2wd s-10 rear end width

Sorry folks but I did go through the search site twice and I'm still not sure about the width of s-10 2wd rear ends backing plate to backing plate.

I found about four different answers. Hopefully somebody has the right info...............

 

The one in my roadster pickup is a 1986 2 wheel drive and is 53 5/8" mounting face to mounting face outside of brakedrums

 

Would that give me about "48 backing plate to backing plate????? Thanks

 

Yes, the 2wd trucks are 54" and it would probably be safe to assume a 3" width from backing plate to mounting surface. But, I'm not 100% on that.

 

Now you've confused the shit out of me!!! The brakedrums are only about 1/8" thick where they mount against the axle flanges. I suppose that would make it 53 3/8" out to out of the axle flanges. I have no idea what it is between the backing plates.---I'm giving you a figure written down in my build book, not actually measuring the part as we speak..

 

They should be 48 to 48 1/2 in. between the backing plates at least that is what the one I measured was

 

Again thanks to all that helped. I think I am clear as to what they are and what the measurements are.

 

54-3/8" wide from WMS-WMS (wheel mating surface) is what i've been told & the s10 4x4 are 60".

 

Just went out in the garage and measured: 47 3/8" across backing plates, actual clearance.

 

How does that compare to a stock Model A rear?

 

Just a note of thanks again. I have never been a regular on any site until I started following this one.

In the past at other sites a post for help rarely got any replies and most of the time when it did I had already moved onto another problem.

Again thanks for the help!

 

trucked up----If you are planing to use this S10 rearend in a model A truck (not AA series) then yes, with 15" rims and R78/15 tires it is the perfect width to fit a full fendered model A.

 

Its a '48 Chevy P'up.

 

The 48-54 Chev pickups may be a bit wide for an S-10 rear. I've used a 57 Chev before, but the backing plates were pretty close to the frame. You may want to look at something a bit longer, or a 4WD rear if they are a bit wider. It is possible to get one too narrow and have the tires hit the inner fender/bed area on a turn.

 

u'll need the 4x4 one then...joe

 

At curb what is the closed distance from tire to body?

 

I'm using the S-10 frame under my 52 Ford F1. I had to use the S-10 4X4 rearend to get the wheels out 59.5". For the front, I had to use a 2" spacer on each wheel. Don't use the cheapo spacers that use extended bolts. Get the ones that bolt to the hub, then you bolt the rim to the spacer.

 

I cut down a 9" Ford to 2wd S10 width for an '88 S Truck a few years back. it was 54.25 flange to flange. There may be some varience from one year to the next. But I know for a fact that the '88 was that width.

I can't think of anything that has a 48" flange to flage measurement.

I was told that '64 Nova was the narrowest GM axle you could find. But its going to be wider than 48" I'm pretty sure.

 

I have a 91 S10 and I swaped out the rear with a rear that measures 48 inches from plate to plate. The stock rear was drums and the new one is set up for disc. I went to the junkyard and took the disc setup from a 01 Jimmy and bolted it right on, but the rotors are to deep. Is there any rotors from another year that aren't that deep? I really want to use this rear cuz it's 4 inches narrower than the stock rear and it has richmond posi 411 gears.

 

Backing plate to backing plate is 49"
Wheel mounting surface is 54" wide
That is a 1994 2WD S-10

 

the 2wd s10 will be to narrow for your AD truck but a 4wd s10 will be ok but still on narrow side. your wheel choice will be the deal maker or breaker.

 

http://www.teufert.net/other/rear end dimensions.htm
this may help

 

as 38 said-- the 4/4 s are wider

 

You need the 4x4 rear end. It is still 2" narrower than the stock axle but it will fit as is. It will just tuck the tires in two inches closer.

 

Can someone tell me why anyone would want the distance between the backing plates? It's the overall width that determines whether it's usable for a certain application. This has always facinated me. Anyone have an answer?

Frank

 

I suppose if it was 54" wide but the drums were a foot thick, it wouldn't fit the vehicle.


Anyone else notice this thread is two years old bumped back up by a FNG to ask a question about an off-topic vehicle?

 

I totally agree. Backing plate to backing plate is useless to me.

I just want the mounting to mounting width.

 

Simple. It's useful if you want to use a transverse spring and need to calculate perch centers.

Bob

 

for the AD truck application if the rear is too narrow it will cause tires to rub on the box sides requiring them to be "mini-tubbed" to clear.

 

Actually a 67-81Camaro/Firebird rear end is more suitable and the 73-87 Chey Truck rear ends are even good if you want to use a late rear end.