All I ever hear is NO well has that changed? Daniel? i would like a pair of 2.5 tons that are about 62" WMS-WMS. whats the narrowest they can be without actually cutting them down?

thanks

oh yeah and dont say http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/images/top_search.gif because i did and i didnt get anything useful.

I believe they can be narrowed down to 67" WMS-WMS w/a Hub Flip. I don't know of anybody "cutting" or "Narrowing" Rockwells. Maybe Daniel can shed some more light on the subject.

thanks Duche... whats involved in a hub flip? 67" WMS should actually work pretty well if i can get some wheels with enough backspacing.

you take the spindle off and when you put it back together you put in on backwards and you have a hub flip. you can do the same on the front but you have to grind on teh lug studs to clear the spindle mounting bolts.

69" wms with hubs flipped. If you want them any narrower you don't want rockwells.

you want to narrow rockwells? yer :rainbow: narrowing a rockwell is like shortening yer penis.

Originally posted by high traveler
you want to narrow rockwells? yer :rainbow: narrowing a rockwell is like shortening yer penis.

sorry well its kinda hard having a 18" long dick all the time you know?

fawking newbie :rolleyes:

You joined the board three months ago. WTF do you think you are?? He's right, narrowing rockwells is gay. rockwells are top loaders, and force you to have a lot of lift, thereby necessitating large tires for stability, thereby necessitating reasonably wide stance to retain some kind of balance. They are not a good axle design for 37" and under tires, IMO. At 69" wms w/ 4" backspacing on a 9" wheel, you get a COW measurement of about 70". With 42's, that's a total width of 85". Why the hell would you want to be more narrow than that running 42's with lots of lift? Narrowing rockwells is :rainbow: .

Originally posted by Aceguy
You joined the board three months ago. WTF do you think you are?? He's right, narrowing rockwells is gay. rockwells are top loaders, and force you to have a lot of lift, thereby necessitating large tires for stability, thereby necessitating reasonably wide stance to retain some kind of balance. They are not a good axle design for 37" and under tires, IMO. At 69" wms w/ 4" backspacing on a 9" wheel, you get a COW measurement of about 70". With 42's, that's a total width of 85". Why the hell would you want to be more narrow than that running 42's with lots of lift? Narrowing rockwells is :rainbow: .

maybe youre right. its just that the trails around here in NE warrant narrow(er) axles and lower lifts with lots of cutting. about how much lift would you say i need to run rockwells in an early bronco frame? i will cut the fenders vigorously like in the following pic.

this guy is running 42s with scout 44s and a 2" wheel spacer with no rubbing. what is the track width on a scout axle?

the problem is clearing the oil pan. If you move the axle forward and run coils, that would help, but there's still a lot of dif to clear on top of that axle. The point is, whether you are narrow or not, you still will requre a minimum amount of lift for top of axle clearance, so narrowing a rockwell is pretty self defeating.

ok, any idea how much lift is needed to clear the oil pan on a EB with a 302?

i reeeeeally want to run these axles cause i can buy a pair for $900 and want the beef so that when i go to a 454 later i wont be breaking shit. built it once, never again! :D

A drivetrain lift may be something to consider.

:)

I put rockwells under a custom frame'd wrangler I'm building. My biggest problem is clearance between the very top of the diff and the crankshaft pulley, i got the engine pretty high up and I'm still forced to run a little bit more lift than I would have prefered even with 42's and my seriously cut out fenders. From the top of the axle housing itself to top of diff is about 9-10". From centerline it is about 12" or so, measure against your current setup to get an idea.

As far as narrowing, they are 69" or so with hubs flipped in, if you shorten the long side of the front to match the short side, you'd knock off 7", be around 62" or so and have the same shaft on both sides, but it would move your diff further centered which may create a problem with the whole low lift idea.

CJ

It seems I read an article in Fourwheeler recently where a place in Florida narrowed them, took like several inches out I think???

memory not so good...try finding last issue.

Yes, they narrowed the front axles.. but did it way mentioned above.. by cutting down the long side to match the short side. This does move the diff towards the center a bit more, so could cause problems on a short wheelbase vehicle.. Not a lot of give room for that driveshaft to clear the oilpan, and other vitals without a whole lot of lift.

CJ LAGOS can you post some pics if you have any?

Originally posted by CJ Lagos
I put rockwells under a custom frame'd wrangler I'm building. My biggest problem is clearance between the very top of the diff and the crankshaft pulley, i got the engine pretty high up and I'm still forced to run a little bit more lift than I would have prefered even with 42's and my seriously cut out fenders. From the top of the axle housing itself to top of diff is about 9-10". From centerline it is about 12" or so, measure against your current setup to get an idea.

As far as narrowing, they are 69" or so with hubs flipped in, if you shorten the long side of the front to match the short side, you'd knock off 7", be around 62" or so and have the same shaft on both sides, but it would move your diff further centered which may create a problem with the whole low lift idea.

CJ



April Issue of Four Wheeler. The place is called Chuck's Trucks and it's in Orlando Fl. There is a guy with a fullsize bronco on the net with rockwells that he bought form Chuck and he swears by their work. Chuck's even offer's manual lock-outs so you don't have to run around in 4wd all the time....good article, worth reading if you are serious about running duece and a half axles.

you pretty much have to narrow the fronts to match the rears...remember the rears are the width to run dual wheels. One of the 4X4 mags has an article on it this month.

Originally posted by BillaVista
It seems I read an article in Fourwheeler recently where a place in Florida narrowed them, took like several inches out I think???

memory not so good...try finding last issue.

April 02 "Chucks Trucks" is the name of the place. it is on p106. They cut down like 7.5" of it. Not a bad article.

I have a ton of pictures on my website:
http://www.admotorsports.com/jeep.org/cjl-tj

Just look under the dated directories from 2002, the first one or two has a whole bunch of rockwell pics.

CJ

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Wes_Hanson/cruisercreek3.JPG

This is rockwells with the hubs OUT, and 12" wheels with 7" BS, 35x14.5 Boggers, WIDER IS BETTER, hehehehe...


Good Luck!!

yes 7":D :D :D

can? :D

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Wes_Hanson/cruisercreek3.JPG

This is rockwells with the hubs OUT, and 12" wheels with 7" BS, 35x14.5 Boggers, WIDER IS BETTER, hehehehe...


Good Luck!! Are you going to cut the driver side down or is that just the camera angle?