Rootes bought many of their parts (major assemblies) fom their suppliers.
Since Rootes was the smallest of the British major manufacturers, they did not
have much pull. I would bet that the rear axle assembly was shared with
several other British car makes and was sort of a "standard" rear axle-so
Rootes could not really control the rear track dimensions-they just bought
what was sold to them at the most competitive price. The front track was more
based on the configuration of the front suspension and the engine
compartment-so it was wider because Rootes needed the space up there.
You can control the "track" with wheel offset or with spacers (you can add 1/4
to 1/2 inch with spacers without having to replace the wheel lugs).
Jan
Victor Hughes <hughes@scides.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
Brent Kasl wrote:
> I was always under the impression that all Alpines, including the early
> S2, had a wider track in the front than the back.
All Alpines do have wider track at front than rear, SVs have wider front
track than earlier Alpines.
> Is it possible to space the rears so
> they track evenly, or would this through handling off? Brent
>
My theory is that 'wider track at front than rear' is a deliberate design
feature that promotes straight line stability. I suggest that this is done
particularly in rear drive cars where the car is pushed along and the rear
is (under power) constantly trying to overtake the front - wider front track
makes the car less 'nervous' in a straight line (but probably also less
responsive to steering in corners). Our Alpine certainly feels more stable
in a straight line than our MX5 (Miata) which has wider rear track than
front. While I realise that a whole heap of other suspension variables
(like roll centre, roll stiffness, spring travel and damper rates) come into
the equation I just have this feeling that the relative track widths play an
important basic part.
Would love to hear others opinions on this.
Cheers
Vic
|