Optimum Rear Axle Width
- Baja
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm
- Bronco Info: 95, 5.8, E4OD, 4:88s Front: 4.5 C&T, 2.5 C/O Rear: Deavers Shackles 3.0 bypass All Threat
- Location: Long Beach, CA
Optimum Rear Axle Width
I have 4.5 over beams in front and currently running stock width 8.8 with spacers in the rear. If I buy a new axle......
What is the optimum width rear end to pair with a 4.5 over front end (Best handling wise)?
What is the widest one can get away with running 3" glass?
Are there any other concerns aside from glass width when running said wider rear end?
Thanks
What is the optimum width rear end to pair with a 4.5 over front end (Best handling wise)?
What is the widest one can get away with running 3" glass?
Are there any other concerns aside from glass width when running said wider rear end?
Thanks
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:22 pm
- Bronco Info: No Bronco 92 F150 4x... Pretty close?
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
I run a 71.25 wms/wms rear axle on my 4.5 over TTB truck... its about dead on trackwidth matching front/back... Optimal in my opinion is exactly what your front end width is (or just slightly under is better than just slightly over)...
- Baja
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm
- Bronco Info: 95, 5.8, E4OD, 4:88s Front: 4.5 C&T, 2.5 C/O Rear: Deavers Shackles 3.0 bypass All Threat
- Location: Long Beach, CA
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
Thanks. I wasn't sure. I thought it was close to the same, because I heard that factory D44 TTB front was 65" but wasn't sure on that number.
Have you every had the narrower rear end with the 4.5 over beams? If so, How did affect or change the handling?
Have you every had the narrower rear end with the 4.5 over beams? If so, How did affect or change the handling?
- philofab
- Basura Blanca
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:37 am
- Bronco Info: A pile of crap.
- Location: Bullhead, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
A narrower rear end is nice if you are running a spool. If it's not make it the same as the front and error toward narrower.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:22 pm
- Bronco Info: No Bronco 92 F150 4x... Pretty close?
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
Yes I ran the stock width rear end with a wider (+4.5) front until I built a wider rear end!.. I think most guys got through this progression... Having said that, it is just my opinion but:Have you every had the narrower rear end with the 4.5 over beams? If so, How did affect or change the handling?
I got stuck in the soft stuff more with an offset because I was pushing 9 extra inches of dead 2wd tire track and the handling in the cornering/braking improved a lot with a matched track width. I have always thought that if unequal track widths handled better some manufacturer would build a car/truck that way. I have always felt that wider front end drive/turn what is commonly referred to as "tight". Even my pavement queen 2500s that have street type kits with a wider front track width drive tight to me versus stock geometry...
- Baja
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm
- Bronco Info: 95, 5.8, E4OD, 4:88s Front: 4.5 C&T, 2.5 C/O Rear: Deavers Shackles 3.0 bypass All Threat
- Location: Long Beach, CA
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
That's nice to know about the sand and overall handling. Makes more willing to spend the money.
I can tell it pushes sand too. As for turning in the dirt, to me it feels like it pushes through turns.
I can tell it pushes sand too. As for turning in the dirt, to me it feels like it pushes through turns.
- Baja
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm
- Bronco Info: 95, 5.8, E4OD, 4:88s Front: 4.5 C&T, 2.5 C/O Rear: Deavers Shackles 3.0 bypass All Threat
- Location: Long Beach, CA
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
Forgot to ask you...are you running 3" glass in the rear at that 71"?
-
- Posts: 2912
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:39 am
- Bronco Info: 94 5.8 Bronco w/dreams of being finished
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
This is 72.5wms with 35x12.5 on 15x8 w/3.5" backspace
-
- Posts: 2912
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:39 am
- Bronco Info: 94 5.8 Bronco w/dreams of being finished
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
That's with 3" McNeils
- Baja
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm
- Bronco Info: 95, 5.8, E4OD, 4:88s Front: 4.5 C&T, 2.5 C/O Rear: Deavers Shackles 3.0 bypass All Threat
- Location: Long Beach, CA
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
Wow! That's wide! Do you think 71" with 4.5 backspace would tuck okay?cs_drums wrote:That's with 3" McNeils
I just got off the phone with Jeff at Giant. His reared seems like a really good deal. I just need to pick a width, a locker and wait until next month.
- Baja
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm
- Bronco Info: 95, 5.8, E4OD, 4:88s Front: 4.5 C&T, 2.5 C/O Rear: Deavers Shackles 3.0 bypass All Threat
- Location: Long Beach, CA
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
And thanks a lot for those pics!
Right now I am running 2" spacers on the factory 8.8, which I think puts me 69.5" WMS TO WMS. Sound right? Do you know what the factory front WMS is? I heard 65", which would put me at 74".
Right now I am running 2" spacers on the factory 8.8, which I think puts me 69.5" WMS TO WMS. Sound right? Do you know what the factory front WMS is? I heard 65", which would put me at 74".
-
- Posts: 1677
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:45 am
- Bronco Info: 1996 EB 351W!! First Bronco!! Plan: Prerunner/ Trail Rig/ SHTF All around Rig
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
stock with is 65.5 inches wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface
- Baja
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm
- Bronco Info: 95, 5.8, E4OD, 4:88s Front: 4.5 C&T, 2.5 C/O Rear: Deavers Shackles 3.0 bypass All Threat
- Location: Long Beach, CA
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
The front is the same as the rear?dtbback wrote:stock with is 65.5 inches wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface
-
- Posts: 1677
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:45 am
- Bronco Info: 1996 EB 351W!! First Bronco!! Plan: Prerunner/ Trail Rig/ SHTF All around Rig
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
Not sure what you're asking g there but the stock 8.8 is 65.5" wide wms to wms.
- Baja
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm
- Bronco Info: 95, 5.8, E4OD, 4:88s Front: 4.5 C&T, 2.5 C/O Rear: Deavers Shackles 3.0 bypass All Threat
- Location: Long Beach, CA
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
I was asking about the stock front track
-
- Posts: 1677
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:45 am
- Bronco Info: 1996 EB 351W!! First Bronco!! Plan: Prerunner/ Trail Rig/ SHTF All around Rig
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
Oh. I don't have a clue about that but I can measure my broncos track width tomorrow morning after I get off work.
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
What issues do you run into with the spool on a wider rearend?philofab wrote:A narrower rear end is nice if you are running a spool. If it's not make it the same as the front and error toward narrower.
- philofab
- Basura Blanca
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:37 am
- Bronco Info: A pile of crap.
- Location: Bullhead, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
tvoymang wrote:What issues do you run into with the spool on a wider rearend?
It just makes it harder to turn and puts more load on the axles. Class 8 used to run narrower rear ends for this reason. It has fallen out of favor in the last few years for some reason.
- Andy Jones
- Posts: 2209
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:47 pm
- Bronco Info: In the Works!
- Location: Canyon Lake,ca
- Contact:
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
I never had, or heard of that before.. The Prerunner I use as of late, has a wide rear end with a spool and 39's. And it's never been an issue driving on the city streets or highways.philofab wrote:tvoymang wrote:What issues do you run into with the spool on a wider rearend?
It just makes it harder to turn and puts more load on the axles. Class 8 used to run narrower rear ends for this reason. It has fallen out of favor in the last few years for some reason.
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:58 pm
- Bronco Info: 1993 Bronco, stock now but work in progress
Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width
I just got a '86 Econoline rear end. It's at 69" and a 9". Look into that as an option.