Track width?

[Tony_SS]

Is it me or is the track width on the rear more narrow than the front? I have the same wheels/tires all around and I swear the rear tires sit in about an inch more than the front.

[Turbo85GMC]

It's you.

Just kidding! It's not you. The track with is different between the front & back on our trucks.

Not sure of the reason why, maybe someone else will know why they made it that way.

[N2TRUX]

I have always been told it was for better traction in inclimate weather. Maybe Keith Seymore can give an accurate answer.

[Tony_SS]

lol.. ok thought I was going crazy there.

I'll take this into account when it comes to a wheel/tire setup next time. I seems like the rear is set in about an inch on each side.. something to consider when choosing backspacing for the rear wheels.

[bigblock73]

Total track with in back is 3" narrower than front. Get some 1.5" spacers and you will be fine.

[b454rat]

I've heard better traction in winter, better turning radius, only the brainiacs at GM can answer that.

Get some wheel spacers or get a rear from a van, touch wider than trucks, evens on the width.

[Tony_SS]

Thanks Jeff!

[LONGHAIR]

I have always heard that it had something to do with traction. Something about the rear tires seeing "new" ground or biting on the edges of the tracks from the front tires, whether it is snow or mud, but this only applies if you drive is a perfectly straight line.....something only an engineer could overlook.

[Driveway Dreams]

Ya, it is a silly idea for sure. The worst part of it is the asthetics, like when you look at the truck from dead center behind it and you can see all the tires. Just a little goofy in my opinion.

[Keith Seymore]

I did not know the answer to this one, so when I saw one of the "old" chassis guys in the coffee room this morning I asked him....

He wasn't familiar with the rationale behind the old C/K/R/V truck but said with the GMT400 version it was simply a matter of packaging. Trying to cram all of the driveline components into the front end (ie, front axle) caused the track to increase outboard. We could have simply spaced the rear wheels out (or increased the track width on the rear) to match but chose not to, probably in order to use an existing rear axle or to avoid any additional loose parts.

The tradeoff is that we would get complaints of "dogtracking", where it appeared the vehicle was going down the road sideways, when it actually was tracking straight.

It has nothing to do with traction in mud/snow/sand; in fact, some enthusiasts have told us it is actually better for traction in mud/snow if the front and rear wheels have the same track (so that the rear is not cutting it's own rut).

K

[chemsearch]

well i guess that explains why the front axle i picked up had to be squeezed between the fenders of my trailer and the rear rolled on just fine. thought i was nuts!

[Driveway Dreams]

I had heard about that on the Duramax trucks in the early 2000s. Which is why they put those fender flares on them. It was not for looks, but simply to accommodate the size of that drivetrain. On the new trucks the bodies are wider, but I have not noticed if the rear end is changed on them or not.

Was our body style the first to be offset like this?