When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
You say that the tires touch the parking brake cable and the spring. Was this with the car off of the ground and the wheels at full droop?
If it was, you may be surprised when you lower the car to the ground to find that you now have clearance between the spring and the tire. Because of the unequal lengths of the half shaft and the strut rod, the wheel moves in an arc and you have less clearance at full droop. At normal ride height and suspension travel, you will have additional clearance. I would want about an inch to call it good. If that is the case then all you really need to do is move the parking brake mount to the top of the control arm.
Good luck... GUSTO
This. OP, check this prior to ANYTHING ELSE.
If all you have to do is relocate the parking break cable, this is cake.
Although...I would STILL advise looking into new wheel studs...especially if this is for new, directional, modern tires. The added traction increases the stress applied to those studs, and I can't stress enough how NOT FUN IT IS to drive the car and have studs snap. It's ride you don't want.
Don't forget the inner race is being compressed/held in place with a 100+ ft lb of torque. If the rolling resistance in the bearing is great enough to overcome the 100+ ft lb on the inner race, then slip fit or press fit is the least of your problems.
So, you don't understand the reason the rear bearings are press fit then?
So, you don't understand the reason the rear bearings are press fit then?
My understanding is if a bearing fails, in a "slip fit", and the bearing seizes, and the axle twists off, then the wheel is free to come off after it breaks off the brake caliper. Then you see a wheel, looking very much like yours, passing you on the road.
My understanding is if a bearing fails, in a "slip fit", and the bearing seizes, and the axle twists off, then the wheel is free to come off after it breaks off the brake caliper. Then you see a wheel, looking very much like yours, passing you on the road.
Read post 17 again. You can't have clearance between rotating components or the inner part rolls around the inside surface of the outer part. The front bearings can be slip fit onto the spindle because the spindle and inner bearing race don't rotate.
Read post 17 again. You can't have clearance between rotating components or the inner part rolls around the inside surface of the outer part. The front bearings can be slip fit onto the spindle because the spindle and inner bearing race don't rotate.
I understand your point and agree with you if the inner race is loose on the spindle. However, your statement "the spindle would roll inside the inner race of the bearing destroying both the bearing and spindle with each revolution of the wheel", this cannot happen.
Here is my reasoning....
1/ Slip fit does not imply a "loose" fit. It is a slight interference fit.
2/ The inner race is completely secured to the axle spindle with 100+ ft lb of torque. The inner race and spindle become "locked" together.
I don't understand your statement about the spindle being able to "roll" inside the inner race.
You can't compare the rear with the front spindle setup as the front inner race is not secured in place.
As I said above, the inner race / spindle is "torqued" together. How can this "roll around"?
Last edited by Barry's70LT1; Apr 25, 2016 at 12:53 PM.
It is not an interference fit when the parts can be slipped together. 100ft-lbs of torque is not enough to keep the races from moving sideways on the spindle. Hence, GM's use of an interference fit on the inner bearing races.
It is not an interference fit when the parts can be slipped together. 100ft-lbs of torque is not enough to keep the races from moving sideways on the spindle. Hence, GM's use of an interference fit on the inner bearing races.
In 1963 model year, the rear bearings were slip fit. This resulted in some bearing failures due to "inner races rotating", not sideways movement. A contributing factor was the 50 ft lb torque on the spindle nut.
Based on experience, I believe a slip fit @ 100 ft.lb is not a problem. That's just my experience, anyone reading this should make their own decisions.
Obviously you can't go wrong with press fit.
LOL, those spindle were rolling inside the bearing race. When it's rolling the spindle is constantly moving to one side of the race. Why else do you think GM both increased the torque AND press fit the races?
Last edited by lionelhutz; Apr 25, 2016 at 10:23 PM.
[QUOTE=MN80Vette;1591825132]Our son, Matt, is a CNC machinist and has made MANY billet hub centric adapter-spacers for CF members. Adapter-spacers (3/8") for Boss wheels (4.5" backspace) are "standard", but he can make them for any brand wheel given the wheel hub ID.