zggill04

I appreciate the info Dave. See it doesn't have the bulge so maybe it is the 8 inch after all. But it's still a very large housing. I must say that it's a good looking underside to the car. I wish mine looked like that. It only needs a coat of paint I guess and some new parts. But thanks again for the info. Thursday I'm going to work on it again if I have the time after work and I'm going to take the tag off and degrease it all to hell so I can hopefully read it.

rst08tierney

dave I have a 67 with a 289. I do have a 9in rear, was this something put in after the fact? I did not think 9" were standard in a 289 in 67

zggill04

Based on everything I have seen and the Mustang books I have looked in, the 67 289's did not.

kalli

correct. 289s never came with 9" rears. 9" rears are a bigblock thing
289s all came with 8". and most if not all 6 cylinders had that crappy 7.25" integral piece of ...

if you've seen a 9" housing once you will know the difference between 8" and 9". it just looks bigger.
the 9" are nearly round and the 8" are more oval.
as well all 8" i've seen have tapered axle tubes. means they get smaller circumference towards the end.
My 9" stays 3" dia all the way to axle flange.

check the attachment. I robbed daves pic.


[IMG]local://upfiles/52145/40C60FDA81024622924A4BED13C09C9D.jpg[/IMG]

davesanborn

As a general statement, yes, this is correct, but.....

.... it always seems there is an exception to the rule when dealing with Classic Mustangs. Ford, the dealerships, and the original buyers of these cars seemed to put some weird combinations of options together on these cars. The minute you say that "the 9" rearend did not come behind a 289"... some guy crawls out of nowhere with his C Code '67 w/9" rear and the original dealer invoice showing it was ordered that way.

Personally, I don't rule anything out with these cars. The minute you do, it'll come back and bite you.

Dave