Re: [Chevelle-list] rear axle ratio??

[Dan McIntosh]

Title: Message

I believe it to be stock, with the removable center carrier... I have no idea of the "model designation" for this type rear end.. which makes it difficult to look up gears on the net... thanks   Dan McIntosh Pavement Scraping 1964 Impala SS http://www.lowriderimpala.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale McIntosh To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:58 PM Subject: RE: [Chevelle-list] rear axle ratio?? Do you happen to know what year rear end it is?  I assume a full size car 64 or older?  I do have a GM parts book for 55-64 passenger car rears but no id information.  Ratios available were 3.08, 3.36, 3.55, 3.70, 4.11, 4.56, 4.88, 5.13 and 5.38   Dale McIntosh TC Gold #92/ACES #1709 67SS/67 Elky Dale�s Place � My 67 SS and 67 El Camino ChevelleStuff � Decoding info on 64-72 Chevelles Team 67 � 1967 Chevelle/El Camino Specific Midwest Chevelles � Midwest Chevelle Show Information -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan McIntosh Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] rear axle ratio?? well, you guys made me recheck my math...instead of finding the tire radius using the standard formula, I went out and measured it instead... Now the numbers work out to 3.08. Very nice work fellas.. where can I find this info on the rear ends at?? Thanks..   Dan McIntosh Pavement Scraping 1964 Impala SS http://www.lowriderimpala.com ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] rear axle ratio?? In a message dated 7/22/2003 9:09:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think the 3.31 ratio was offered from 55-64,Tom. I think 3.08 and 3.36 were the two gear ratios offered in GM passenger cars w/Powerglide trans. Clint Hooper LT5 Registry Director http://www.LT5Registry.net/ ACES #1650 http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint_hooper.htm You're right Clint, minor oversight :-) Tom