Re: 9" Rear In A Dak

From: tkoth (tkoth@cox.net)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 21:40:07 EST


Good info Jon!! I think at this point we are both saying the
same thing! The Dodge 9.25" is pretty beefy. It just doesn't
have an aftermarket backing like the Ford 9", the Danas, or
a couple of the GM Corporate diffs. And the Ford 9" has some
inherent design features that better lend it to a build-up
than the Dodge 9.25".

Tim

--- previous post ---

-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:36:36 +0000 (UTC)
-From: jon@dakota-truck.net
-Subject: Re: DML: 9" Rear In A Dak
-
-"tkoth" <tkoth@cox.net> wrote:
-
-: That's the opposite of what I've read. I was basing my
-: comments on reviews in 4 Wheeler magazine where they
called
-: the Dak's 9.25" rear "stronger than most 1/2 ton pickup
rear
-: axles".
-
- That I can definitely see. The 9.25 is a beefy unit
for sure,
-and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it is stronger
than most
-1/2 ton rears; its just not quite up to the task of the
drag racing
-needs of some folks, in stock form.
-
-: If someone has real knowledge of the internals of
-: both then I cant argue. Like I said.... the 9" can be
made
-: much stronger than the 9.25", but then we aren't
comparing
-: stock axles. But that's where the real benefit of the 9"
-: lies, there are so many of them and so many after market
-: parts available that they realy are versatile.
-
- True. It would almost seem to me that if an 8.25 or
9.25
-isn't going to be sufficient in stock form, then a 9"
*probably*
-won't be sufficient in stock form either, BUT at least the
9"
-can be built very strong for not much money whereas the
parts
-for the 8.25 and 9.25 to build them to the built 9" level
will
-either be not available or very expensive. So, in a
situation
-like Bill's where he has come across a good deal on a 9"
for his
-drag racing Dak with an 8.25", it would make good sense to
seriously
-consider the 9", IMHO. (Would also make good sense to make
sure
-the 9" is built to take the power.)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:45:42 EST