Noreaster

Hey guys new member here just got my hands on the big brother import 8.9" dana 44 rear axle for the z. Although a heavier option as far as an axle swap goes, the pros outweigh the cons in my opinion. Going from the stock 3.73 open 7.65 ten bolt drum brake rear to a 4.30 posi disc brake from a 2004 Isuzu rodeo. Now I chose this swap because I work for a salvage yard and found a donor rear end from a rodeo with only 58,000 miles for about $200.

There are other benefits to this swap as well, including an offset four-link suspension setup which will allow me to eliminate the stock differential brace. The new axle has spring lands and shock mounts that appear to be in similar positions to the stock rear end, although I have yet to measure the two axles against each other. And yes, the dana 44 has a bit of weight on the stock ten bolt, but the added weight in the rear will help with traction later down the road (motor swaps). Also, having a rear end like the 44 will hold up to just about anything as far as street/strip builds go.

In the coming weeks I will provide pictures step by step details on how it goes! Metal and suspension fabrication has been an interest of mine for years, now that I have the means to try it out I think I'll give it a shot.

Noreaster

Also, if anyone can shed some insight on a few of my concerns with the swap:

1. Distance from the center of the axle to the furthest clearance of the dana 44 caliper is 7 inches, meaning the minimum diameter of a rim would have to be AT LEAST 14 inches. Most rim websites don't list this measurement, which is frustrating! I need to figure out the smallest diameter rim I can use while clearing the caliper, simply for the selection of wheels. I'd like to match a set and the stock front lug pattern as we all know is 5x4.75 while the dana is going to have the standard 6x5.5 six lug.

2. Need a crossmember to mount the upper trailing arms to or are the unibody channels rigid enough to bolt them to? I had considered installing custom fitted steel plates above and below the floor where the upper arms would meet the body to keep the rear end from ripping apart the floor. The plates would be maybe six or eight inches wide and extend the width of the body channels, and sandwich bolt together, kind of like bolt-in cages do.

3. Yolk and driveshaft? would i be better off welding together an isuzu yolk to the stock steel driveshaft or is there another way to link the dana to a stock t5? The two rear ends use different size u-joints and to my knowledge, no companies make "swap u-joints" with two different sized caps. any ideas?

AlkyIROC

To my knowledge, Dana 44's are only an 8.5" gear.

Swapping in a non third/fourth gen diff is expensive since the diff does not have a place to mount the torque arm. To convert the suspension to something else is a lot of work. By the time you're done, it will be cheaper to buy a direct bolt in diff. Dana 60, 12 bolt or 9" are your choices for the easiest swap to do.

With enough time, money and fabrication skills, any swap is possible but it will never be easy or inexpensive.

big gear head

A yolk is the center of an egg. A yoke is part of a drive shaft. You can get an adapter u joint to join different size yokes. They make them in may different sizes.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that there is enough room under a Camaro to install a 4 link without cutting into the floor for the upper control arms. This would probably require removing the rear seat. I hope you are a good welder. I've seen a lot of crap that someone stuck together that should never be allowed on the streets.

Pretty sure that the Dana 44 is 8.5 and not 8.9.

cosmick

There were later evolutions of the D44 that kept growing the ring gear. But traditional D44 gear sets can't be swapped in. The 4.30:1 is a bit much even for a T56 or a 200-4R, even on 29" drag slicks, and the wheel situation is a disaster. Plus $200 is too much for such a redheaded stepchild. No way getting it in and driving will even begin to approach the cost of a bolt-in 12-bolt, but the strength of the good-sized ring gear may be offset by the shafts or something else. No way to predict what will fail first.
It's probably no heavier than an S60, but nobody tries to get the heaviest axle weight they can get, even for street / drag cars.

Noreaster

Well it is an 8.9, as came in Isuzu and some Nissan pickups. If it would really be more than a few welds or modifications then I probably won't use it. 12 boots are kind of hard to find around where I live as well. I just figured for the price and durability I could make it work. Like you said tho, anything is possible with enough time and money, which like anybody else have limits. I suppose I will look for leads on a 12 bolt or nine inch.

big gear head

I don't think they were saying that you should find a 12 bolt or 9 inch and make it fit. I think the reply was that you should get a bolt in 12 bolt or 9 inch from Strange Engineering, Mark Williams or one of the other companies that make them just for the 3rd gen. Using a 12 bolt from a Chevelle, Camaro or other Chevy is going to be just as complicated as using the Dana 44.

cosmick

I was saying that what the OP proposed can be done far cheaper than any of the bolt-in upgrades, but isn't worth it. The most common upgrade on a tight budget is the Ford 8.8", which is why I got one, but it still isn't easy, nor common. I've found many reports of max-effort 8.8s surviving over 1000 HP, even with serious abuse, and even stock they're safe to 500 HP.

Noreaster

Well I do appreciate the replies and insight by everyone. Whether or not this idea is "worth it" I think I am still going to attempt it for the experience. And if it ends up being cheaper than a bolt in and lasts, then I will be satisfied and maybe we the job can help someone else out with their own swap. Like I said I am interested in metal fabrication and this car isn't a daily driver. Just a project for now. I think I'm going to take this over to the fabrication board after I take measurements and reevaluate the swap.

big gear head

I would be interested in knowing if there is enough room for the upper control arms under the stock floor without having to cut it.

Night rider327

iTrader: (13)

This is going to be a tough swap for you due to clearance probs under the car and the need for the torque arm..

You will not have room under the car for the upper control arms.. The floor will need to be cut out of the car, a cross member welded in, upper control arm mounts added, and new sheet metal bent/shaped and welded in.. The rear seats will no longer fit.

To fit upper control arms, you will almost have to "back half" the car to get it to fit.

Another option would be to try to find a set of old SSM (south side machine) lift bars. or make up or mod another style of ladder bar to work and that will get rid of the torque arm.

cosmick

I found another thread here where five7kid tried that and regretted it.

skinny z

Would it not be possible for the OP to fashion a torque arm mount similar to what's done on the 8.8 swap or many of the 9 inch mods that have been posted? Once that's accomplished, and I know it wouldn't be any easy task the first time through, it would be a relatively simple matter to fashion the spring perches/shock mounts, control arm mounts and panhard support. I can't comment on the overall width of the donor rear axle and what might be needed to adapt rear brakes though.
The host vehicle would remain intact save the clearance that may be needed where the torque arm gets close the driveshaft tunnel. Remember that the D44, albeit the 8.5" gear version, was an over the counter replacement at one time.

Noreaster

OK for those who are still following and willing to brainstorm, I took measurements of the d44 and a few of the stock ten bolt. The first thing that will be addressed is the lower trailing arms. The Camaro arms are roughly 27 inches from bolt hole to bolt hole, while the d44 measure only twenty. Not really a big deal, I could use the existing Camaro trailing arms. The other thing that would need to be changed is the mounts on the d44 where the lower arms bolt to. The Camaro measures 48 inches from one arm to the other (outside of each bar) while the d44 is only 43.5. To solve this, I can simply cut off and re-weld the mounts for the lowers on the d44 two inches outwards.

The next biggest concern is the spring lands on each axle. The d44 and the ten bolt both use the same style mount on the axle tube, which is nice. However, the d44 spring lands measure only 33 inches from center to center, while the Camaro lands measure just over 41. Another problem solved by grinding away old welds and repositioning outwards.

More measuring and perhaps some dry fitting will be needed to evaluate the fitting of the upper control arms. The link to the photo shows the 8.9 Dana 44 on the bottom.

Noreaster

Although you can't see any trailing arms in the photo, the uppers mount about four inches above the axle tube close to the differential. The arms angle outwards to a width of 38.5 inches, and extend forward 16 inches from the center of the axle tube. Hopefully since the upper arms are relatively short, I can use the upward slope of the body to my advantage and possibly find some relatively simple way to mount them safely.

AlkyIROC

The LCA, panhard, spring and shock mounts can easily be cut off a donor 10 bolt and welded onto any other junkyard diff. Measure multiple times before cutting off and welding on. When you weld the mounts onto the junkyard diff, you will warp the tubes slightly. Doing any kind of welding to the tubes will always warp them. Having the empty housing in a jig will reduce or eliminate the warping.

Now, you say you want to try to use the junkyard diff triangulated 4-link. Although it's possible, it's not very practical as mentioned in above posts. There just isn't enough room under the floor to make it fit properly. That leaves moving all the 10 bolt mounting brackets over to the junkyard diff then trying to find a way to fabricate a way to attach the torque arm or change to suspension to some sort of ladder bar system to eliminate the torque arm.

Third gen rear suspension is tucked deep under the body making a suspension swap a difficult job without a whole lot of fabrication work. It's not like swapping a diff on an old leaf spring car where it was very easy to do. If you don't know what you're doing, your diff swap can really screw up the suspension geometry and you'll regret the swap. After doing all the work and it doesn't work properly, the car will be trash if you can't put the original suspension/diff back on the car. Once you make that first cut, you're committed to finishing the project properly. A well thought out plan and unlimited budget to get it done will be required. In the end, you'll still have a different diff that not everyone else uses while a common direct bolt in 9", 12 bolt of D60 would still be a better option.

big gear head

You don't want to end up like this.
My guess is that you are going to have to cut out a large area of the floor under the rear seat and weld in a strong cross member to attach the upper arms. Then you will have to cover the area with sheet metal and carpet because the rear seat isn't going to fit anymore. If you don't get the geometry right the suspension won't work and your car will drive like crap. You are going to have to install the upper control arms at or near the same level as they were installed on the Isuzu so that it will work correctly. You need to study up on instant centers so that you can get this set up to work correctly.

cosmick

That one had cast-in provisions for the torque arm. Dana did what GM should have done to the 8.5 that was in all 2nd-gen F-cars. Actually, GM should have abandoned the TQ arm before producing it.

I agree with cutting the stock brackets off a 7.5", or buy new aftermarket brackets. They're thicker for strength, and already profiled for 3" axle tubes because they're intended for 9-inch Ford housings. Then use F-car lower trailing arms. But you'll probably need aftermarket adjustables there to get the D44 square to the car. This will require getting a 4-wheel alignment done.

skinny z

That was my point regarding modifying the D44 from the junkyard truck. I have an (OEM) D44 in my 86 Coupe. Nice looking and as strong as I'll ever need (at this point in time anyway) but I was saying I've seen the torque arm mount fabbed up to 9 inch housing, 8.8s and even a 12 bolt to facilitate the installation of the torque arm. Keeping the torque arm (depsite having to jig up a reasonable way to build the TA mount) simplifies the rest of the swap for the OP following some of your suggestions (and those of others). As has been pointed out, if the torque arm is abandoned, the upper control arms would be a real pain unless you more or less back-half the car. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

cosmick

Oh.
If the OP is still watching this thread, there are plenty of old threads showing lots of ways of fabbing torque arm brackets to different axles. I'm very novice at metal fab, but my own is a somewhat revised copy of one I found here. Making it is more about investment of time than any tangible difficulty, but as I'm converting an '83 RX-7 from a triangulated 4 link (because those bind) to a three-link, it has far more to recommend it than a torque arm. Like how it inherently counters the driveshaft torque. It frees up choice of transmission, and choice of axle. There're more advantages, but I guess I'll have to do my 'maro and drive it to convince anyone. Still, MUCH less trouble than the torque arm situation. And less floorpan mods than any 4-link. Keep both back seats, just need the rear upper seatbacks that are divided, not the single-piece version. Just the right side one won't fold flat anymore. But will give that passenger a left armrest.

Noreaster

Thanks for the info man it really helps and seems way more like something I can do myself. And I can see where having such a setup would open up more options down the road for drive lines. As of right now everything is stock, but I am purchasing a 2002 Camaro ls1 t56 dropout from the yard I work for so I'd feel better about going into the swap with a solid rear suspension to be safe. Thanks again and I will keep everyone posted as I move along.

Cool about the Fb you are doing that to tho. There's a good sized RX7 community around where I live too BTW if you ever need parts I might be able to help.

cosmick

I just posted some three-link into FB pics, to my own 8.8 axle thread. I'll post a couple more when I figure out what I saved them as. On theRX-7 forums I'm economiser.

JojoDacosta

I'm going the same route with the super Fana 44 with the 8.9 rearend and it has all the pieces to bolt into any camaro, Firebird or even monza and Vegas. I have Dealt with this junk torque arm even before a lot of you people got into these 3rd Generation F Body cars. As you can see Geeral motors did this on purpose so you would keep blowing up that 7.5 rearend so you could keep buying these junk rear ends. They did sell the Dana 44 with the torque arm for the F bodys back into 1982, you could order them from parts. Summit had some empty cases back into 1991 and just sold them I believe they got them from SLP? They did use the Dana 44 in the Pontiac Fire Hawk and the 1989 Turbo Trans Am indy car because it used the Grand National motor. They do have 12 Bolts and Dana 60 with the torque arm and they also have a rear bracket you can attach to just about any rear end. Moser was having problems with there Ford 9 inch with the torque arm, I'll tell you why it don't take a rocket scientist for this one. The Torque tou cant put it in at 5 to 7 Degree"s the where you don't blow up your rear end, the Torque arm is set at 0 Degrees, why even buy a 9 in, Chevy 12 bolt or even a Dana 60 with the rorgue arm so you can keep blowing them up? I'm sick of making General Motors , Mosher and these other companies rich. You mean to tell me its going to cost close to $3,000 just because it has a torque arm attachment? Lol. I'm so done with the Torque arm you can stick a fork in me. The Super Dana 44 with the 8.9 is even stronger then the General motors 12 Bolt with 8.75. The other option you have that I was going to do is a 1974 to 1981 Camaro or Firebird rear end. It is also 8.5 ring and pinion with 30 spline axles. And run ladder bars. I also thought of using a 1966 and up 12 Bolt Caprice rear end with coils and it has the ears for the arms to bolt up to some frame and tie it into the rest of the frame. Simple done you have a bullet proof rear end and your over the head ache of how to I do this with this torque arm and they even made it more complex. A Adjustable Torque Arm. Your better off staying away from, no more head aches and gues what no spend close to $7,000 on a rear end with torque arm and lower control arms.

JojoDacosta

I'm going the same route with the super Fana 44 with the 8.9 rearend and it has all the pieces to bolt into any camaro, Firebird or even monza and Vegas. I have Dealt with this junk torque arm even before a lot of you people got into these 3rd Generation F Body cars. As you can see Geeral motors did this on purpose so you would keep blowing up that 7.5 rearend so you could keep buying these junk rear ends. They did sell the Dana 44 with the torque arm for the F bodys back into 1982, you could order them from parts. Summit had some empty cases back into 1991 and just sold them I believe they got them from SLP? They did use the Dana 44 in the Pontiac Fire Hawk and the 1989 Turbo Trans Am indy car because it used the Grand National motor. They do have 12 Bolts and Dana 60 with the torque arm and they also have a rear bracket you can attach to just about any rear end. Moser was having problems with there Ford 9 inch with the torque arm, I'll tell you why it don't take a rocket scientist for this one. The Torque tou cant put it in at 5 to 7 Degree"s the where you don't blow up your rear end, the Torque arm is set at 0 Degrees, why even buy a 9 in, Chevy 12 bolt or even a Dana 60 with the rorgue arm so you can keep blowing them up? I'm sick of making General Motors , Mosher and these other companies rich. You mean to tell me its going to cost close to $3,000 just because it has a torque arm attachment? Lol. I'm so done with the Torque arm you can stick a fork in me. The Super Dana 44 with the 8.9 is even stronger then the General motors 12 Bolt with 8.75. The other option you have that I was going to do is a 1974 to 1981 Camaro or Firebird rear end. It is also 8.5 ring and pinion with 30 spline axles. And run ladder bars. I also thought of using a 1966 and up 12 Bolt Caprice rear end with coils and it has the ears for the arms to bolt up to some frame and tie it into the rest of the frame. Simple done you have a bullet proof rear end and your over the head ache of how to I do this with this torque arm and they even made it more complex. A Adjustable Torque Arm. Your better off staying away from, no more head aches and gues what no spend close to $7,000 on a rear end with torque arm and lower control arms.

Jbuchanan

Great Scott's Marty, did you travel back to 1985 and revive a dead end thread?

big gear head

Wow, your first post is in a thread that is 4 years old, you put down several people on this sight, and you post stuff that's wrong. Way to go. You left a 8 out of the 12 bolt ring gear size. It's 8.875, not a 8.75. The '71 to '81 Camaro and Firebird 8.5 rear end has 28 spline axles, not 30, and I seriously doubt that GM used the torque arm just so that they could sell you more rear ends. Good luck with the Dana 44.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

Sounds like a lot of assumptions and misinformation to me. Guess I'll have to order a few spare 9" setups since they break all the time because they use a torque arm.

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

The 89 TTA didn't use a D44, it has a Aussy built 9bolt.

JojoDacosta

Who cares if the post is 20 years and your point? 74-81 has 30 spline call any parts place like summit. Ive rebuilt one and there better then them 7.5 rear ends. Who cares about a 8 bolt rear end, you think anyone else cares? If you read my article since you didnt there was 12 bolt from a caprice and do you know why? You kids today know nothing about Performance or dont even know how to build a engine to your own specs.Ive been messing with cars since i was 15, removing a frozen starter from a 75 Lincoln on a bumper jack and im 53 years old. Have a good day you want some great advise? Stay away from that torque arm set up. Only GM the idiots would take a torque arm set up from a 74 - 80 H body that had 4 and 6 cylinders behind them. This 7.5 is junk and to small of a set up. I rather run a regular moper rear end with ladders bars and eliminate that torque arm.

JojoDacosta

contact mosher there having problems not me. The intelligent ones stays away from the torque arm.

JojoDacosta

sure they didnt kid lol. You think they were going to put one of them junk rearends under that Turbo Trans Am? Lol. That was a special edition so you could race that atmthe track and do 150 MPH, how many times before that cheap rear end blows up? Ford got sued recently with there mustangs werent staying cool and over heating, go google it. GM are the only idiots who used this torque arm set up with the 7,5 that was behind 4 and 6 cylinder cars, and your going to put them even in LT1 F bodys? Like i said i seen one in Maine with the Dana 44 in it. Did SLP get ahold of some of these people and say we can up grade the rear end in your car? No one will ever know? You know how many changes people make or even the factory? Chevy also just pieces stuff together. Prime example and im not pulling your leg. Everyone things Impala SS. Corvette and Buick Road master say LT1 they all havd the same motor right? Well thats a wrong why is the Buick Road master states it has a LT1 motor while its really a 265, go see it. So why would GM lie about this, i might have been looking for a real LT1 not a 265.Thats what they get for being cheap misers. Have a good weekend.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

JojoDacosta

Drew did you put one in yet?

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

Everyone's opinion gets opposition these days. But a bad 'tude is never well tolerated.


Torque Arm suspensions are also common as a factory style rear suspension in some cars. They are the simplest of the designs, allow a high degree of rear end articulation & can take high shock loads from hard launches. They can be made "a little" adjustable, but typically offer less adjustability than the other designs, as far as controlling the front Instant Center, rise leverage & anti-squat. If designed well & installed as instructed, these make a great all around suspension for the person that doesn't want to tune much.

3-links are very common in road racing, especially in full body cars like GT1 & the Trans Am series, because they allow for the most articulation & can be highly adjustable & tunable for track conditions. You also see them a lot on top AutoX racers.

For the best non-adjustable rear suspension for road racing, track car, or AutoX car, is the Torque Arm suspension, as it offers good articulation. The non-adjustable 3-link & parallel 4-link “can work well” … providing the instant center location provides a decent anti-squat percentage for your application. Triangulated 4-links are rarely adjustable, but still ranks at the bottom as the push pull forces aren’t parallel with the car (which is desired) and the roll center is not separately adjustable, as it does not use a panhard bar or Watt’s link.

For a "cruiser/driver" that will only occasionally see the track, with little or no tuning ... any of them will work fine ... but the Torque Arm suspension is best here & the triangulated 4-link 2nd ... which is why you commonly see these two suspensions in factory production cars. They both work fine in many hot rod & street performance applications. They are not better than the others, just simpler & effective. Plus these two allow you to keep the rear seat if that is important to you.



There is no performance reason to ditch the TA, unless you are racing competitively. In which case, you are rebuilding the car and it will not resemble anything factory or be street legal.

AaronIROCZ

iTrader: (5)

Ok people, I have cleaned up this thread, anymore bickering or name calling will lead to probation and or being temporally banned and the thread being closed. Keep it clean!!!!

Jbuchanan

The rest of the '89 Turbo Trans Am is nearly identical to the GTA in which it was based. Aluminum 16x8 wheels along with a good set of Goodyear rubber were standard equipment. The Australian Borg-Warner 9-bolt with a limited-slip differential and 3.27 gears, as well as the suspension, were also shared equipment with the GTA. Got this from 1990 issue of Super Chevy

JojoDacosta

its wrong. I've seen one of these cars up in Maine who was selling I went and checked the car, it was a Dana 44, 10 bolts, gear looks like it's going threw the cover even had a drain on the cover. He wanted $10,000. I laughed. It was nice but not worth back into 1993 what he wanted.

big gear head

I should have been more respectful with my comments. Sometimes I say things on here that I wouldn't say to someone in person. I apologize.

JojoDacosta

I seen a 1982 Indy car in Dayton, Ohio for $1,800.00. It was ratty looking needed a lot of work. BUT IT WAS A 4 SPEED FROM THE FACTORY. Anyone know the numbers for a standard Indy pace car? The owner got rid of the hood that was original along with the cross fire injection. To me I didn't think there was that much value in the car, but it could real rare with the Borg Warner super-10?

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Yes that's a relatively "rare" part, fwiw. Unfortunately it also came with a linkage clutch (yuck) and a soooooper crappy GM shifter (double yuck). You can get rid if the linkage with a throwout-bearing slave cyl, and I guess any of the later model pedal assy's and master cyl. The shifter though, Hurst made an install kit to put a Comp Plus on that trans, but that kit was discontinued in around 2000, so it's kinda stuck with that OE craptastic thing it came with, now. Unless somebody took care of it back in the day.

The pace cars have special interior parts that aren't readily available in the aftermarket either, although a good upholstery shop can come somewhat close. I think I saw at one time where somebody that posts here alot, or used to, (as opposed to some first-timer coming in here and running off at the mouth about stuff he doesn't know) had put together a sort of "kit" for the interior, but I could be wrong. I've only been on this forum for maybe 20 years, my memory of the details of every post is somewhat vague.

The hood was probably the SMC aka "composite" one originally, which was replaced under warranty on most of the 82/83 cars because it had a tendency to delaminate at speed. The upper layer of it would peel off and fold back onto the windshield... a kinda scary thing to have happen when you're cruising down the freeway in rush hour traffic or something. (guess how I know this) My 83 still has its that, a survivor I guess, it's still intact. Besides being about 30 lbs lighter at least, it's kinda lower and flatter than the steel hood, and overall adds to the sleek "bullet" look that these cars (the Camaro, anyway) had when new.

As far as "value", these cars have very little of that, in the way that cars from before the Arab oil embargo do. It's mostly a function of the general desirability of the car (not to be confused with "rare" although most of the most desirable ones are relatively "rare" but not all) and THE CONDITION above all. A car with rust, or missing lots of parts, or just totally ragged out, isn't worth diddly, no matter how "rare" it is. The pace car is definitely one of the most desirable ones of these cars, and then from there, condition takes over.

They're not as "rare" as the Dana 44 over-the-counter swap that was available from GM in the late 80s / early 90s though. Although the TTAs and ALL other cars didn't come with that rear, you could just bop on down to yer local stealership and order up an appropriately equipped 44 and just bolt it in. Which evidently was what had happened to the one TTA you happened to have seen. That rear wasn't original to the car.

JojoDacosta

Thanks I seen a car out in California just sold, I think it was like a 1982-1984 and they found the rare Dana 44, wow I'd pee my self. You think your just getting a z28 and you get a extra bonus with it. Had to been someone who purchased the car and went to the parts section and ordered it for the car. I cant remember if it was in 1985 or 1986 when they stop that Performance parts for the camaro?

JojoDacosta

ok so that turbo trans ams rear end was not original? Either that dude ordered one from SLP or Summit racing had the empty Dana 44 torque arm housings for the camaro, Back in the day summit also had the Accel Big Block T.P.I. intake and complete T.P.I. Big Block Engines. I wanted it so bad, but there was a guy who had a 1990 mustang he threw in a 429 motor, Guess what? The local cops pulled him over and D.M.V. had the car towed to there main office and went threw the car. Guy got into big trouble not only did he change the motor, removed the cats and had Nitrous all hooked up, I know they sell nitrous but for the streets? Some states like New Jersey you drive threw there state with a radar detector fines.

JojoDacosta

my cousin had a red 1984 Camaro z28. His rear end was ready to let go, I told him you need to find a Dana 44, out of the clear blue I guess he went threw the want ads back in the day and found one in a circular track car. I couldn't believe when I seen it, yes it was a Dana 44 the guy took the Dana 44 and hacked it up, put spring perches on it, he had to send it to a rear end shop to put back the coil spring perches and dial it in. He had the one with 4:09 gears. I don't know why this person didn't use another rear end is beyond me? I think it was because of the gear ratio? Some people just don't know the value of something, there was another guy from here had a 1970 Chevelle S.S. 454 12 bolt rear end, what does he do? Cut off the ears at the housing, unreal, that must of been a $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 dollar rear end, Ebay a guy has a 1969 z28 12 bolt rear end for $4,000.00.

skinny z

I remember that particular delamination issue from a magazine article.
That said, my 84 Z28 had the glass hood and that thing went many miles an hour without issue. Mind you that was before I had heard about the quality control issue but still it survived (I may have skipped the risk had I known).
Now my question here is, did all of the composite/glass hoods in 82 have this defect? I've just picked up an 82 Coupe with one of these and am questioning it's integrity.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

AFAIK all of the SMC hoods were subject to the problem.

Keep in mind, this was a SAFETY recall / campaign / whatever, on up there in seriousness with the seat belt retractor issue. It only takes a relatively small # of instances of the failure, only a low probability that is, to get it started... a hood flying up in traffic can cause a YUUUUUUUJJJJJE pileup that could have caused MANY deaths and injuries all at once, and as such would not have been taken lightly. So I'm sure there are plenty of the "survivors" left, even if those are only a small portion of the originals, that haven't suffered the failure, since there weren't all that many instances of the failure to begin with.

As far as the D44: AFAIK also, the only place to get that housing with the F-body torque arm provisions cast in, was GM. SLP then, the same as they do now, simply installed parts that they either got from the OEM, or made themselves in a few cases where that was eeeeeeezy like headers, or sometimes got from other high-volume aftermarket sources like Edelbrock for example. Even GM does that: the ZZ4 intake for example is indistinguishable from the Edelbrock Performer in any way, except for the bow-tie cast into it where "Edelbrock" usually is. They don't make anywhere near all the stuff in any of their packages, not for any of the OEMs they've worked with over the years.

If memory serves, in the cars SLP put those in, they got them from GM who in turn had some sort of limited production run of them made by Dana, probably only one batch but I have no way to know that. Whether any were installed into new floor stock at stealerships, I wouldn't have any idea. I wouldn't think that it happened very often but I wouldn't totally rule it out either. I don't recall it being available before about 87 or 88, so a 82-84 ish car that had one, it would have had to have been swapped in MANY years after it was new.

JojoDacosta

i could sworn that GM parts was open in 1982? Because this was when they were first introduced? I also couldnt remember when it stopped, back in the day who cares about the Dana 44 when you had Gail Banks making them twin turbos, he also made all the brackets so you could run a Doug Nash 5 speed with a ford 9 inch. He was also the king that took the 3rd Generation camaro i think 220 MPH with a F body. Now them days are gone you want a Dana 44 good luck on finding one.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Seems as though the subject under discussion was the introduction by GM of the Dana 44 with F-body TA provisions, into the "dealer aftermarket"; not the "opening" of "GM parts"?

Yeah Gale Banks is/was another of those companies that was then what we'd call a "tuner" nowadays. There were some dealers that also did the same kind of thing; Meacham for example with Pontiacs, or Callaway with Vettes. Not sure GB had anything to do with the D44 though, don't know if they ever even used it, or whether they were still even doing anything with 3rd gen F bodies at the time it became available. SLP really didn't have anything directly to do with the D44 either, other than buying & selling them, either as stand-alone parts or as part of their packages; they didn't "make" them any more than Gale Banks "made" the Doug Nash 5-speed or the Frod 9" they installed into whatever cars.

It's important and worthwhile to get the facts and relationships straight.

JojoDacosta

SLP made the Firehawk lol.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Right: that was one of their packages, as referred to above, though not by name. They "made" the package (Firehawk), and "made" some of the parts in it (intake manifold, headers), but did not "make" all the components that were included in it (Dana 44). They got that from GM.

JojoDacosta

have you put in that rear end yet? I dont care what other people think or say im putting one myself. Didnt know if you put it in and it went smooth? Me i have any issues i have a great welder and a guy who does rear ends , ill get it in there.