does any on eknow why the rear tracks narrow on the vans?

 

I didn't know it was. I know on the older vans, the rear ends were wider than the pick up rears.

Maybe they started to use the truck rears in the vans.

 

my 76 was narrower, it does make around town easier, but the tire looks small in the hole.

 

Haroldservice,

I wondered the same thing myself, and started noticing a lot of other vehicles with this same setup. I also realised that vehicles with this setup were mostly rear wheel drive.

I think the idea is that by having a wider track in the front gives you better control of a rear wheel drive vehicle, as you are less likely to spin it out say in a corner since the power from the rear wheels cannot "get around you" in a corner, if you had a wider rear track base I think you would spin out a lot more.

If your not really following what I'm saying think of the reverse case taken to the extreme, that is, a rear wheel drive vehicle with a much wider track in the rear than in the front. In this case it would be very difficult to get the vehicle to go straight in a corner while your applying power, it would want to spin out.

Thats one reason, Im sure there are others.

 

I often wondered this same question. I had a F-350 4x4, and asked the dealership why the rear was narrower than the front. They said it was for a few interrelated reasons. The rear is narrower for turning radius. I doubted this, but they explained it that when you make a turn, your rear wheels travel in a different arc than the fronts. This we all know. Then they said that the arc is determined by the track width of the rear wheels. Then the second part, and why this is seen on mainly vehicles with higher centers of gravity, this arc affects stability and feel in a turn. The front is wider for stability, handling, and feel. That was about the extent of their explanation. They did, however, note that it was not that the rear was narrower, but that the front was wider. The front is the widest it can be for stability. The rear is narrower for better “turning”. It is not as much of an issue on a vehicle with a lower center of gravity. They said that 2 and 4 wheel drive trucks use the same rear axle, but the 4-by’s have a wider front. According to Ford, a narrower rear does not affect stability as much as you would think.
Your explanation was pretty much correct, and now you know why, according to Ford.

 

As an interesting side note.
The tracking of the van is affected by this. It will have a tendancy to dart back and forth in varying degrees. I have noticed this. An exaggerated example would be driving down a dirt road with deep tracks and having the vehicle want to stay in the deepest part of the ruts. The same is true of paved highways and roads but the ruts or travel tracks are only a few mm deep. I ran accross a couple of companies a few years ago that manufactured and made spacer kits for narrow rear wheel vehicles to eliminate this darting problem. I think they sold for around $400.00. That was too much in by opinion but the problem is interesting in itself.

 

sounds logical, but it sure makes the rears look small, guess i'll need bigger tires back there.

 

I thought it made them look small, also. I put 33x12.50 16.5's on it, and the rears looked right, the fronts stuck out. You could run an offset wheel on the rear. I don't like miss-matched wheels, though.

 

They can make turning as an exuse, but there are some sites claiming the 15 passenger vans should have a dually rear, the narrow one causes roll over issues. Dad told me my van was dog tracking - running sideways, I wasn't aware until I saw another, the narrow rear makes them appear that they are dog tracking. I've been contemplating swapping in a dually axle, a spacer would be nice, but I want lower gears, so I figure to solve it all with one swap.

 

I agree with the roll over issues. When we needed a new side door, we had a hard time finding one ith the junkyards still intact. Almost all of them had rolled onto the side in a collision and dented/scrathed the doors, and wore the hinges right off. If most of these yous see in the junkyards have rooled, then I think it indicates a real life problem.

 

I have seen many E-250 & 350's that appear to "dog track". The narrow rear shouldn't cause this. I have no idea why some of them look that way. The ones I've seen I swear were running crooked. Ford may have had a batch of goofy rear springs.

My 4x4 F-350 single rear wheel had the appearance that the front wheels (axle) had a bias to the left. I turns out it did, when loaded. When unloaded, the axle moved to the right. It had to do with the track bar being a single link.

Quigley converts Ford vans to dual wheels. Check it out:

http://www.quigley4x4.com/pages/inde...=page&upID=129

They only do new vans, but it gives you an idea what to look for.
I wouldn't worry about rolling your van, unless you think you are Colt Seavers or something. They are actually pretty stable, just be careful towing. The long overhang does cause problems with tounge weight, sway, etc. A weight distributing hitch helps, but any vehicle with a lot of overhang has these quirks. Dual wheels do help in this situation, although I have no idea why.
I now have a 4x4 dually crew cab, and you can tow practically anything with no problems. My single rear wheel 4x4 F-350 was scary towing a tounge heavy trailer. Go figure.

 

The fact that you see so much of the front wheel past the rear gives you the illusion it is dog tracking, it's just an illusion though, my van was just on the rack not to long ago. I hate converted dually axles, I prefer the wider axle, as opposed to spaced hubs.