GoFastBroncos.com

If you build a 4.5" over beam set for the front-- that's 9" wider overall-- don't you do the exact same for the front??

Don't you increase the rear 9" as well was my ??

There was another thread where this was discussed. I believe the general concensus was, if not even with the front extension that 2 inches less i width was preferable. So a 71-72" wms width. So an econoline housing with 2"spacers would be the cheapest and put you right about there.

Beware there is a very small selection of glass that will work if you go over 70".

No kidding??? So what glass do people use typically??

Over 71 you have to go with McNiel 6" or now Hollander Motorsports had a flat top variation with provisions for a few extra inches wheelbase.

I have asked over and over again about making wider bedsides. I can make it happen, but nothing ever pans out when the rubber meets the road.

I should clarify-- this is for a 95 ex cab f150

Ohhhhhhh that's a different story haha

Doesn't pretty much everyone make 6" glass for the OBS f150?

yes, bigger glass for the trucks is easier to find than for broncos.

Track width opinions do vary a bit, but it seems many people like the rear slightly narrower than the front for tracking reasons. Therefore if you are going 4.5" wider per side on the front you'd go anywhere from 1-2.5" wider per side in the rear.

I'm 4.5" per side up front with a 71" wms rear and it is perfect for me. If you do the same width front and rear or even slightly wider you could have a pushing effect into turns. Yes everyone makes 6" glass for that truck. Bronco's are a different story on glass.

The rear end stock is 65.5" if I understand correctly.

Yes it is. So if you did an econoline swap with 1.5" wheel spacers you'd be exactly at 71" wms.

That would for sure be the cheapest option. My biggest issue with that is the wall thick on those housings and the use of spacers-- with that said though it would be really cheap!

You might be able to do a full float conversion on a bronco 9" and hit 71" wms using 14 bolt spindles and hubs from Solid. Then you'd have 3.25 OD .25 wall tubes. I have a pic of the Solid spindle and hub assembled and before turning the spindle down for pressing into the axle tubes they add ~5.5" inches per side. From the pic I have it looks like the spindle flange has ~ 3" of machinable length for pressing into the tubes. If you want the pic I'll text it to you.

RE: track width opinions:

A decision we'll have to make at this time next year. Resistance would seem to say that track width exactly the same front and rear is the way to go. As much as I'm sure it isn't as simple as that, I'd love to hear the schools of engineering thought about why F&R wouldn't work the best being the same.

Is there another thread directly on this subject her on GFB or elsewhere?

i can think of no reason why a narrower track width on one end of the car is an advantage

Match Front

baja-chris wrote:i can think of no reason why a narrower track width on one end of the car is an advantage

I have +3 beams and have run the truck with both stock width and rear and a matched rear. Matched is much improved. Stock width did lots of hinky shit and tracked weird