i know this type of set-up has been done and discussed before, but i cant find where anyone has brought up the 8.8 ford irs. doing a little internet searching seems they were in thunderbirds, explorers and cobra mustangs? obviously wouldnt be as strong as the 9", but it looks pretty narrow and vs the corvette seems to have a ton of gear choices and looks cheap$
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Why not try it and be the first. Everybody started somewhere!

I dont see why this wouldn't work, Ive seen a few cobra's pushing some decent horsepower. Do it, do it, do it.

8.8 wont survive on a big 600hp car!

twoduners11
sorry, your not the first one ; ~10 years ago i used the 8.8 on two cars ... one was with a Modular Mustang and the other with a DOHC Cobra engine

here is some info i gathered over the years:

basically there are 4 different 8.8 IRS`s:
- T-bird (supercharged V6); steel housing, 27 spline stub axles , aluminum rear cover.
weakness ; heavy, only 27 spline, rear cover mount can fail under wheelhop/ high HP...


- Lincoln Mark8 (detuned DOHC 32V Modular); all aluminum, 27 spline stubs
weakness : 27 spline and same rear cover failure
- Cobra IRS (DOHC 32V Modular); all aluminum center similar to Mark 8 but with 31 spline carrier/stubs
weakness; same rear cover failure
- 02- current IRS Explorer...


completely redesigned castings ; notice the extra webbing in case and rear cover/mount area , 31 spline, build in tone-ring/speed sensor , if i`m not mistaken the "Advance track" models have E-lockers

to clear a myth; a stock 8.8 (especially the explorer one) is actually stronger then a stock 9" (27 spline) .... the 9" only gets superior in strength with aftermarket parts like nodular iron 3th member and 31,35, ... spline carriers, etc
the (higher pinion to ring gear center line) design of the 8.8 has less friction/parasitic loss then the 9".... but on the other hand the low pinion design gives the 9" a larger "pinion to ring-gear" contact area (and the 9" has a extra pinion front support bearing to fight pinion deflection under high torque)

talking about R&P; thats the biggest disadvantage of the 8.8: the lowest (numerical highest) usable " off road" ratio that i would recommend is 4.88 :1 (IIRC lower ones are available but the pinion on them gets too small= significant loss in strength)

the 9" on the other hand has a larger pinion to start with ... so "off road" suitable gear-sets in the mid 5:1 to 6:1 are available

on the 8.8 you need custom made stub axles to mount 930/934 CV`s .... if you want a complete IRS with heat treated 4340 stub axles you may want to check out the new Currie F9" IRS .... here are some pics:




i hope this helps

Mr Rooster- sorry is not necessary, i dont like being the first one (its too expensive) the currie looks cool and not that expensive either. i actually had an explorer center a couple years ago, gave it to a buddy, now gotta see if he still has it.
thinking about driveshafts instead of cv's w/ a 5 link so no plunge. therefore if i went w/ the currie i could get the cheaper 934 stubs cause i would just have to build flanges to bolt to them anyway. if i went w/ the explorer then i guess just turn the cv housing off of the stub and weld a u joint flange to the end (might gain an inch or so per side)
i dunno what to do, been thinking about this for quite a while. still have the shorty glide sitting on the shelf haunting me. i guess the thought of building a 15k car that is diffrent, but not hoakie is whats appealing. much like Kevins car (i dont know him) i just like the car he's building. unfortunately he seems to be having the same $$$ issues as 90% of us

i like that currie center. its 2 inches narrower and had better axles than the dutchman center i have and at the same price pretty much.

really? cause I have built 3 600-800 hp Chargers that have this rear end running 305 drag slicks..no problem... the explorer ones are the strongest of the bunch and there is a TON of aftermarket for them. they work very well...

there is a difference in the abuse from a drag car to an offroad car. a drag most of the imt ewont see the types of shocks loads you will get in an offroad car.

exactly!

it would be like running a 2d on a tt ls1 its not a matter of "if" but "when"

You ever seen what a trans brake can do to a rear end? these cars are launching at 4k. if its going to snap, its going to snap with traction and instant power...

I agree there are shock loads on off road parts in different ways then on street, but I ask you this... if you side stepped your s4 on a drag track with slicks, what do you think is going to happen? with the 8.8 I would be worrried about the cv's going before the center section.

When the 03 Cobra came out, first thing that starting breaking was the cv joints on those axles.

True, but when wide open over whoops and your tires leave the ground, they're spinning at a rate higher than your ground speed, much like with a drag launch.

Only difference is with drag racing, this happens a half dozen times in a day, with off-road it's at least a dozen times or more in quick succession with a 32-35" lever arm at the end of it (your tires).

Still, this setup with a 727 or a short length manual 4spd wouldn't be a bad mid-priced alternative to an E-box or 2D and will be stronger. I wouldn't do it for a 600+hp desert car though, too much shock load.

IMHO gears can take a lot of thrust load (like a "controlled" drag launch where you "pre-load" the rearend to avoid gear lash) ... but the shock load in things like Rockwood mentioned is whats killing the R&P in the long run.
that is the reason why i like the 9" or a Quickchange; they have a beefy webbed extra (front) pinion support bearing ...



btw there are a couple other problems i see that could be a issue by using a 8.8 for a mid engine setup;
- i dont think there is a direct coupler available (could get expensive to prototype one)
- 8.8 pinion/front of housing is very long
- direct-coupled to a trans the rearend (centerline of the stubs) will be very high ; it will limit your wheeltravel considerable

if you already have the PG i would suggest to take a look at one of the B&J Quickchange rearends;
- B&J`s are designed to run conventional or inverted; by inverting (flipping) the rear you end up with the QC sitting low (and flush with the PG fluid pan) for max travel
- B&J`s can bolt direct to a trans and have additional re-enforcing in the nose as well as extra bolt holes to the trans adapter

FYI; i have no financial connection to Nate@B&J ... i just used his QC`s on some cars and can honestly say his quality and craftsmanship is top notch

however; the "super beefy and narrow" one (under 8" flange to flange) is expensive (IIRC ~$7.5K with the torsional LS); all internals are 300M and it has monster 41 spline stubs;
here is a pic (this rearend is actually in the truggy in my avatar <<< )



... but Nate has also a "economy" QC that is wider (IIRC ~ 12") and less expensive (IIRC ~$3.5k complete) ... I think it has "only" 35 spline stubs

The 8.8 can be very stout. There are many ratios available and a ton of items to beef them up. I wouldnt be going crazy on the HP but I cant imagine they wouldnt hold up to a 500hp setup.

id love one of those b&j rears. im waiting to hear back from jeff feilds on some questions i had about their units. i have decided if i stick with the 9 inch im gonna sell the housing i have and get that currie one with axles. its 2 inches narroweer than what i have now, that and flipping it upside down and running a hi pinion will help with my cv angles considerably.

How about some contact info on these guys @ B&J!!

sorry, i can not find his card or # right now ... but its Nate @ B&J in Kingman AZ.... his shop is right by the airport

btw "bolt on" mid engine application is what he is specialized in (sand dragsters) .... he is machining all the parts "in house" so i bet he can also make you a custom rearend that fits your application (or any kind of splines, axles and gears)

FYI ; here are in-car pics of the narrow B&J;





due to the huge 40" tires and the gnarly torque of the engine (Twin Turbo 572 cid BB ) i didnt want to go to extreme CV angles... with the narrow B&J i could keep the max CV angle at 21 degree but still make something like ~22" of travel but also keeping the car at a (trailer door friendly) IIRC ~93" wide overall

however ; dont expect the B&J to be a lightweight ... she is easy 2x the weight of a Winters... but IMHO at least 3x the strength

ive always wanted to see more pics of that car. damn its a helluva time to be broke and board

IMHO your on the right track; try to keep the car on a "budget" level.... its just a lot more fun that way

i actually just talked about that with my friend Ryan (the owner of that truggy in the pics) ;
he always wanted to have the fastest car in the dunes... thats what he has now (or at least one of the fastest cars in the dunes... dont want to hurt egos and start a benchrace session lol ) ... but the pricetag of some of the parts keep him from fully enjoying the car.
he misses the careless driving that he enjoyed with his first car i made him (junkyard Cobra engine/trans/8.8 rear in a simple and inexpensive frame)
he could throw that car into turns and drive the doogie out of it without worry ... if the engine, trans, rearend blows its no big deal... there are plenty more at the junkyard

dont get me wrong ; huge hp is a adrenaline kick that is highly addictive ... but hp is not everything and certainly not the only way to have fun out in the dunes

wouldnt happen to have any pics of the "cheap" car would ya?

twoduners

the only two i can find are this old pic of Ryan jumping across Comp@Dumont ;



and a pic of the paintjob the new owner did;



the basic layout; Cobra engine set back behind front A-arms / tremec manual between seats / driveshaft / battery, fueltank and 8.8 rear on H- and I-arms in the back... close to perfect 50:50 weight distribution (IIRC it was ~47 front : 53 rear with driver).... there are NO cutting brakes needed ...
she was not the fastest buggy on the hill but the handling in the dunes was phenomenal (thats why she is called the Razor Ripper )

not trying to talk you out of the midengine setup but IMHO if you like a crisp handling and inexpensive "Dune" car i would suggest to give the front/midship truggy layout a close look

i think the biggest disadvantage of a midengine is the trans; IMHO a 2 speed PG is short of at least 2 gears ... and a TH400 or 4L60/80 is just too long

... even the TH400/Allison Hybrid in Ryans Truggy (3speed) feels like a gear short .... and that is with a engine that delivers 4 digit HP numbers and huge amounts of low end torque (quick spooling, slightly undersized turbos)
with the QC you have a large selection of available final drive ratios... but that does not change the dilemma of being a gear or two short; if you set the final ratio "short" the gears are close spread and the car is a blast in the dunes ... but runs out of gear in the long stretches between dunes (and half way up comp hill)... if you set it up long you have the top speed "legs" but the gears get spread wide (too wide to take full advantage of the "sweet spot" of the engines power band)

a truggy layout is also very simple and inexpensive (if you stick to mostly stock parts) ; you use parts in the intended factory stock configuration and connect them with a driveshaft (no alignment issues like with a trans/rear coupler) so it is easy to set up/build a frame around it for a DIY project

....just my 2 cents ...and some "brain food" to think about

rooster- this is the car i built for myself. lotta hp, lotta travel. i just dont like to actually "dune" the thing. the visibility sucks. while im not affraid of getting hurt in it, the thought of hurting someone else TERRIFIES me. i can appreciate the simplicity of the layout. but i really wanna try and get back to the basics. while this car weighs under 3k i think something in the 2000-2300lb range would be more fun and like i said more visibility (cant see through a motor)
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

LOL...... ok, i guess i dont need to tell you anything about truggys anymore
(guilty of not looking closely at your avatar )
great looking truggy (and a unusual trailing arm layout)

i hope i dont offend you if i may add some things that jumped in my eye right away (and may contributed to your visibility problem); to me it looks like your seats are way too low and lay-back ....kinda like floor mounted buggy style.
i like to mount the seats elevated over the floorboards and in a upright position (kinda SUV style); IMHO a lot better visibility and it is also better for the back spine in a hard impact.
i also liked to used another "trick"; i used to make the center "tunnel" (with engine/trans/rear) lower then the floor boards .... this gives you the illusion of a fairly high car... but in reality the center of G is very low and the seating position is somewhat over the engine/trans for better visibility ....
IMHO left and straight (over the engine) has never been a visual problem for me.... its more the usually wide body of a truggy that is blocking a clear view to the lower right (for situations like crossing a sharp razor over the right side)

however, i hear you on the "get back to the basics"... i also try to brake out of the "catch 22" in$anity of bigger and bigger

so i guess if you dont want to build a front engine anymore you should take a close look at the B&J QC... and may use the length you save (compared to using the 8.8) for a additional gear (like a shorty TH350) ?!?
or use a 2 speed QC as a kinda over/under drive??? however, i dont know if the (drag race) 2 speed can actually handle the abuse of being shifted a lot ??

your talking about the b&j trans right? not the diff section.

yeah im cornfused- theres a 2 speed rearend?

Kevin
sorry for the confusion;
i`m talking about the 2 speed B&J Quickchange rearend, not the 2 speed B&J dragster transmission .... two different companies

lol .... "cornfused" ...thats a funny typo

yes

i dont know too much details about how it actually gets shifted (never had the need to ) but IIRC it has a longer rear housing with two sets of QC final ratio gears with somekinda fork/lever/dogteeth to shift between gears.

IIRC around 1999 or 2000 there was actually a nasty small little mid engine buggy at the Sandsport show that used the 2 speed B&J... no transmission!! ... she was bright orange peel powder coated... i think she was also one of the featured buggies in one of the quicksand videos around that time..... dont remember the engine (IIRC something big flat 4 TT) ....impressive fast in the video and i remember even with the "sanddragster" look she was the only buggy that actually got duned hard in that video ... the rest of the cars only made boring wheelies and little poser jumps

Sounds like the 4cyl two-stroke that runs around dumont all the time, that thing is nasty

QUACK QUACK ROOSTER

WHATS HAPPENING, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE AWD CAR I HEARD ABOUT?

DOAN TELL NO ONE ABOUT MY LOW BUDGET CAR

so ive done a little digging around. i really like the currie housing, but the stubs are only available in a 35 spline. i would actually prefer a 31 spline. i have never seen a clutch type diff in anything larger than a 31 spline and i really want turning brakes. so maybe its back to the 8.8?
with the powerglide missing 1st gear and only being able to go as low as 4.88 in the diff im just wondering if it will be any fun. the 2 sp q.c. deal sounds ideal, however if im ever going to do this i have to be realistic and right now 7k (guessing) is not realistic. i have thought about trying to build my own 9" irs housing, but im a little scared of trying to tackle the stub axles. just cant seem to wrap my brain around it

Inexcess's buggy. turbo vw some 400+hp 30lbs+ of boost B&J 2 speed air shifted

Rooster,

Didn't you guys use a speedway IRS rear end in one of your cars? I think I remember reading that one time.

IRS Diff

Thomas

Hey Rubber Duck !!!

sorry , dont want to hijack this thread .... i will explain the "mid engine AWD" project a little later

your right; ....how could i forget to mention Inexcess

Thomas
yes, i used Ken`s (SpeedwayEngineering) on a couple cars.... the SE QC is fairly inexpensive (comparable to a complete dutchman IRS 9") and IMHO the aluminum casting is stronger then the Winters....however, the SE is wider and not as strong as the (regular) B&J...and i never really liked the SE 2-piece stub axles... but having your own stub axles made is a PITA ... usually you need to order a min of 10 pairs to make it somewhat economical
if i ever need a QC again i would actually spend the little extra $ and go with the regular B&J

i hear you .... looks like we have very similar goals (and budget ideas).... but unfortunately also similar problems

maybe you stumbled over my post in RDC; i also hope (push ) that Currie is offering a 930 CV IRS version in the near future.
i dont mind the 35 spline.... i`m used to drive with a spool and no cuttin brakes ... but i`m also considering to may go with a " torsional" LS (available in 31 spline only... i like the way they work in sand and there are no clutches to wear out)... but on the other hand torsionals are kinda expen$ive... compared to a spool LOL
i would prefer the 930`s over 934`s for less $$, less inertia (rotating mass) as well as for the better max angle... and the 930 splines also match the non plunging outer CV`s i plan to run.

i guess i could build the 9" myself.... but i rather have it ready available from Currie (including all the spare parts and stub axles )

i`m thinking to run 35 x 12.5 x 17 or 18" (or the metric equivalent) ...so my final rear end ratio needs to be somewhere in the 1:6.00 area (i actually plan to run a modern dual overdrive 6 speed auto.... with manual mode +/- shifter or steering wheel paddles )

edit; i just checked: sadly the torsional diff is only available in 31 spline