63 New Yorker wagon axle width?

The info I saw on axle widths is:

'64 = 60 7/8" (Exc.Max Wedge)
'65-'67= 59 1/2"
'68-'70= 60 1/8"

So, wouldn't the 68-70 axle fit better?

Otherwise, I can handle moving the spring perches. Just thinking I'd like to remove and keep the original rear and replace it with one that has the later axles.

Just went back and checked and an E-body axle might fit the bill, too. It's less than an inch wider overall. But are they pricey being for an E-body?

"Better fit" and "bolt in" are two different things. Your original statement was "looks like a 68-70 B-body axle would be pretty much a bolt in"....it isn't due to perch width.

When I said "bolt in", I meant that the 68-70 axle was close enough dimensionally to the original that it would bolt right in to the car. When you said "The '63 Chrysler has the same component dimensions as the '64 B-body, overall width is 60 7/8".", I assumed that meant that both axles (the 64 B-body and 63 C-body) had the same axle width and perch width. I was unaware that the B-body spring perches were 44" apart whereas the New Yorker in question is 46" apart.

For "better fit", I meant only axle width. The 68-70 seemed closer to the original measurement than the 65-67, but I don't think it would really matter either way as they're all so close. Although, the E-body axle might be more of a "bolt in" since the perches seem to be the same distance apart as the original axle.

Wont a 65-69 C body rearend bolt right in ??

The '66-'69 C-body would be the logical choice, a true bolt-in. The E-body will likely need shims to correct the pinion angle.

I believe you would be correct on the 65-69 C-body axle. It's got the correct spring perch width and it's less than an inch wider. Didn't notice that. Sweet! I bet you can get those pretty cheap, too.

Thanks again, everyone!