Slant Six Forum
https://www.slantsix.org/forum/

Has anyone looked at Blazer, Sonoma s-10 Rear Ends?
https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19001		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  AnotherSix [ Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Has anyone looked at Blazer, Sonoma s-10 Rear Ends?
I have been looking for some rear end options for the A body other than the tried and true just because I am not finding what I want. I have noticed that the GM midsize trucks and Suv rears from around 2000 - 2004 are a 7 5/8" ring gear, usually 3.42 or higher ratios (some are lower, 3.08), very often posi and disc brakes. Since they are much newer low mileage ones can be found. The spring mounts are not even close, but thats easy (not that I'll think that if I end up doing this). The bolt pattern is 5 on 4 3/4, but they are narrow at 54" total. So I have been thinking the width with a good custom set of wheel adapters could be right on. No re-drilling and off the shelf brake parts. I have not looked at the brake cables. A drive shaft for the correct u-joint would have to be made up. This is more work than some swaps but I am looking into it for all the above reasons and the price might be good if you consider the functioning rear disks, 3.42s and posi all in one shot. It's not a over kill size either. I want enough strength but not extra weight or power loss. Has anyone looked at these? Any thoughts about problem areas?
Author:  slantvaliant [ Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
If they could be adapted without too much hassle, it'd be another option I'd consider.
I don't like the idea of bolt-pattern adapters. I suppose one could run Chevy rims, but then you'd have mixed patterns front and rear - something else I don't like. Could the axles and disks be redrilled to 5 on 4.5"?
What's the center register diameter?
Is that 54" between wheel-mating surfaces?
Is the pumpkin centered?
Is it a C-clip axle, or what?
What are the weaknesses? I'm sure there's a forum that has some ideas on that.
Author:  dakight [ Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
I shudder at the thought of using wheel adapters. Some people might be willing to risk their life on them, but I am not.
Author:  AnotherSix [ Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
As far as wheel adapters go, I'm not a big fan either. However on this setup they could be made thick enough (an inch or more) and machined to be hub centric, even tight on the hub. I would not mind having to use a axle puller slide hammer to get them off. They could also have the proper size shoulder on the outboard side so the wheel locks on. There is a shop out here that does custom wheel work and makes them out of aluminum or steel, they are nothing like the cast junk you normally see. They could likely be redrilled. I will have to check one of my GM cars for the center diameter. I am pretty sure this is a c-clip axle.
Author:  AnotherSix [ Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
My last post was interupted. The rear is 54" total, from wheel mount to wheel mount. The pumpkin is centered on the two wheel drives. I think the tubes are 3" diameter, but not sure. I am pretty sure it is a c-clip style so re-drilling, long studs and spacers should be no problem. I was weighing this against a good set of adapters. With the adapters new rotors would be off the shelf and the whole job would be much less involved. I have to really look into all the details, I just started looking at these yesterday. I am hoping to find some data about percent of power loss, but I know it is less on most modern rear ends than on older styles. The little 7 1/4 rears are one of the things that help darts with small engines go and get good mileage. Even most small block cars never need a 8 3/4" or ford 9".
Author:  Slant6Rat [ Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
The s10 and s15 7.5" and 7.625" axles have been around since 77 and up to late 90's. After that I think they went to the 8.5" 10 bolt that could be had with the 12" disc brakes out back.
My 86 S10 axle is 54.375" MS to MS and I measured the 2000 at the same figure. I have been told the 4x4 Blazers have a 4" wider axle. The 86 pinion offset is only 1" to the drivers side. Axle tube diameter is 2.635".
I'm using an S10 axle for my project because it had the same mountings surface distance as my stock axle and because I wanted larger brakes out back. I paid $100 for it and the yard pulled it and put it on my trailer. I don't think you can find a bigger early MoPar axle for that price.
For me its changing the spring perch location and welding on a Chevy universal joint to my old drive line. I'm keeping the stock front brakes and drilling the drums for the chevy bolt pattern along with the correct size chevy studs. I may have to use a Lokar universal E brake cable setup and proportioning valve to adjust the brake pressure front to back. A lot of wheel mfgrs make hubcentric rings for their custom wheels and there should be one available in your size.
ImageImage
Author:  heckshemi [ Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
You might also look at the ranger rear end. It's 56.5", has 4 1/2" bolt pattern and the yards are full of them. I pulled one to put in my valiant.
http://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17616
Author:  mcnoople [ Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Playing devils advocate here but doesn't the scarebird front disc conversion that replaces 9" drums use s-10 rotors. You could use s-10 rotors at all 4 corners and have a chevy bolt pattern car.
Author:  Joshie225 [ Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes, but those rotors slip over the original 4" bolt circle front hubs.
Author:  mcnoople [ Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
I must have had a brain fart I remember the kit being based off the unicast s10 rotor with thea bearing hub cast into the rotor not the slip on rotor. When I looked into it I remember thinking what a pain it would be to drill out holes for the studs.
Author:  AnotherSix [ Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Ranger rear end looks good too. In the end I would probably go with that if I find one thats right. I want to put on rear disks so that is part of the reason for looking at the GMs. I will be counting the cost and just getting the ratio I want and limited slip may be what I settle on. What size are the brakes on that ford? I assume 4.10 is optional and standard is around the mid to low threes?
Author:  dusty7t4 [ Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:00 am ]
Post subject: 
very interesting thread. makes me wish I would have held off on buying that 30 year old 8 3/4.

when you've got it together (or at least close) post some more pictures. I would very much like to see how it turns out

good luck

-dave
Author:  Ron Parker [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
We have been here before the 8 inch ford rearend came in a million cars or more is a simple bolt in for a abody. One is limited by the gear ratios but i beleve you can get aftermarket gears from like 3.55 to 5.36. Find a old mustang fairlane falcon at a junk yard and go. Thanks Ron Parker :D










It Aint Over Until I Win
Author:  440_Magnum [ Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
As far as wheel adapters go, I'm not a big fan either. However on this setup they could be made thick enough (an inch or more) and machined to be hub centric, even tight on the hub. I would not mind having to use a axle puller slide hammer to get them off.
One thing I really don't like about this is that the wheel centerlines would wind up outboard of the bearing centerlines. That would increase the stress on the wheel bearings substantially because the wheels would be "overhung" so far that the axle would be acting as a lever and putting force GREATER than the weight carried by the wheel on the bearing.
Author:  emsvitil [ Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
As far as wheel adapters go, I'm not a big fan either. However on this setup they could be made thick enough (an inch or more) and machined to be hub centric, even tight on the hub. I would not mind having to use a axle puller slide hammer to get them off.
One thing I really don't like about this is that the wheel centerlines would wind up outboard of the bearing centerlines. That would increase the stress on the wheel bearings substantially because the wheels would be "overhung" so far that the axle would be acting as a lever and putting force GREATER than the weight carried by the wheel on the bearing.

FWD rims with negative offset (lots of backspacing) can compensate for the wheel adaptors...........
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/