Fiberglass fenders?

[Irishman999]

I don't even like to think about it! I haven't dug too deeply inot the temp rating on those tires for good reason. I imagine they aren't rated for the sort of use i have put them to.

At least yours are radials and not bias ply haha.

 

[Justinw1423]

I have wondered for a while now what it is about the 4WD that gives the trucks that funny, unbalanced look. The front tires stick out quite a bit more than the rears do. Is it the locking hubs on the front axle, or the fact that the front has all the steering hardware to carry? Look at a late model Dodge Van, they have the same thing going on. Only downside to the glass fenders (other than the price) is the fact that I'll have to work twice as hard to get mud on the windshield! LOL

Hey bud. Back in the day, the 4x4 trucks had a wider stance In the front for the fact that if you were in mud all tires would pull theoretically. Well if your front tires are digging down and moving forward, your back tires will not follow in the same rut your front end just made. That way it's always hitting new ground.

 

[bucket]

Hey bud. Back in the day, the 4x4 trucks had a wider stance In the front for the fact that if you were in mud all tires would pull theoretically. Well if your front tires are digging down and moving forward, your back tires will not follow in the same rut your front end just made. That way it's always hitting new ground.

A lot of the pulling trucks are setup that way too. It looks a little goofy but it works.

 

[CSFJ]

Before I picked up the m1008, I looked at afew possibilities for rear axle swaps. I don't recall now exactly where I read it, but I found one piece of literature that stated the reason for the difference in track width front to rear had to do with turning ability. Iirc, it stated that if the rear was the same width as the front, the front end would have greater tendency to push through a turn, and scrub the front tires.

 

[Rusty Nail]

I have wondered for a while now what it is about the 4WD that gives the trucks that funny, unbalanced look. The front tires stick out quite a bit more than the rears do. Is it the locking hubs on the front axle, or the fact that the front has all the steering hardware to carry? Look at a late model Dodge Van, they have the same thing going on. Only downside to the glass fenders (other than the price) is the fact that I'll have to work twice as hard to get mud on the windshield! LOL

^ makes sense. @CSFJ. In LOC it may be near impossible?

I figured it was for Traction? What is the benefit of having one tire ride in the footprint of another?
Offset like a K truck is provides a much wider footprint that puts more, fresh rubber on the ground and, in track. Especially at speed. Pontiac said "wider is better".
Every tire gets fresh gripping surface...the fronts clear the way for the back.
Traction.

?

[yt]1E6IfdUJn6s[/yt]

 

[CSFJ]

Lol, I grew up hearing the same thing about more traction by having the track different too. But after I read what I mentioned above it made sense the more I thought about it. I think an old three wheeler makes a good exaggerated example. Think about how hard those were to turn if you don't use your weight to throw them around, and just try to turn flat and level. Then look at these newer (motorcycles?) That are running around that look like a wheeled snowmobile. 2 wheels up front, one in the rear. Supposedly, they handle great.

 

[bucket]

Before I picked up the m1008, I looked at afew possibilities for rear axle swaps. I don't recall now exactly where I read it, but I found one piece of literature that stated the reason for the difference in track width front to rear had to do with turning ability. Iirc, it stated that if the rear was the same width as the front, the front end would have greater tendency to push through a turn, and scrub the front tires.

Ackerman angle I believe it's called. I have read that too and it does make sense... until we remember that all the trucks had the same 3 inch narrower (roughly) track no matter what the wheelbase is. A K5's wheelbase is a heck of a lot shorter than a crew cab, or even just your everyday longbed truck. The wheelbase plays a big roll into the Ackerman angle equation, so that reasoning doesn't sound so reasonable when you think about it.

I personally think the narrower rear track was not done to help traction or change the way the truck drives. I think it was simply cost. They needed the wider stance up front to provide room for steering and they didn't want to pony up for the tooling that would be needed to produce 4x4-specific rear axles for all the models. They just used the same axle housings for 2wd and 4x4.