1962 Chrysler Newport

[AngelCalderon]

Hey guys , I was wondering is it possible to swap a newer Newport rear into my 62 Newport? Like from a 67

 

[SGT FURY]

I

 

[AngelCalderon]

I

View attachment 628104

Genuine question I have a problem and I’m trying to find a solution

 

[Big_John]

Genuine question I have a problem and I’m trying to find a solution

There are some charts that give the dimensions of that '67 rear, but I've never come across one that lists your '62. I think this is one of the better ones Moparts on the Web - Main Index

I can't attest to everything being correct... There's some charts out there that have bad info on them, but that one is referenced a lot as being good.

So, the thing you need to do is some measurement, especially the spring perch widths, on your car and consult the chart. Then you'll want to double check everything... In other words, take a tape measure with you when you pick up the rear end.

There are guys on here that have done very similar swaps, so they will probably chime in. Based on what I've read from them, it's a good chance that will work.

All that said, what's the problem? Maybe we can help and save you time and money.

 

[Darter6]

do is some measurement,

I'm guessing you want to get away from tapered axles. Measure drum to drum and center spring pad to spring pad.
That's about all you need. Though I never did a C body I have swapped "B's" in to A bodies and early B cars to later B non taper axle 65 -up cars using those 2 measurements. Mopars never were that great on tolerances being dead on precise and can have a + or - of up to 1 inch or more.

 

[Lefty71]

By rear you mean 8-3/4 axle as an assembly (with or without the pumpkin)???

The newer unit you describe would be 56-3/4" Axle flange to flange, 61-3/4" drum to drum, and the perches should be 46" center-to-center. Compare those measurements to your '62 assembly... this will give you your answer. Any complete 8-3/4 pumpkin is going to fit right in there, so you can keep your old one or put in the newer one (leave it together), whichever ratio suits you better.

 

[413]

Keep in mind, the 1964 and earlier open has a center thrust block of 1.25” wide. Now all sure grips and 1965 and newer opens have a 1.5” wide thrust block in the center.

So this means your original 1962 open third member will not go in a 1965 and newer 8.75 housing and axles.

 

[AngelCalderon]

There are some charts that give the dimensions of that '67 rear, but I've never come across one that lists your '62. I think this is one of the better ones Moparts on the Web - Main Index

I can't attest to everything being correct... There's some charts out there that have bad info on them, but that one is referenced a lot as being good.

So, the thing you need to do is some measurement, especially the spring perch widths, on your car and consult the chart. Then you'll want to double check everything... In other words, take a tape measure with you when you pick up the rear end.

There are guys on here that have done very similar swaps, so they will probably chime in. Based on what I've read from them, it's a good chance that will work.

All that said, what's the problem? Maybe we can help and save you time and money.

Thank you I appreciate it , I believe someone had put a rear disc break kid on my car at one point I believe it’s for a later model because the manufacturer told me they don’t list kits for my year vehicle

 

[Just Carbs]

I thought the "63" and earlier "sure grip" was the long axle 1.25 thrust block?
With pre 64 open having the short axle 1.5 thrust block?
And 64 and later open and sure grip are the same short axle 1.5 thrust block?
And the post 63 axle will fit all the open rears? But not the pre 64 sure grip?

I put 69 Fury axles into my 64 New Yorker (was tapered) with roller bearings. Both open.

 

[AngelCalderon]

Keep in mind, the 1964 and earlier open has a center thrust block of 1.25” wide. Now all sure grips and 1965 and newer opens have a 1.5” wide thrust block in the center.

So this means your original 1962 open third member will not go in a 1965 and newer 8.75 housing and axles.

Thank you , I’m gonna have to read this a couple times and do research this is my first read wheel drive car so all the terms I’m not familiar with but I am mechanically inclined

 

[Big_John]

Thank you I appreciate it , I believe someone had put a rear disc break kid on my car at one point I believe it’s for a later model because the manufacturer told me they don’t list kits for my year vehicle

Yea, no disc brakes for that year. While Chrysler did have a very complicated version of a disc brake in the 50's, they were pretty rare.

I think 1966 was the first year for optional factory installed front disc brakes, although I know 1965 had some dealer installed front discs (not on C-bodies). Rear discs didn't appear until 1974 Imperial.

So, yea, that's gotta be a kit. The good news may be that they used a lot of standard "off the shelf" parts in those conversions. Usually a Ford or Lincoln rotor and GM calipers. You might be able to match them up, but the easier method might be to swap rear ends to something slightly newer. That gets rid of the tapered axles that can be tough to deal with too.

 

[Lefty71]

I believe someone had put a rear disc break kid on my car at one point I believe it’s for a later model because the manufacturer told me they don’t list kits for my year vehicle

Ok....this brings us back to post number 2 lol.
Maybe some pix of what you have may help immensely here.

Are you saying you want to put a later model rear axle in your car, or you think someone else may have done so already??

 

[AngelCalderon]

Ok....this brings us back to post number 2 lol.
Maybe some pix of what you have may help immensely here.

Are you saying you want to put a later model rear axle in your car, or you think someone else may have done so already??

I want to put a later model rear

 

[OKDart]

a rear end from a 65-68 C body is a common swap into a forward look car. The spring perches are close enough to not matter and the drum to drum measurement is very close too.