Sutty2006 Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 3 hours ago, cam.in.head said: yes that picture does show a difference . i wonder what the difference is made by ? always learning stuff that how we become who we are and thankyou for taking the time and effort It would be interesting to know what it’s made by, because I recon it isn’t much, so maybe different stub casting on the half shaft? I’ve been looking out for a spare rear anyway but they aren’t around now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green diamond Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 On 07/08/2024 at 16:02, Sutty2006 said: It would be interesting to know what it’s made by, because I recon it isn’t much, so maybe different stub casting on the half shaft? I’ve been looking out for a spare rear anyway but they aren’t around now. Looking at the parts book the axle casing is the same part number, the difference being the half shafts and associated hardware like bearings & retainers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cam.in.head Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) cheers for the info. and thankyou also for mr sutty for bringing it up and my apologies for not noticing it myself. my gm parts book doesn't mention it but the haynes sure does ! right at the beggining of the book it says the track widths and sure enough the estate is virtually same front and rear but the saloon is less ?? never seen it written there ! the bearing should be the same and it's retained by the backplate so it sounds like the difference must be in the thickness or offset of the actual wheel surface mounting flange /area.( similar idea to fitting a wheel spacer in principle) wonder why on earth they thought a saloon needed to be less track width than an estate ? why not just make them both the same wider spec Edited August 19 by cam.in.head 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sutty2006 Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 2 hours ago, cam.in.head said: cheers for the info. and thankyou also for mr sutty for bringing it up and my apologies for not noticing it myself. my gm parts book doesn't mention it but the haynes sure does ! right at the beggining of the book it says the track widths and sure enough the estate is virtually same front and rear but the saloon is less ?? never seen it written there ! the bearing should be the same and it's retained by the backplate so it sounds like the difference must be in the thickness or offset of the actual wheel surface mounting flange /area.( similar idea to fitting a wheel spacer in principle) wonder why on earth they thought a saloon needed to be less track width than an estate ? why not just make them both the same wider spec Probably designed the saloon width first. Then fitted the saloon axle to an estate and thought “damn, we need this wider!” I was told it’s wider because of the extra weight it can carry, the wider track made it more stable round corners. Could be completely wrong but it’s a viable explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cam.in.head Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 quite possibly yes. the saloon and estate both have the same front track at 1435mm the saloon rear is 1412mm the estate rear is 1432mm so a 1cm difference each side ( and even that is less than the front !) haynes book page 6 ! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-400 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Two different Dutch/Flemisch workshop manuals do mention this also 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.