Narrower Rear Track Width?

[NCBlueTJ]

I'm gathering parts for a 1-ton conversion on my TJ. I have a Superduty 60 for the front, which is 72" wide at the WMS. Currently hunting for a 14 bolt for the rear. I can get a dually axle that matches the front width at 72". I could also get a van axle at 70", or a SRW axle at 68" wide.

Is there a significant advantage to being narrower in the rear? Seems to me that since the rear inside tire's track falls inside of the font inside tire's track during a turn, that it would be advantageous to be a bit narrower in the back. Should help the rear tire's track to fall closer to the front's track when turning. Right?

How much of an advantage is this in practice? I have only ever driven 4x4s with equal track width front and rear.

If given the choice described above, which rear axle would you choose?

 

[willis_racing]

If given the choice described above, which rear axle would you choose?

72" front and rear because my rear tires being further inside the fenders than my front tires looks stupid. ( a problem I am currently noticing and planning to remedy on my K20)

The rest of it is more or less overthinking. Any perceived advantage you could gain by staggering your wms will come with an equal set of disadvantages, similar to wheelbase.

 

[Bebop]

I've tried multiple WMS on my rear axle. front is 72.

Could not tell the difference outside of the fact I hit less trees with the narrow axle. Probably because of the shitty driver.

I'd use the 70" wide axle.

 

[Poke]

I prefer Narrower 2-3” for turning.. I’d see no issues with more than 3” even

 

[u2slow]

Obs F250/350 had a 69" front and 65" rear.

I now run a 70" rear with a 67.5" front.

Use whatever axle widths you want.

 

[YotaAtieToo]

A narrower rear will turn a little tighter.

I've ran 63.5/62 on multiple rigs and it was great.

Last setup was 69.5/66" worked great

Current rig is 67/63.5 works great

Next set up will be 69.5/68 and I'm sure it will be fine

Just wheeled with a buddy in a 1ton tj who took 2.5" out of the front 60 to match the rear 14b at 67". He's been wheelin it and driving it on the road for years.

Use whatever works for you. A little more width in the rear will make mounting shocks easier.

Any reason you didn't just grab the matching sterling 10.5" rear?

 

[RustyC]

My YJ is 69 front and 67 rear. Looks odd from the rear. But in the trees down here in the Southeast I know if the front fits through the rear will for sure.

 

[NCBlueTJ]

Any reason you didn't just grab the matching sterling 10.5" rear?

My front axle did not come with its matching rear. If I have to buy one separately, might as well get the stronger 14b.

 

[NCBlueTJ]

Kind of leaning towards the idea of a 70" rear to go with my 72" front. A touch narrower, but not enough to really be visible.

 

[Poke]

Kind of leaning towards the idea of a 70" rear to go with my 72" front. A touch narrower, but not enough to really be visible.

That should be fine. When I had my Spidertrax underneath the 4400 I think I went 3” narrower when we cut them. I made sure my Jeep crawler was more than that even.

 

[YotaAtieToo]

My front axle did not come with its matching rear. If I have to buy one separately, might as well get the stronger 14b.

Stronger may be debatable.

10.5s are everywhere at 70" or 72" matching pattern and disc brakes, Much better clearance stock to stock. just food for thought

 

[RPS1030]

For me

Without knowing what mine are currently, might be a moot point. But made me realize matching the existing rear when converting to rear steer seems silly. Matching the front width and gaining what room I can to links/chassis/etc should be better.

 

[Bebop]

Stronger may be debatable.

Uhhhh no.

Sterlings are weaker than 14 bolts.

 

[YotaAtieToo]

Uhhhh no.

Sterlings are weaker than 14 bolts.

So a 1973 14b is stronger than a 2016 10.5?

Im not just talking r&p, but over all strength. Shafts, Spindles, housing.

Either way, I doubt he's going to hurt a sterling in a typical 1 ton tj.

 

[Bebop]

Yes

And I agree with what you're saying on the 1 ton comment.

 

[posford]

Uhhhh no.

Sterlings are weaker than 14 bolts.

Marginally weaker, not leaps and bounds weaker

 

[YotaAtieToo]

Yes

And I agree with what you're saying on the 1 ton comment.

I doubt a 50 year old 14b is stronger than a late model sterling. Especially when you're not just talking r&p only.

Have you seen lots of sterlings break?

 

[Bebop]

Have you seen lots of sterlings break?

Yes.
Remember I live in bouncer territory.

Nobody I know that has tried a Sterling has kept it.

Marginally weaker, not leaps and bounds weaker

Loose by and inch or a mile, you're still behind.

 

[Tech Tim]

It's amazing how good a narrower rear tracks behind you, especially at speed.

My long travel IFS 4Runner was 6-3/4" wider in the front (3-3/8" per side), ran that for a few weeks, then installed 3" wheel spacers in the back. The difference was night and day, the narrower rear axle just trailed right along and helped straighten up the rig coming out of a corner.
I ended up going to 2" wheel spacers to get some of the benefits of the narrower rear axle, without it looking too goofy front to back.

 

[YotaAtieToo]

Yes.
Remember I live in bouncer territory.

Nobody I know that has tried a Sterling has kept it.


Loose by and inch or a mile, you're still behind.

And those same guys went to old 14 bolts and had zero issues?

Aren't you on like #3

Obviously I'm not saying a 14b is weak, but I think some guys think all 14 bolts are just indestructible. Personally I'd rather have a late model sterling than an old 14b, the late model 14b is better, but pretty expensive over here at least

 

[Bebop]

And those same guys went to old 14 bolts and had zero issues?

Yes

Aren't you on like #3

No

Obviously I'm not saying a 14b is weak, but I think some guys think all 14 bolts are just indestructible.

That was not the argument

Personally I'd rather have a late model sterling than an old 14b, the late model 14b is better, but pretty expensive over here at least

well... that your opinion, man...

 

[gt1guy]

Go with the 70" rear.

As TechTim said, it helps the rear follow the front.

 

['84 Bronco II]

A narrower rear will turn a little tighter.

I've seen a few guys mention this, and I can't wrap my head around how that would be true with an open diff. Obviously with a spool, a wider rear is a bigger lever arm for the steer axle to fight against.

Yes.
Remember I live in bouncer territory.

Nobody I know that has tried a Sterling has kept it.

I am curious what the bouncer guys are breaking on the Sterlings that seems to hold up much better on 14 Bolts?


Edit: For the OP, the only reason I would intentionally run a significantly narrower rear axle is if I were dodging cones in a drag axle. It can also help if you have trouble judging where to turn in as already mentioned since the inside rear wheel will follow the path of the inside front more closely.

 

[YotaAtieToo]

I've seen a few guys mention this, and I can't wrap my head around how that would be true with an open diff. Obviously with a spool, a wider rear is a bigger lever arm for the steer axle to fight against.

I thought that also, but once someone explained it in dummy terms it made sense. Of course I can't remember now though

I am curious what the bouncer guys are breaking on the Sterlings that seems to hold up much better on 14 Bolts?

Same here, I thought the 14b had proven to be the best 10.5 r&p but also not the best spindles or housing on the older models for hard use like u4 or bouncers.

Edit: For the OP, the only reason I would intentionally run a significantly narrower rear axle is if I were dodging cones in a drag axle. I can also help if you have trouble judging where to turn in as already mentioned since the inside rear wheel will follow the path of the inside front more closely.

 

[Bebop]

I am curious what the bouncer guys are breaking on the Sterlings that seems to hold up much better on 14 Bolts?

Axles and R&Ps