Rear wheels are sucked in way more than front. K10. Adapters? BAD IDEA? pics inside

[Turbo4whl]

But if your wheel falls off and you die at least you were doing something you enjoyed,not like the guy who was mowing his lawn when he got hit by your wheel.

"Now that's funny, I don't care who you are" -J.F.

 

[Blue Ox]

Well, that escalated quickly.

A couple o' observations: The rear axles are not identical between 2WD and 4WD. The shock mounts (at least on my truck) are different heights. That's not to say whether it's more cost-effective to change the tube length vs just welding on different shock mounts, but GM is inventorying two different parts, so it's not for cost or convenience on the line.

In racing, one of the things we learned about track width was that a narrower front track was a higher rollover risk than and equal F - R track width. Think of a tricycle. Is it possible that GM compensated for the higher COG of the 4WD truck with a wider front track to reduce its rollover potential?

Lastly, remember that in engineering there are no design flaws, only features. So if it was actually done for cost reasons or was just a mistake, the consumer is told it was for improved somethingorother.

 

[1lejohn]

I would never use an adapter on anything, but a spacer I would, longer wheel stud and probably an aluminum spacer, I think adapting to a different lug pattern is pretty stupid, but I dont really see where installing a spacer as long as wheel studs are long enough to get full engagememt of the lug nut is such a big deal.

I used front spacers on my 99 Camaro. Had to do this to run skinny tires and wheels. Front Runners. I did replace the stock wheel studs with ARP front and back.

 

[MikeB]

If you don't like the recessed look, maybe you can find some rear wheels that are the same width but with less backspacing? Or wider wheels with the same backspacing.

Keith may know the guy who invented the wheel.

 

[tobiahr]

There's lots of reasons why GM would have done that, many people have different theories of Ackerman angle, many others say it's for traction reasons.

But the reality of it is, it was to save money. They simply used the same axle housing for 2wd and 4x4 trucks, which makes the rear axle narrower than the front axle on on the 4x4's.

The problem with this logic is that the 2wd also has a narrower rear track width than the front. If they had used wider rear axles to match the front on 2wd it would have matched the front axle on 4wd. I have read all I could find discussing this and unless they were using axles from cars (they weren't as the largest of those was still about 1 inch narrower) it was an intentional design and most likely for Ackerman angle. Keeping the narrow axles for shorter wheelbase where Ackerman would not have as great an impact may have been for cost.

 

[Grit dog]

Wow. This thread is kinda like GMSB Facebook…
So….this guy used wheel spacers on a Chebbie and this is what happened!

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Grit dog]

Or he was simply the 3rd drunk in about 6 months now to launch off the end of a closed bridge. Dukes of Hazzard style.
So far no one has made it across. Doesn’t work like the movies! Lol
The joys of working on an Indian reservation….

 

[mtbadbob]

Here's what happens EVERY TIME you use a "spacer"!

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

But man, his truck sure looked cool!!

 

[bucket]

The problem with this logic is that the 2wd also has a narrower rear track width than the front. If they had used wider rear axles to match the front on 2wd it would have matched the front axle on 4wd. I have read all I could find discussing this and unless they were using axles from cars (they weren't as the largest of those was still about 1 inch narrower) it was an intentional design and most likely for Ackerman angle. Keeping the narrow axles for shorter wheelbase where Ackerman would not have as great an impact may have been for cost.

I've tried to keep my two cents out of this since I said I would when Keith inevitably trumped me.

But I will say this:
It was not done for Akerman angle, engineers like @Keith Seymore have said otherwise.

Also, there's not a problem with the logic, because it's not logic... it's fact. The 4x4 squarebody trucks, especially the 1/2 tons, have a wider front track than the 2wd trucks, but the rear track width is the same as the 2wd variants. That's a fact. It's also a fact that the GMT 400 trucks have different width rear axles between 2wd and 4x4. The 4x4 version of the axle is wider.

Nobody (or at least I'm not) is claiming that other cars and trucks don't have a rear track width that is narrower than the front. Because most everything does. But most aren't different enough to be goofy looking, like the squarebody trucks.

 

[Nasty-LSX]

the GMT 400 trucks have different width rear axles between 2wd and 4x4.

I keep hearing about GMT 400 on this this thread. What is GMT 400? Thanks

 

[bucket]

I keep hearing about GMT 400 on this this thread. What is GMT 400? Thanks

The '88-'98 style trucks with the newer style body.

 

[Radiohead]

You know, the icky ones

 

[AuroraGirl]

Here's the thing about doing different generations of vehicles:

When the current version came out it was billed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So any change you make as a manufacturer has to be "better" than before. And then better again. And then better yet again. At best - It's unsustainable. And it's subject to the whims of the program team and what is "en vogue" at the time.

Think about fuel tank locations as an example. The squarebody had the tank outside the fuel rail, which was frowned upon in hindsight when the GMT400 came out with the tank inside the frame rails.

Be reminded that the previous truck, though (67-72) had the tank inside the pickup cab.

K

1973 Chevrolet Pickups brochure specifically calls out the frame rail fuel tank as a safety measure because its not in the cab

my favorite is the square body brochures for the year they got RID of the always-on with key on fan thing talks it up but when they made the 1973 squares it was a feature lol.

 

[Grit dog]

Can we just agree that it doesn’t really make a schitt bit of difference in handling or traction or, really anything except looks?
If you don’t want spacers put some fat wheels on it and it’ll be less noticeable!

 

[DoubleDingo]

Can we just agree that it doesn’t really make a schitt bit of difference in handling or traction or, really anything except looks?
If you don’t want spacers put some fat wheels on it and it’ll be less noticeable!

Nope.

No logic allowed!

Kidding, of course.