Question on tread width. - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Suspension - Brakes - Steering
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2008, 10:06 AM
impalaman63's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnesota
Age: 63
Posts: 136
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question on tread width.

Looking to put a Mustang II IFS in a 1958 Morris Minor. The Morris Minor total width is 61" . The Mustang II Tread width is 55". When they say tread width do they mean the inside edge of the tire or the out side edge of the tire?

Thanks dan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2008, 10:54 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,172
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by impalaman63
Looking to put a Mustang II IFS in a 1958 Morris Minor. The Morris Minor total width is 61" . The Mustang II Tread width is 55". When they say tread width do they mean the inside edge of the tire or the out side edge of the tire?

Thanks dan
Vehicle specs read center of front tire to center of front tire...... which is affected by wheel offset/backspace.
In your situation you should be concerned with the wheel mounting flange to wheel mounting flange dimension, then be sure your chosen wheel tire combination will fit under your fenders.
I doubt the Minor is 61" tread width. That is as wide as LARGE American sedans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2008, 11:29 AM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,192
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 590
Thanked 755 Times in 645 Posts
Tread width is the width of one tire at the tread where it runs on the roadway.
Section width is the fattest part of the tire, usually about halfway between the tread and the wheel.
Track is the width laterally from the centerline of the tread of one tire to the centerline of the tread on the other tire at either the front or rear of the vehicle.

It's interesting to note that railroads and early automobiles both used the same track width of 4 ft., 8 1/2 in. which was the exact track width used on Roman chariots.

The Morris has a front track of 50.6", while the M II is 55.6", so you would have to deal with 2 1/2" wider on each side of the car. Using a wheel with a deeper backspace could make up some of the difference, as long as you didn't get the wheel/tire into the suspension components.

Here's how one fellow split the body down the middle and added material to widen the entire car to make it work....
http://beardmorebros.co.uk/website%2...work_page1.htm

And another fellow who used the above-mentioned wheel offset to get there...
http://www.carcentric.com/2Minors.htm

Don't even think about narrowing the crossmember and rack. You'll change the instant center and all associated geometry and render the whole mess into junk.

Last edited by techinspector1; 11-27-2008 at 11:51 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2008, 02:13 PM
impalaman63's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnesota
Age: 63
Posts: 136
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ScoTFrenzel
Total Body width is 61"

techinspector1
The Morris has a front track of 50.6", while the M II is 55.6", so you would have to deal with 2 1/2" wider on each side of the car. Using a wheel with a deeper backspace could make up some of the difference, as long as you didn't get the wheel/tire into the suspension components.

This is what I was looking for. So Mustang II IFS would be to wide.
Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2008, 02:35 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,192
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 590
Thanked 755 Times in 645 Posts
All depends on your fabrication skills as to whether it is too wide or not. You could fashion some fender flares to widen the body a little and use offset wheels. Where there is a will, there's a way.

You are not limited to using a M II of course. Look around at some of the Toyotas, Nissans, older Datsuns, Hyundais, Kias, Hondas, etc., etc. Most of them will probably have the strut front suspension, but if you look at trucks, you'll probably find unequal length A-arms. Take a tape measure to the boneyard and measure center to center of the front tires. I'll bet you could find a half dozen good candidates in a matter of hours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2008, 04:18 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,172
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by impalaman63
ScoTFrenzel
Total Body width is 61"

techinspector1
The Morris has a front track of 50.6", while the M II is 55.6", so you would have to deal with 2 1/2" wider on each side of the car. Using a wheel with a deeper backspace could make up some of the difference, as long as you didn't get the wheel/tire into the suspension components.

This is what I was looking for. So Mustang II IFS would be to wide.
Thanks
Some use shorter A arms, but that will cause tire to suspension issues.

MII front ends are commonly narrowed or widened to fit the receiver chassis.
Your only modification is the center steering link width.
The front end ackerman turning geometry would be slightly altered, which shouldn't be any real big deal. Most cars drag one wheel during tight turns anyway. Ever hear tires squeeling in the parking lots?
Your next concern is for sufficient engine room width with the 5" narrowed suspension.
The operation should be simple, but not necessarily easy.
But we are hot rodders, and that's what we do. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2008, 04:23 PM
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: More painting pics
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 371
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
Tread width is the width of one tire at the tread where it runs on the roadway.
Section width is the fattest part of the tire, usually about halfway between the tread and the wheel.
Track is the width laterally from the centerline of the tread of one tire to the centerline of the tread on the other tire at either the front or rear of the vehicle. .....
I also refer to the centerline of tire to centerline of tire as the track but have found various plans from 1920's and 30's that refer to this dimension as the 'tread'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2008, 05:28 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,172
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimshaw
I also refer to the centerline of tire to centerline of tire as the track but have found various plans from 1920's and 30's that refer to this dimension as the 'tread'.
Many modern vehicles list the tire centerline to tire centerline as TREAD width.
For example..... ALL FORD products have always done this, and still do for 2009.

Oh and for you Chevy guys on this Chevy web site = so does Chevrolet use the term TREAD width.

Just Google it for more facts than you can stand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2008, 03:29 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,192
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 590
Thanked 755 Times in 645 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoTFrenzel
Many modern vehicles list the tire centerline to tire centerline as TREAD width.
For example..... ALL FORD products have always done this, and still do for 2009.

Oh and for you Chevy guys on this Chevy web site = so does Chevrolet use the term TREAD width.

Just Google it for more facts than you can stand.
You know fellows, you can always find something written by someone on the internet to support your faulty argument. One glaring example is the use of "normally aspirated" in place of the proper "naturally aspirated".

If, however, you refer to the proper sources, you can usually find the proper nomenclature for whatever it is you're talking about. Here's one article from the Society of Automotive Engineers that refers to track width in it's proper use. I'm sure there are many other references in their publishings, but I am not so inclined as to spend my time looking for them.....
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2006-01-0795

Here's another article that sets a distinction between track width and tread width....
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/680772

Not to say that it doesn't exist, but I would just like to see information from an OEM which lists tread width as the measurement between the centerlines of two tires on the same axle. Please provide me with a link. Anything that lists tread width as a measurement in the 50-60 inch range will do nicely. Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2008, 08:06 AM
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: More painting pics
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 371
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Plan showing the tread as 58". These plans were originally drawn in 1929, they were drawn by the manufacturer and sent to the various coachbuilders to build the bodies.

http://www.hotrodders.com/gallery/sh...cat/500/page/1

Last edited by scrimshaw; 11-29-2008 at 08:25 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:11 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,192
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 590
Thanked 755 Times in 645 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimshaw
Plan showing the tread as 58". These plans were originally drawn in 1929, they were drawn by the manufacturer and sent to the various coachbuilders to build the bodies.

http://www.hotrodders.com/gallery/sh...cat/500/page/1
Thank you for the reply, but one drawing done 79 years ago hardly sets the tone for an argument with the SAE of today concerning the definition of tread width and track width.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:11 PM
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: More painting pics
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 371
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
Thank you for the reply, but one drawing done 79 years ago hardly sets the tone for an argument with the SAE of today concerning the definition of tread width and track width.
Whether or not you or I think it is correct (and I still agree with you that the proper term is track) it is obviously interchangeable as I proved and you quickly dismissed as being too old even though I would of thought age gave it credence. A quick google will reveal both uses.
Think of it as
a) the tread of a tire
b)the tread of the car

BTW from an OEM -- http://www.mazda.com.my/upload/pdf/M...cation_MY.aspx
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:46 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,192
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 590
Thanked 755 Times in 645 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimshaw
Whether or not you or I think it is correct (and I still agree with you that the proper term is track) it is obviously interchangeable as I proved and you quickly dismissed as being too old even though I would of thought age gave it credence. A quick google will reveal both uses.
Think of it as
a) the tread of a tire
b)the tread of the car

BTW from an OEM -- http://www.mazda.com.my/upload/pdf/M...cation_MY.aspx
Sorry, I didn't mean for it to seem that I was "quickly dismissing" your entry. It's just that things change and while the correct nomenclature of the day when the drawing was done may not be the accepted or correct nomenclature of today.

You entry from Mazda is most interesting though and you have proved your point. Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2008, 05:48 PM
The Maintenance Geek
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edge of the earth Washington
Age: 54
Posts: 266
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think I'd be looking for something closer to "home", as in an MG-B, or possibly a Triumph TR6...

K
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2008, 08:03 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,192
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 590
Thanked 755 Times in 645 Posts
Good point Mr. Bates. MGB wheelbase 91.0, front track 49.3, rear track 49.3. Should be a ton of 'em in the boneyards.

Last edited by techinspector1; 11-29-2008 at 08:10 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Suspension - Brakes - Steering posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
383 stroker 73monte Engine 10 12-05-2009 08:02 PM
Tire width and rim width??? voodoosurfer General Rodding Tech 2 11-09-2005 12:54 AM
measuring rim width cboy General Rodding Tech 5 11-12-2004 09:44 PM
Actual tread width?? ets1945 Hotrodders' Lounge 3 12-26-2003 03:07 PM
nitrous 69BiRd Engine 2 11-28-2003 10:33 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.