Only widen the front? / Ride-height questions

[monkei]

I've been looking at photos, and i notice that there seem to be a lot of trucks that have a wider front track than rear. Looks wacky to me, but is there a reason this is done that relates to stability in the desert, over bumps?

Also, the serious racetucks that sit lower in the rear than in the front (see the pics in the c-notch spring under thread) , is this done to reduce nosedive because of front end weight when jumping?

[SteveG]

I've been looking at photos, and i notice that there seem to be a lot of trucks that have a wider front track than rear. Looks wacky to me, but is there a reason this is done that relates to stability in the desert, over bumps?

You see it a lot because people blow their wad on the front and don't have enough money to build a matching rear end. A widened rear axle is big bucks....

That said, a truck can still work very well with a narrow rear axle. If you like to play in sand, having them as close as possible is ideal so you're not having to plow 2 sets of tracks in the sand.

Also, the serious racetucks that sit lower in the rear than in the front (see the pics in the c-notch spring under thread) , is this done to reduce nosedive because of front end weight when jumping?

It depends on the truck. You see all kinds of different ride-heights. Personally I think you should set it up so you have more (or at least an equal amount of) bump travel in the rear. The last thing you want in a short wheel base truck is for the front to blow right over a bump and the rear run out of travel and buck.

It's also interesting to note the static ride-height versus the in-motion (off-road) ride-height.

[PaulW]

I've been looking at photos, and i notice that there seem to be a lot of trucks that have a wider front track than rear. Looks wacky to me, but is there a reason this is done that relates to stability in the desert, over bumps?

Also, the serious racetucks that sit lower in the rear than in the front (see the pics in the c-notch spring under thread) , is this done to reduce nosedive because of front end weight when jumping?

============
No for sure. We widen the rear track so the tire does not rub the inner fender at full compression articulated. That means we also bump out the outer fender, either by pushing out the outer metal or doing major mods and adding the Autofab (& others) glass fenders.

Sitting low in the rear is an invitation to deal with tank replacement. Broncos don't usually look low for that reason. Got a pickup with the tank in the bed and you have different reasons. Not sure about the performance either way. Need a suspension expert that races to explain that.
Hard to believe nose dive has any thing to do with static height in the rear.
Its all about shock tuning. The short course trucks sit very low at static height and the shocks pump them up with the frequent bumps.

Paul

[ESHALLBETTER]

Also, the serious racetucks that sit lower in the rear than in the front (see the pics in the c-notch spring under thread) , is this done to reduce nosedive because of front end weight when jumping?

Another reason may be that alot of times a race truck may just APPEAR lower in the rear. Given the fact that front fiberglass needs to be flared way up to accomadate a tire that is bumping AND turning, and the rear fender can be trimmed and flared less since it only needs to clear a bumping tire. Upon seeing this, every flatbiller with a Ford Ranger lifted the front 4 inches and kept the rear stock, viola! the birth of the prerunner stance!

Disclaimer ~ This is mearly a hypothesis, and has no basis in scientific fact.

[bajascott]

Upon seeing this, every flatbiller with a Ford Ranger lifted the front 4 inches and kept the rear stock, viola! the birth of the prerunner stance!

you nailed it..haha

[PaulW]

Also, the serious racetucks that sit lower in the rear than in the front (see the pics in the c-notch spring under thread) , is this done to reduce nosedive because of front end weight when jumping?

Another reason may be that alot of times a race truck may just APPEAR lower in the rear. Given the fact that front fiberglass needs to be flared way up to accomadate a tire that is bumping AND turning, and the rear fender can be trimmed and flared less since it only needs to clear a bumping tire. Upon seeing this, every flatbiller with a Ford Ranger lifted the front 4 inches and kept the rear stock, viola! the birth of the prerunner stance!

Disclaimer ~ This is mearly a hypothesis, and has no basis in scientific fact.

========
Unlifter rear & lifted front seem to go with the white unpainted glass fenders we all see running around town in CA
pw

[bajascott]

IF YOU WERE TO go wider in the front, and wanted to do the same in the rear,you could use a van rear end, i believe they are 3" wider per side?i dont know the measurement but that number comes to mind.
i had 4" per side over on my other bronco.it got nice wheel tavel and looked cool from the front,but it handled like sh!t on rutted roads,it wanted to swap ends .the front wouldnt track in the ruts,but the rear would.it was uncomfortable to go fast in it.
and besides, it looked goofy pulling up behind it.haha my stock width set up i have now on this bronco hadle 20 times better.
and like steve and other have said, most of the rigs that set lower in the rear have less done to them.
i like the thought of lower center of gravity and think these broncos look bitchen with low stance and big tires.but behind that look(of one really built) is a kajillion dallors of fab work and suspension.

[yikes]

IF YOU WERE TO go wider in the front, and wanted to do the same in the rear,you could use a van rear end, i believe they are 3" wider per side?i dont know the measurement but that number comes to mind.

Stock Bronco is 64.6" and the van is 67.1"

[monkei]

Thanks for the great answers everyone!

i like the thought of lower center of gravity and think these broncos look bitchen with low stance and big tires.but behind that look(of one really built) is a kajillion dallors of fab work and suspension.

Yep, that's how I feel. Looks cool but it's outta the reasonable mod realm for me. I like riding high as well, i'll be happy to keep it lifted. I'd like to design my truck to clear 37s in the event I find I can actually afford them someday.

We widen the rear track so the tire does not rub the inner fender at full compression articulated. That means we also bump out the outer fender, either by pushing out the outer metal or doing major mods and adding the Autofab (& others) glass fenders.

What width tires is that for 12.50s? What about wheel tubs like a drag car to clear under lotsa' bump? Rear quarters would still need to be pushed out?

Personally I think you should set it up so you have more (or at least an equal amount of) bump travel in the rear.

Is that possible with stock mounted deaver leafs? Or would one have to go with a longer leaf/remount or go linked?

i had 4" per side over on my other bronco.it got nice wheel tavel and looked cool from the front,but it handled like sh!t on rutted roads,it wanted to swap ends .the front wouldnt track in the ruts,but the rear would.it was uncomfortable to go fast in it.

So you had both front and rear widened and it felt squirelly, or was that just with the wide front? It's not like my track is terribly narrow, but I thought you might be able to reduce roll risk and bring wheel spacing closer to center with wider wheels/tires. I ordered some Cragar steels in a custom backspaced 17x9 size and now I'm considering trying to go with lighter stock-ish wheels but I want the outside of the track width to be even or just a bit past the stock fender bulging. I didn't know about the wider rear van axles, thanks for the info.

[PaulW]

Thanks for the great answers everyone!

We widen the rear track so the tire does not rub the inner fender at full compression articulated. That means we also bump out the outer fender, either by pushing out the outer metal or doing major mods and adding the Autofab (& others) glass fenders.

What width tires is that for 12.50s? What about wheel tubs like a drag car to clear under lotsa' bump? Rear quarters would still need to be pushed out?

========
Wider housing = bedside pushed out (or buy glass$$)
Rims matter
If one was to max out the front track then maxing out the rear would be prudent.
I suppose you could use spacers to get the same result. Not recomended for hard desert use in the whoops. The van housing is pretty wide for a typical non racer.

I guess I will measure mine soon?
pw

[bajascott]

IF YOU WERE TO go wider in the front, and wanted to do the same in the rear,you could use a van rear end, i believe they are 3" wider per side?i dont know the measurement but that number comes to mind.

Stock Bronco is 64.6" and the van is 67.1"

thanks for the clearification Brian! i had 3" in mind.....
monkei: i had only the front done on my other bronco. i diddnt like it.

[magic carpet XLT]

keep in mind that front track width is almost always a hair wider than the rear so the rear can track smoothly thru turns. its not much, maybe an inch overall but it is a there. my stock dana 60 is 69" wms-wms and the rears in those trucks are 67-68" (my 14 bolt is 67"). crawlers are starting to experiment with drastically different track widths as a substitute for lack of rear steer in a locked application.

i woudn't consider using wheel spacers.

broncos are already pretty wide from the factory, especially for their short wheelbase. if you go too wide the scrub radius starts to suck and the rear tires just can't follow the fronts smoothly, whether the rear is wider or not. i once ran 10" wheels with 2.5" backspacing (~92" tire width) and it drove like complete shit but was very stable off camber. now with 9" wide ~4.5" backspacing the track is 86" and it drives a whole lot better and doesn't feel any different off camber.

like steve said, keep the front and rear matched and close to stock seems to work better (it just doesn't look as cool).

[PaulW]

IF YOU WERE TO go wider in the front, and wanted to do the same in the rear,you could use a van rear end, i believe they are 3" wider per side?i dont know the measurement but that number comes to mind.

Stock Bronco is 64.6" and the van is 67.1"

(Yikes)
============
I just measured housing and several wheels.
My rear 67.125" wide
Pushing out the bedside works with that width with either 7"Wx3.5BS or 7.5"Wx4" BS. stock Ford wheels.
BS measured external, so I should subtract ~~.3"?
PW

[flyinbronco]

I ran my Bronco with the 6" widend front and the stock rear axle for a couple of years and like Steve said it sucked. I saved my money and when I finally bent the heck outa the 8.8 axle I had my funds for a matching 6" widen 9" rear.

[monkei]

So do you think there's a noticeable/worthwile handling or stability improvement wider both front and rear, or does it only look cool?

You added 4.5" per side on all four corners?

[PaulW]

So do you think there's a noticeable/worthwile handling or stability improvement wider both front and rear, or does it only look cool?

You added 4.5" per side on all four corners?

==========
Go fast Broncos
widen the front to get more travel then widen the rear to match.
Its all about diving fast in the whoops which requires big tires and lots of travel
That is what this board is all about. Its not about looks, but is about what works.
PW

[Nick]

So do you think there's a noticeable/worthwile handling or stability improvement wider both front and rear, or does it only look cool?

You added 4.5" per side on all four corners?

==========
Go fast Broncos
widen the front to get more travel then widen the rear to match.
Its all about diving fast in the whoops which requires big tires and lots of travel
That is what this board is all about. Its not about looks, but is about what works.
PW

Can i get an Amen!

[bajascott]

AMENnnnnnnnnnna

[yikes]

Hahahaha!

[Squarehead]

When I had my Currie F9 rearend built, I had it made 3 inches wider than stock (1.5" per side). Wish I would have gone at least 6 inches wider than stock now, as I'm going to have wider Camburg beams in front soon.