I've seen small block Gals with 9" rears, so engine size is no indicator as to what's under it. Ditto for the Granada/Monarchs. Got to look to see what's there. Many of the full size cars had the 9-3/8 rear. The Dana 44 is a pretty good rear, although parts are somewhat limited compared to a 9
Maybe you have but I can guarantee it was a '66, earlier or was swapped, NONE of the small block Galaxies I've seen/owned from '67 up had a 9"... All my '64 & '66 had 9", and all the ones I was pulling parts from in the junk yard(and I talking 40+ years ago) had 9"... Yep the 428 & 429 Galaxies usually did have the 9 3/8", along with 31 spline axles, you won't find one behind a 302 though...
Maybe beginning '73 when the base engine became a 351, but not likely in the '67-'72 years... I can see it now "Hey Jim we're running out of the small 3:07 rear ends(ratio most of the 302 cars got)", Jim replies that's OK we have plenty of those 9 3/8" with 2:75 gears, stick that in... Didn't happen... The 9" would require a 1330 U joint used behind a 31 spline C6 or Top Loader, small rear ends had the 1310 and transmissions were 28 spline C4, FMX or 3 spd... "Hey Jim this drive shaft is too short and yoke too large for the transmission" (C6 & 4-speeds in full size models were 27" vs 24" for the small motors)... Ummm, go ask Fred, he'll know what to do... Like I said, didn't happen... They'd have known days in advance if there was going to be a shortage on parts and would have rescheduled assembly(keeping the line moving was paramount, have a cousin that worked at Norfolk Assembly for over 30 years, that was his job)... That's why on a Marti report you sometimes find vehicles built two, three weeks, or more behind schedule...
OK, whatever. All those non standard parts anomalies I've run across were just figments of my imagination. Ford NEVER substituted parts on the assembly line. If you believe that, I've got some swamp land to sell in Nevada.
Been to Nevada, ain't interested... Well just have to disagree on this one... Unless there was a option package that included the 9"(possibly heavy duty suspension, locker rear etc), I ain't believing a rear end was intentionally substituted on the line... Could believe wrong ratio(351 cars got 2:75), but not a total different model of rear end... Bean counters would be having fits as 9" was no doubt more costly...
Bigger is usually cheaper in every regard except direct material cost. Because bigger is less complicated and requires less complexity than smaller. The bean counters would probably be having way more fits over a stray Dana 44 or something than a cheap ol' 9". I almost bought a 71' with a 351, FMX, and 9". The guy swore up and down it was a factory 9", which didn't jive with what I was told about them. He swore it was on the build sheet he just had it packed up already on "accident" when I was there. (ultimately didn't buy it because I want a early Galaxy, but this one had some sick purple metal fleck paint and a blown engine/transmission making the guy sell it dirt cheap) It was just some info I jotted down as plausible, just not likely. Ultimately, I think FORD did whatever the heck someone would pay for.
Lessee, they were installing smaller, lighter duty rears because they cost more, yeah that makes perfect sense, maybe to you...
Maybe so but I'd think that substitutions due to production of parts would be the primary reason for seeing stuff like this. One of these was a 302 powered 68 Galaxie that had a 9. Also either had a 289 Hi-po block or a Mex block as its foundation. We scrapped everything from this car cept the main caps, it was in that bad a shape. It would seem to me that outsourcing to Dana for rears would be more costly, but you never know.
I figured they were doing it because they weighed less and gave that fake nod to weight savings on fuel economy.
Not sure about them being concerned with weight and fuel economy in this time period (late 60's early 70's) Anyone weighed a Dana 44 and compared it to a 9 ? Seems they'd be pretty close in weight to me.
Before the oil embargo in Nov '73 no one cared about fuel mileage, I didn't care then... At least not enough to trade my big blocks for something more efficient... Finally sold the 390 '64 Galaxie to my father-in-law and bought a '69 302 sta wagon($125 & a color TV in trade) but that was more because of two kids rather than fuel mileage... But now I'm straying, back on subject... Yes it had the small rear end(same '69 I mentioned in my first post)... The 9" is more complex(which equals stronger) than the integral "back cover" types... Rear of pinion is supported, which requires additional machining and parts(bearing)... Carrier consists of two major components vs one, each require machine work to fit together... More processing that isn't necessary on the rear cover types... The big reason the 9" was discontinued in the mid 80s was cost... Also the 8" is just a Jr version of 9", costs to manufacture were similar...
