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 > > > > >