Technical Rudge-style wires on early Ford spindles

I'd been aware for a while that there was a lot of similarity in ID between early Ford and MGB wheel bearings. The outer bearings have identical IDs, and the Ford inner's ID is about 1½mm (.060") bigger than the MGB inner's, which is theoretically sleevable. This seemed fortuitous as there are lots of MGBs around; and they have a strong following, meaning that parts like wheel bearings and hubs are available new and not all that expensive. That could open up all kinds of possibilities given the recent interest in speedster/special-style builds.

I didn't get around to researching spindle lengths and such for a long time, though. Bearing specs are easy to find; detailed spindle dimensions are the sort of thing which is infuriatingly scarce on the internet. I happened upon a fairly good blueprint of a '37-'41 Ford spindle in the course of looking for something else, and that led me to dig deeper for the rest of the info on this. I eventually had to deduce or estimate a lot of it.

Unfortunately it turns out that it isn't a simple swap. The distance between the inner and outer bearings is about half an inch longer on the Ford than on the MG. The outer bearing on the Ford spindle moreover seats against a step, making it impossible to move the outer bearing further inwards. Moving the inner bearing outwards takes it off the cylindrical part of the spindle and onto the taper. Turning a sleeve with a tapering bore and then securing it to the spindle seemed a bit dodgy to me.

Though OEM early Ford spindles are common enough, they aren't an actual renewable resource, so I wouldn't want to modify them irreversably. Cutting the step in the spindle back would weaken it quite a lot, but cutting 0.7mm (.028") off the largest part of the spindle would be relatively trivial, and yield a new cylindrical portion about half an inch long:

If you do the math, that still weakens the spindle by about 13%. I'd expect that you'd be putting more than that back due to the way the MGB bearing detail puts both inner races and two spacers in compression against the spindle. The diameter of ±28.8mm would be finished to take a short length of Ø32x1.6mm steel tubing, a standard size where I am, in a light press fit, allowing the OD to be reduced in situ to the requisite 31.75mm (1¼").

The stock MGB detail has the inner wheel bearing seating against a spacer which receives the grease seal. It should be simple enough to make up a longer spacer with a slightly smaller ID to suit the Ford spindle. The assembly should end up something like this:

I haven't done any of this physically. I merely thought to share the fruits of my researches. And I'm sure there are a number of other ways this can be done: I'd certainly like to hear how other people have?

 

The Ford outer bearing does not seat on the ridge of the spindle. There is space there and the clamping is done by the outer spindle nut only. The inside race of the outer bearing just "floats".

When I was rebuilding the frontend of my daughter's MG Midget, those spacers/sleeves between the bearings sure threw me for a loop. Sounded like a foreign idea. (Get it? England is foreign to me?) Since nobody else uses that method now, it must not be a good one. Can you find another bearing to fit the wheel, that doesn't require an inner sleeve?

And, another idea: since you will be cutting on the spindle anyway, why not just cut the whole spud back farther so you won't need the collar for the seal? Guys have been cutting down Ford spindles for decades to fit different brakes.

 

The bearings themselves are common enough. The Timken code for the combination is "SET6/SET2". My catalogue lists close to a hundred vehicles which use the combination, from Toyota trucks to Porche 911s to Packards to BMWs to Mopar compacts to full-size GM cars to Ferraris and a lot more besides, including the bolt-on AMC spindles. I'd expect that most of those take the compression via the hub, in the conventional way. That leads me to conclude that MG's insistence on a tiny bit of end float has more to do with the hub than the bearings?

Indeed people on MG forums report running into trouble when they try to approach the bearings in the conventional way. There doesn't seem to be much wrong with MG's way, in practice, though.Why not use it?

As regards cutting down, relative abundance does not preclude absolute scarcity! Lots and lots of a thing isn't the same as an infinite supply of it. I fear that people will suddenly need to learn that very quickly, if it turns into relative scarcity too before technologies like WAAM become really accessible. Once they do it'd be easy, but what would I scratch my head about while trying to fall asleep?

But I got the dimensions for the MGB seal, and it's bigger than the integral collar on the spindle. I'd need that OD in that place anyway.

 

I suspect you'll run out of MGB hubs before you run out of Ford spindles. There are still forged 40-style spindles being produced today.

 

As are MGB hubs. But if the repro '37-'41 spindles are good, then cool.

Then: cutting the outboard end of the taper down to ؾ" would allow me to move the hub about 11.5mm inwards. If I have the collar recessed on the inward side that could slip over the boss, and I could get to say 16mm.

Thanks. That kind of input is always good. It's a process ...

 

Here's a slightly different way, which moves the hub about ¾" inwards:


You could shorten the spindle, but using a distance piece i.l.o. a washer saves the trouble of cutting new threads etc. at the cost of a bit of weight.

 

How about a different bearing set with the correct OD for the hub and ID for the spindle? Have you checked? Same for the seal. I bet they are out there. Then no shims needed.

 

Nope. Searched high and low. The Ford inner bearing ID seems to be unique.

 

I have adapted/repaired several sets of wire wheel hubs for early Fords. Spacers are only so reliable, make sure they are shrunk on and of equivalent material hardness to the spindle itself. Your life may depend on mods like this, so do what needs to be done. Pick up the thread and extend it as far as needed. Cutting off the unused end is not saving weight, it’s finishing the job. Your most recent sketch is on the right track, but extend the thread, cut off the excess, and loose the outer spacer.

You are right that these parts don’t grow on trees, and no doubt they are near extinct in South Africa, but these parts get scrapped every day... at least you are putting this set back in the road!

The tapered roller bearing selections are pretty limited. There are only a handful of inner cone/outer cup combinations in this size range, so not surprised that you couldn’t find a perfect match. Keep up the good work and hope to see pics of a wheel set mounted in the near future!

 

What do you plan for the rear axle?

 

Motor Wheel Service sells bolt on Rudge wheel adapters at a reasonable price. The MGTD has a 6" PCD but could easily be redrilled for the early Ford 5.5" pattern. That would also allow you to retain whatever brakes you already have.



http://shop.mwsint.com/product_details.asp?id=74



They also offer blanks which they can drill to your spec.

http://shop.mwsint.com/product_details.asp?id=416

 

This is all very hypothetical right now. It's more like, this is possible.

 

If your hypothetical car has a good bit of power, you may want to consider the 52mm Aston/Jag sized versions instead of the smaller 42mm MG splines.

http://shop.mwsint.com/product_details.asp?id=384

 

Not power so much as weight, which is moot when you compare an early Ford to something like a Jaguar Mk10. Interestingly, Aston Martins used the 42mm hubs.

New Jaguar hubs are around the same price as new MGB ones. I was a bit concerned about all the other Jaguar wheel stuff being rarer and more expensive than the very common MGB stuff. There are nevertheless two very good reasons for considering Jaguar E-type/MkI/MkII hubs: they take the same bearings as the MGB hubs, and they space the inner and outer bearings about half an inch further apart. That means that they'll go onto early Ford spindles without any need for cutting, and only a ±.030"-thick sleeve inside the inner bearing. I've added a collar to receive the Jaguar grease seal, which allows the Jaguar thrower ring to be used:

 

That spacer between the bearings, I've seen that done on motorcycles but never on a car. Generally done to maintain bearing preload in the face of fork/frame/swingarm flex. Makes me wonder if they're worried about hub strength...

 

It looks to me as if the aim was to compress the inner races of the bearings, that spacer, and another spacer at the root of the spindle together against the spindle, turning the whole into a post-tensioned beam, while at the same time keeping compression out of the hub. I can't really see the hubs failing under compression, but for the spacer. It might be a MG legacy thing, developed to solve a problem that subsequently went away. A lot of MGs were like that: MGA, MGB, and Spridget at least. (Interesting mix of imperial and metric speccing, though: The MGA/MGB spacer works out to 50mm on the nose, though technical sources give the length in inches. Likewise the Spridget spacer is 40mm long.)

The Jaguar hubs take the same bearings as the MGB, but don't use a spacer.

 

Lots of semi trucks and trailers use a bearing sleeve like that to set bearing preload. It seemed to go away for a while, and I no longer turn wrenches for a living, but late in my run doing that stuff, it was making a comeback, and was quite common. If it's good enough for 80,000 pounds going down the road, should be a-ok on a hot rod.

Also, regarding Rudge stuff, Harry Miller, Wire Wheel Corp of America, and others all used the Rudge design for wheels/hubs. Most Indy cars from the 20's through at least the 50's used a 52mm Rudge 'long nose' or 'speedway' splined hub and wheel.

 

You could, of course, dispense with Jaguar's belt-and-braces approach and match up a grease seal to suit the Jaguar hub's 2½" ID and the Ford spindle's 1⅝"(?) seal journal OD:

 

Speedway sells bearing spacers for a variety of spindles. Most of them are adjustable so shims aren't needed.

I suppose they maintain bearing clearances to a tighter tolerance than simply setting preload on the nut. The MG guys seem to think it adds strength to the spindle assembly, though I can't see why that's an issue.

 

Being a shorter cantilever and .060" bigger at the root, the MG spindle should be stronger than the Ford one, all else being equal, without the spacers. It might have come from a post-WWII British steel shortage thing, leading to material grade concerns?

 

You could also consider the earlier Jaguar XK150 16" wheels.

 

you know you have the f1 brake swap majic inner bearing and seal
do they fit the jaguar series 3 wire wheel hub
for the 11 by 1'' rotor
thanks

i am sure that the coomon or garden 70-77 chevrolet wheel bearing set 68111
is the exact same bearings as jaguars
so in theory, you could wang a e tpe series 3 hub, with the specific 11 by 1'' ventilated rotor that may have an exact same layout as the 70-77 gm rotor, straight on
and use any of the multitude of aftermarket brake calipers of the 78 up metric variety and their caliper mountings

 

oh and are the mgc differnetnt from the mgb
is an mgc wire wheel hub simply a early jaguar hub for a solid 10mm / 3/8ths this ck rotor at 11''

thanks

 

I don't recall running into a difference between MGB and MGC, but I could be wrong. It was a year ago!

 

did you ever measure a series 3 e-type front hub
that takes the 11'' by 1'' rotor?
JAGUAR E-TYPE SERIES 3 V12 LH FRONT SPLINED HUB C33708 | eBay


Front brake disc Vented Jaguar XJ Series 1 S2 S3 XJS & E-Type Series 3 1971-1996 | eBay

 

68149
is the 68149 inner bearing the same as the 70-77 chevy

if the layout of the hub and disc is similar to a 70-77 rotor
you could run it with the metric caliper and adator on a 40 spindle
or maybe the f1 bearing swap trick goes straight in

 

7024475.pdf (speedwaymotors.com)

same inner bearing as 70-77 chevy
68149
winner
JAGUAR XJ40 XJ12 XJ6 XJS WHEEL BEARING KIT FRONT L68149 L68110 LM12710 LM12749 | eBay

 

1.1900 in30.226 mm
D - Cup Outer Diameter
2.7170 in69.012 mm
B - Cone Width
0.7710 in19.583 mm
C - Cup Width
0.6250 in15.875 mm
T - Bearing Width
0.7813 in19.845 mm
timken 14116 bearing spec
Part Number 14116 - 14276, Tapered Roller Bearings - TS (Tapered Single) Imperial On The Timken Company

early ford inner 1 . 1900

outer is 2.7170 or 69.012mm

so is the jaguar 68149 outer dimension the same as the 14116
or is the jaguar inner bearing outer dimension the asme size as an f100
or do f100 or f1 use a 68149 bearing

so the bearing 68149 and 68110 is jag outer is 2.3280 or set 13
Timken Imperial taper roller bearing priced cup & cone together 1.3775 inch inside x 2.3280 inch outside x 0.6250 inch width, also known as 68149/68110

so you have to get from 1.1900 to 2.3280
whats that one then?

ok lets convert 1.1900 and 2.3280 to the metric
1.1900 and 2.3280 we now becomes 59.1312 'or' 2.3281 and 59.13
1.1900 becomes 30.266mm
so we get some of these
Timken NP261806/NP736655 Metric Taper Roller Bearing Cup and Cone Set 30x59.16x1 Simply Bearings Ltd
and after cleaning up the inner bearing surface of the spindle .1mm

very nice
now IF that is possible....
lets then procedd to buying the hub and the rotor and the bolt
ascertaining if indeed you can actually use the bearing spacer of the 78 up metric kit
or you need to use the above bearings

 

notes
the rotor bolts to the back or inside of the hub
there is a drilling for you to insert the split pin

what is the height of the rotor
60mm tall
24mm thick
11'' round 284mm

so go and compare that to the 5214r rotor
is the rotor distance from the inner face of the rotor to the inside bearing surface rebate the same
is the bearing spread the same
hmm

or if jag were diving into the gm parts bin for the th400 for the v12 5.3 what else were they looking at.