...though I have no idea what gearing it is or if it's got a Sure Grip (I doubt it does). This axle will be plenty strong for any power it's ever going to get from my 225, so my question is.......is there a way to get disc brakes on this bad boy?

_________________
'74 Duster w/ HEI ignition, beat to snot suspension, A904, 8.25" 3.55 SG rear, still being tuned up and gets 17 MPG

Know how they always build a better idiot? That's me

yes, very easily... im in the process of doing it now. go to the junkyard and find a late 90's jeep cherokee. (i used a 98 grand cherokee) its not the same rear end as your 8 1/4, but itll work. i think the jeeps a dana 44, slightly smaller. get the backing plates, and all of the other brake components. to assemble, youll have to use a dremel to make the large hole in the backing plates a little bigger to fit on the rear. the 4 holes that the studs on the rear go through the backing plate will all line up well with no modification. the rotors are the correct depth/dimension and fit perfect on the axles, bolt patern and all. i havent looked yet, but i think this will still work with 14 inch wheels. thats the only possible hang up ive run into yet. if you need pictures, send me an email at i_pulled_a_bil at homail.com, ill be glad to show you what ive done...

_________________
"I don't like these seatbelts, they're too complicated." - my lovely girlfriend in reference to my 71 duster seatbelts

Would the disc setup from the front of a 92 4x4 jeep work on the rear or front of a 66 abody? Im switching to LBP and am thinking of an 8 1/4 from the jeep as a new rear axle.
Thanks
Frank

_________________
Scrapple: Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
73 Duster - Race Car
66 Dart Wagon - DD
178" FED
82 D150
All Slant powered

Hi Frank. There was a post on here in the last couple of weeks or so, talking about the jeep rear. One of the guys on here posted that they are an expensive rear to work on, partswise. It did not sound too appealing to me. You may already know this, or may want to check it out further.

_________________
Excuse me, does this smell like chloroform to you?

yeah, id steer away from using the entire jeep rear in your dart. i dont even think that a rear diff out on that jeep is actually an 8 1/4. i may be wrong, but i thought they were actually dana 44's which is a little smaller then the 8 1/4 even though it looks very similar. the disc set up will not work either, the spindle is a completely different set up. the jeep has upper and lower ball joints connected directly to the diff housing, no control arms like an a body... oh, also if anyones interested i have a few pics of what ive done so far with the jeep rear disc swap on my 8 1/4. if you want, send me a p/m or an email and ill be glad to send the pics...

_________________
"I don't like these seatbelts, they're too complicated." - my lovely girlfriend in reference to my 71 duster seatbelts

I think the problem was that the caliper was expensive, like $250 each (or something like that).

_________________
'15 Chrysler 200S V6
'74 Duster 360, factory 4 speed car

And the bearing replacement.

_________________
Excuse me, does this smell like chloroform to you?

which model Jeep rear are we talking about? The Cherokees (NOT Grand)
had either a Dana 35 or an 8-1/4. The grands I've seen had either of those or a Dana 44. Havent run into a Wrangler with a 8-1/4 yet, most were Dana 35s (not strong enuf for a perf application--- any one that "muds" even somewhat seriously swaps em out ) and a few later ones with a Dana 44. The Dana 44 in the Grand was junk, had an alum. outer housing (pumpkin) and they eat carrier bearings. Also gotta be careful if u have a Grand with a 44; there was even a TSB on this, about not jacking up the back of the car under the rear end as the housing could distort and the axle tubes bend. Its been a while since that one's come up but my buddys at the dealer were telling me about it. I think that TSB was out somewhere around '97 or so.

Putting the Grand Cherokee rear disk brakes on an 8 1/4" was all that was being discussed.

_________________
'15 Chrysler 200S V6
'74 Duster 360, factory 4 speed car

most of the xj (aka box ) cherokees had 8 1/4 rears but NONE of the 8 1/4 came with disk only the dana's did they also had a dana 35 but all of the newer dana's are junk

Ummm...why do you "need" disc brakes on the rear? The drums are more than fine. Most A-bodies with 10" rear drum brakes (especially those with front discs) actually have too much braking power in the rear with stock configuration, giving premature rear lockup. This is easily, inexpensively, and completely fixed by swapping slightly smaller-bore cylinders onto the rear brakes.

Rear discs are in almost all cases totally unnecessary, not beneficial, and costly and difficult to install and configure "all the way correctly". Not worth it just for bragging rights, which is all you'd gain with them.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

I'm sure they won't make as much of a difference on an A body, but when I put them on my truck (5000 lb curb weight), they made a BIG difference, and I was always obsessive about keeping the drums maintained and adjusted properly. Plus maintenence is quicker and easier, and it just looks better seeing discs on the other side of nice wheels instead of drums

_________________
'74 Duster w/ HEI ignition, beat to snot suspension, A904, 8.25" 3.55 SG rear, still being tuned up and gets 17 MPG

Know how they always build a better idiot? That's me

personally I like manual drum all the way around I think they stop just as fast as any disk set up as long as they are properly adjusted also you don't have to worry about brake dust and iv had the same shoes on the front and rear of my car for over 100,000 miles and they still have meat on them

This is generally not true, especially if we're talking about 9" drums on an A-body and you've already used them to stop from speed once in the last 8 minutes or so.

Front discs are a very valuable and worthwhile thing to have.

Rear discs aren't.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Maybe the first time...

Disks give at least three possible improvements. More surface, greater leverage, better cooling. Haven't done the math, but my bet is a 11.75 rotor has more friction contact, and I know it has more leverage. Makes it hard for me to believe that a drum set up would stop as well as a front disk. Plus, the disks are easier to modulate.

Seems to me that Car Craft did an article once where they blueprinted the drums on a Nova (or something), and then swap disks on to it and compared the stopping distances. If memory serves, they were impressed with the stopping distance with the drums, but it still didn't stop as short as the disks.

Ehrenburg was as staunch in his support of rear drums as you Dan, but recently put rear disks on his Roadrunner. His reasons where, there are kits now that work, they weight less, and ease of modulation.

Wonder if the modulation issue is why most A-Bodies have too much rear brake. Maybe it's not that they stop too good, but that they lock up too easy.

One way or another, my Valiant is getting four wheel disks. Too each his own.

Disks do have one drawback, other than dust, though. They drag.

_________________
'15 Chrysler 200S V6
'74 Duster 360, factory 4 speed car