thanks Kerry...very much appreciated.
d^2........i wouldn't have asked if i had the tag or the pig was out of the
rear............
----- Original Message -----
From: <dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: IML: checking an imperial rear end ratio??
> The good thing of the SureGrip (posi was the Cheby term) is that you can
turn
> both rear tires together (w/out it, they tund to rotate independently, so
this
> test is harder). However, the Chrysler rears have tags on them that give
you
> the ratio. On my 68 sedan, it was covered with grease, so I could not
find it,
> but later when I had some rear end work, we found it. Its hard to
determine
> the ratio without the tag, but not impossible.
>
> As far as I know, all Imperials from early 60's through 71 (possibly 72)
had
> 2.94's as the only available ratio. Apparently, there was a 3.23 option
for
> early wedge cars (the Car Life 61 road test in the site has a 3.23). From
72
> or 73 on, the standard ratio was 3.23, but I know at leat of one 75 owner
who
> claims he has a 2.71.
> D^2, 268's, one w/ SureGrip, both 2.94's.
>
> Quoting Kerry Pinkerton <pinkertonk@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > Put a chalk mark on the ujoint at the rear axle and one at a rear tire.
> > Rotate the tire 1 complete turn counting the revolutions of the ujoint.
> > The number of turns of the Ujoint is the ratio. If you count 10 turns
> > of the tire then divide by 10 on the number of Ujoint rotations, you
> > will get a more accurate reading. It helps to have someone to help you.
> >
> >
> > KerryP
> > Patch panels fabricated
> > Imperials -- 50 Limo, 57 roadster, 61's, 64, 68 Convert, 73, a 66 300
> > and a bunch of lesser marques
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: BIGDOG1(PHIL JR)
> > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:45 AM
> > Subject: IML: checking an imperial rear end ratio??
> >
> >
> > who can tell me how to hand spin the axle in order to determine what
> > the ratio of a posi rear is??
> >
> > thanks for a quick answer.
> >
> > phil
> >
>
>
>