Which rear end should i go with

lilcrxthatculd · Post by **lilcrxthatculd** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:42 am

okay...i have a 83 ranger that im building a 289 backed by a c-4 to go in it
when its all said and done ill have around 350-400hp to the wheels

but one thing im stumped on is which rear end would be the easiest to put in and withstand that power

i was thinking 9", but i dont know what car/truck to get it out of

then i thought 8.8 out of a fox, but they're coil spring suspension

any help would be greatly appreciated

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:55 am

There are plenty of threads discussing Ranger rearend options. Just make a search and you'll find all you need.

For ease of installation, you can't beat the 8.8 REs from the newer Rangers. They bolt right in without any issues and are capable of handling 350hp no problem. The axles are 28 spline, same as the Mustangs. If you doubt their strength, you can replace the gears, carrier, and axles, to get even more power handling out of'em and upgrade to 31 spline at the same time. The rearend housings are all-but a bolt-in solution. The only part that might give you trouble is the parking brake cables.

The Explorer 8.8" REs are also a popular swap just because they give you rear disc brakes AND the axles are 31 spline. But they are not a bolt-in solution. You'll have to remount spring perches, shock mounts, and some say you also have to narrow the width. However I think there are plenty of people that have the Explorer REs installed without any narrowing. If you are looking to get wide tires under the fenders, narrowing might be something you want to do.

The 9" used to be a popular rearend to swap, but it's far from an easy job. With the popularity and reliability that the 8.8 has proven itself to be, not many 9" swaps are being done anymore. When doing the 9" swap, you run into the same problems you have with the Explorer 8.8...lots of welding, narrowing, and fabbing to get stuff right.

For the money and ease of installation, I'd still recommend the Ranger 8.8. The look of the Explorer rear disc is enough that people will go through the extra effort to get the Explorer REs to work. But it's difficult to justify a 9" swap anymore.

GregR · Post by **GregR** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:04 pm

The 8.8 came out in the Ranger chassis in '86. They didn't become common until the 4.0 came out in '90. In '93 the Ranger rear axle got 1-1/2" wider. The '86-'88 rears do not have RABS sensors and only came with 3.73 gears.

Check out www.car-part.com , it's a nation-wide salvage yard search. In your case, search using 1987 and 1990 as the years (RABS and nonRABS). You're bound to find an 8.8 rear of the proper width at a salvage yard that's close by.

Greg

87ranger · Post by **87ranger** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:37 am

the easyist? to put in to put in is a ranger 8.8 out of a 3.0 4 wheel drive or a 4.0. if you dont mind a little work then a chopped explorer 8.8 will give you a ton of "bonuses" for around the same price

94stranger · Post by **94stranger** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:46 am

question, if '93 and up rangers are 1 1/2" wider would the explorer rear bolt right in without shortning it?

MalcolmV8 · Post by **MalcolmV8** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:26 am

94stranger wrote:question, if '93 and up rangers are 1 1/2" wider would the explorer rear bolt right in without shortning it?

My 95 Explorer rearend was 3" wider than my 92 Ranger rearend. Measured flange to flange.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:49 am

MalcolmV8 wrote:
94stranger wrote:question, if '93 and up rangers are 1 1/2" wider would the explorer rear bolt right in without shortning it?
My 95 Explorer rearend was 3" wider than my 92 Ranger rearend. Measured flange to flange.

Did you shorten your Explorer RE or leave it 3" wider?

I didn't shorten my 93 Ranger RE to work in my 89 Ranger and even being wider, it looks perfectly stock including tires and rims. I can see the difference, but that's only because I know there is a difference. But nobody else has ever noticed it. In fact the outward appearance of the truck is so stock, most people assume it's a 4-banger under the hood.

MalcolmV8 · Post by **MalcolmV8** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:17 am

I left it 3" wider as the stock 92 rearend looked a little to narrow anyway. I just made sure the off set on my rims was right so the wheels didn't stick out and look goofy.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:15 pm

GregR,
That's a very good source of parts, glad you posted it, sure beats the ones I had been using. Any problems when you swaped from your 7.5 to the 8.8 in your late model?
Dave

GregR · Post by **GregR** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:56 pm

I went from the '98 7.5 w/3.73s to a '95 8.8 w/3.73s then to a '00 8.8 w/4.10s. The only differences are the brake cylinders where the line threads in and the center "hub" on the axles.

The brake cylinders will swap from one rear to another, but the brake line on the '00 had larger flair nuts although the line itself is the same size.

The '00 also has a larger "hub" at the center of the axle. When I bought the '00 rear it was missing one drum. I took one from the '95 rear and tried to put it on the '00. The hole in the center of the drum was too small. Ford changed that hub size in '98 (same as '91-'94 Explorer).

I love that car-part site. I found a flairside bed for $200. I also found the 8.8/4.10/TL rear on there for $265 delivered to my door from Green Bay, WI. That site has saved me alot of phone calls and yard walking.

Greg

pdmustgt2 · Post by **pdmustgt2** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:51 pm

I'm getting ready to put 01 mountaineer rear in my 99 ranger. I know it's 1.5 wider but the stock rear is 1.5 narrower than the front so now it will be the same on both ends. Never understood why they make the rear narrower than the front? They didn't do that on the explorers. It's funny you can see the narrow rear on the GM trucks.

Right now I just got done removing brackets/mounts ground smooth. Now ready to weld the shock and spring mounts on. I have spare 01 ranger xle to measure off from plus I removed the shock mounts from it.

That it's now a 5.0 in it don't need 4.10's anymore going to 3.73's

87ranger · Post by **87ranger** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:28 am

they made them narrower so when the truck had a load in the bed the tires would tuck up into the wheel wells not have the sidewall cut

pdmustgt2 · Post by **pdmustgt2** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:51 am

Really I thought it had something to do with the space and time.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:23 am

pdmustgt2 wrote:Really I thought it had something to do with the space and time.

Was that intended to sound like a smart@$$ comment?

pdmustgt2 · Post by **pdmustgt2** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:34 am

Yep

It's only 3/4 wider on each side and theres plenty of room still