the axles and backing plates are different..the axle lengths may not be the proper length though, if you use your center section from the 67 and it's the same length then it should work fine

 

[Funkychicken]

10-4. I was planning on ordering new axles with green bearings anyway but now that I know I can use original housing makes it easier plus I can save 67 housing for future project. Thanks icetech

 

[Jerry Hall]

If you have a complete 67 rearend, you can save a lot of labor, by just swapping it out. You can then save the parts you want to keep from the other rearend.

 

[Jerry Hall]

The green bearing are only necessary for a rear disc brake conversion. I prefer keeping the original style bearing, they last forever.

 

[33 IMP]

To the best of my knowledge the 64 rear is the widest of the 62-64s, and wider than the 67 by a bit. Means the 67 axles will be too short for what you are contemplating. Best to just swap the whole 67 rear in. Gets you more room for wheels with the wrong offset too.
Edit: if you are on a-bodies there is a correct chart for rearend widths. The chart most seen is wrong, wrong, wrong!

 

[dadsbee]

The 64 is over an inch++ wider than the 67. Save yourself some heartache and just swap the entire assembly as shown here...
1964 Dodge 440

 

[Funkychicken]

Jerry, future plans are to do a complete disc swap but for immediate time drums. Figured new axles and bearings would be easy enough since I've got all the brake parts on hand stock piled. I do like the original taper bearings but I've seen first hand straight cut rollers go over 400k. 98 ranger. To me it's a toss up. Plus I'll have a full spare if things get western.

 

[Funkychicken]

To the best of my knowledge the 64 rear is the widest of the 62-64s, and wider than the 67 by a bit. Means the 67 axles will be too short for what you are contemplating. Best to just swap the whole 67 rear in. Gets you more room for wheels with the wrong offset too.
Edit: if you are on a-bodies there is a correct chart for rearend widths. The chart most seen is wrong, wrong, wrong!

I had looked at that chart in the past and knew the 66,67 was the narrow. I had been saving this one while I was playing with a bodies.

 

[dadsbee]

I'll add another post... save yourself the heartache of rear axle discs as well.

 

[Funkychicken]

I'll add another post... save yourself the heartache of rear axle discs as well.

Changing thoughts as conversation continues. Believe the 67 needs to go in. I can shorten the 64 at a later date to match. No worry changing wheel offset then if things go south.

 

[33 IMP]

Changing thoughts as conversation continues. Believe the 67 needs to go in. I can shorten the 64 at a later date to match. No worry changing wheel offset then if things go south.

I'd run the 67, and cut the 64 housing to A-body width, set it up for big bolt pattern and b-body brakes. You should be able to get good money for it. A-body 8 3/4 prices are nutz.

 

[dvw]

First; These axle width charts are all over the map.
B BODY
'62-'63= 53 1/4" (And '64 Max Wedge)
'64 = 55 5/8" (Exc. Max Wedge)
'65-'67= 54 1/4"
'68-'70= 54 15/16"
'71-'74= 57 7/8"
'71-'73 wagon= 59 7/16"

B-body, 62-70 59.2 44.0
B-body, 71-72 62.0 47.3
B-body, 71-72 63.4 47.3 station wagon
C-body, 64-72 63.4 47.3
D-body, 64-72 63.4 47.3
E-body, 70-74 60.7 46.0

No way thes are correct. Measure yourself. Second; The flange style axle can be used in these housings if it's the correct length. But only with a sealed type (green) bearing. There isn't enough depth for a factory axle seal and the factorty bearing in the 62-64 housing. I've done this conversion myself. The housing in question was a 64 Plymouth used in a 73 Duster. This was 20 some odd years ago. As I remeber this housing was just barely wider than an A body housing. The car in question ran 275/60s on 15x7 cop car wheels.
Doug

 

[Funkychicken]

First; These axle width charts are all over the map.
B BODY
'62-'63= 53 1/4" (And '64 Max Wedge)
'64 = 55 5/8" (Exc. Max Wedge)
'65-'67= 54 1/4"
'68-'70= 54 15/16"
'71-'74= 57 7/8"
'71-'73 wagon= 59 7/16"

B-body, 62-70 59.2 44.0
B-body, 71-72 62.0 47.3
B-body, 71-72 63.4 47.3 station wagon
C-body, 64-72 63.4 47.3
D-body, 64-72 63.4 47.3
E-body, 70-74 60.7 46.0

No way thes are correct. Measure yourself. Second; The flange style axle can be used in these housings if it's the correct length. But only with a sealed type (green) bearing. There isn't enough depth for a factory axle seal and the factorty bearing in the 62-64 housing. I've done this conversion myself. The housing in question was a 64 Plymouth used in a 73 Duster. This was 20 some odd years ago. As I remeber this housing was just barely wider than an A body housing. The car in question ran 275/60s on 15x7 cop car wheels.
Doug

Thanks for info. Motor and trans going in first, next 3wks or so. Once they're set going to get on rear-end. Figured first step before anything, measure, measure, measure. I'll know for sure what I have, what I need. This car will be driver only so tire sizes will be common, easy to source. Should be plenty of space for whatever combo happens.

 

[dadsbee]

'64 = 55 5/8" (Exc. Max Wedge)
'65-'67= 54 1/4"

I can assure you that the 1 -3/8" difference shown here is correct after doing my 64 taper to 67 swap. No more tire rub'y...

 

[RemCharger]

I put a 67 in my 64 as well, and use a 28x10.5 slick on 15×7 cop rim and fits perfect.

 

[dvw]

I can assure you that the 1 -3/8" difference shown here is correct after doing my 64 taper to 67 swap. No more tire rub'y...

i don't buy it. There is no way Chrysler built a wider housing for 1964 only. Look at the numbers. 62-65 cars are physically the same. It shows a 64 housing 2 3/8" wider than a 63. Thats BS. And then they narrowed it in 65. No way. Look at most charts. They are specing the track widths the same from 62-70. How did they accomplish that without having numerous different axle offsets, different backing plates? Nope.
Doug

 

[33 IMP]

I took my 255/70x15 on 8" ramcharger rims to a fellow members house to try them on his 64 (stock rearend, tapered axles.) to see what backspace he needed. We got them on, but when we let the jack down, the fender was sitting on the tire. They had at least an inch or more to the spring.
The 255s fit fine on my 62
The ramchargers have either 4 or 4.25 bs. (I dont recall exactly). We figured he would need a 5" backspace on a 8/8.5" rim, because the rearend on his 64 is so wide......

 

[dadsbee]

i don't buy it. There is no way Chrysler built a wider housing for 1964 only. Look at the numbers. 62-65 cars are physically the same. It shows a 64 housing 2 3/8" wider than a 63. Thats BS. And then they narrowed it in 65. No way. Look at most charts. They are specing the track widths the same from 62-70. How did they accomplish that without having numerous different axle offsets, different backing plates? Nope.
Doug

Well trust me Doug... I certainly measured it drum face to drum face on both before I went through the bother. 67 complete assembly is 1 3/8 narrower than a 64 and my 275's are now very happy with regular shocks vs air.

 

[33 IMP]

Should have been a boat racer.......



Lake Speed.