Optimum Rear Axle Width

Baja · Post by **Baja** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:40 am

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

mesquito_creek · Post by **mesquito_creek** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:23 am

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 · Post by **Baja** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:32 am

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?

philofab · Post by **philofab** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:53 am

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.

mesquito_creek · Post by **mesquito_creek** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:26 pm

Have you every had the narrower rear end with the 4.5 over beams? If so, How did affect or change the handling?

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:

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 · Post by **Baja** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:35 pm

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.

Baja · Post by **Baja** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:36 pm

Forgot to ask you...are you running 3" glass in the rear at that 71"?

cs_drums · Post by **cs_drums** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:45 pm

This is 72.5wms with 35x12.5 on 15x8 w/3.5" backspace

: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1421455525.204817.jpg (126.27 KiB) Viewed 998 times

: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1421455482.873403.jpg (195.13 KiB) Viewed 998 times

cs_drums · Post by **cs_drums** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:46 pm

That's with 3" McNeils

Baja · Post by **Baja** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:04 pm

cs_drums wrote:That's with 3" McNeils

Wow! That's wide! Do you think 71" with 4.5 backspace would tuck okay?

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 · Post by **Baja** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:13 pm

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".

dtbback · Post by **dtbback** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:39 pm

stock with is 65.5 inches wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface

Baja · Post by **Baja** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:51 pm

dtbback wrote:stock with is 65.5 inches wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface

The front is the same as the rear?

dtbback · Post by **dtbback** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:15 pm

Not sure what you're asking g there but the stock 8.8 is 65.5" wide wms to wms.

Baja · Post by **Baja** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:42 pm

I was asking about the stock front track

dtbback · Post by **dtbback** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:19 pm

Oh. I don't have a clue about that but I can measure my broncos track width tomorrow morning after I get off work.

tvoymang · Post by **tvoymang** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:13 am

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.

What issues do you run into with the spool on a wider rearend?

philofab · Post by **philofab** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:22 am

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 · Post by **Andy Jones** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:55 am

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.

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.

essexjet · Post by **essexjet** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:13 pm

I just got a '86 Econoline rear end. It's at 69" and a 9". Look into that as an option.

Optimum Rear Axle Width

Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width

Re: Optimum Rear Axle Width