Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: dusterpt440] #2151756
09/10/16 06:14 PM
09/10/16 06:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 27
Indiana
D
dusterpt440 Offline OP
member
dusterpt440  Offline OP
member
D

Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 27
Indiana
May have to take you up on that. You off on weekends?

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: csmopar] #2151878
09/10/16 10:12 PM
09/10/16 10:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
On this M2 spindle topic, there is one thing not yet mentioned, that IMO becomes a shortcoming, and that is the typical wilwood M2 alum hubs. As first noted, a 3000lb+ car on the track, running hot laps, with the related likely brake temps heating the alum hub, is far from ideal, being at 375F? (if I'm reading graph correctly?)6061 has lost nearly half its strength, combined with a non robust bearing already mentioned, ie small outer race diameter, and alum expansion, things cannot be improving. There are of course aftermarket steel hub solutions, but some weight reduction is lost and cost now becomes a factor. twocents

http://www.burnsstainless.com/images/technology/YieldStrength-1.gif

Last edited by jcc; 09/10/16 10:19 PM.

Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: dusterpt440] #2151886
09/10/16 10:28 PM
09/10/16 10:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Supercuda Offline
About to go away
Supercuda  Offline
About to go away

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Go back and reread the information CS posted about the bearings.

Then read it again.

Then go to sleep, wake up, read it again.

Then don't post.


They say there are no such thing as a stupid question.
They say there is always the exception that proves the rule.
Don't be the exception.
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: jcc] #2151965
09/11/16 12:06 AM
09/11/16 12:06 AM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
C
csmopar Offline
member
csmopar  Offline
member
C

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
Originally Posted By jcc
On this M2 spindle topic, there is one thing not yet mentioned, that IMO becomes a shortcoming, and that is the typical wilwood M2 alum hubs. As first noted, a 3000lb+ car on the track, running hot laps, with the related likely brake temps heating the alum hub, is far from ideal, being at 375F? (if I'm reading graph correctly?)6061 has lost nearly half its strength, combined with a non robust bearing already mentioned, ie small outer race diameter, and alum expansion, things cannot be improving. There are of course aftermarket steel hub solutions, but some weight reduction is lost and cost now becomes a factor. twocents

http://www.burnsstainless.com/images/technology/YieldStrength-1.gif


Now you're really grasping at straws. First, the bearings are almost identical between the mopar factory bearings and the mustang 2. Second, all of wilwoods kits for mopars use aluminum hubs just like their kits for mustang 2, if there was a heat problem with aluminum hubs, it would affect every wilwood kit regardless of bearings or brand spindles. 3rd, ypu can get steel hubs for the mustang 2 just like you can for mopars. Heck, speedway sells a kit for 200 bucks with hubs, rotors, calibers the works. Granted it's just stock style brakes but those aren't any different than a stock mopar brake kit.
4th:aluminum doesn't hold heat like steel. Aluminum will dissipate heat much quick, so while it does have a lower melting point (1280 degrees for 6061) than steel, it's going to take a lot longer to heat via braking to get to that point. 5th: everyone from nascar to IRL to GT use aluminum hubs. If there was a heat problem with aluminum hubs, we'd know it. 6th: if youre getting your hubs heated to the point of failure, youre gonna melt a bead on the tire long before the hub fails and you probably should adjust your line and driving style. 7th: I just looked up the temp ratings for both the bearings used in stock hubs on stock spindles for both the mustang ii and the mopars, both have a operating temperature of -140 degree C to 1030 degree C, if you can get that bearing to 1030 degrees C, you've got some serious issues, far more than just the type of spindles you're running. That'd be well over 2000 degrees F and close to the melting point of even steel.

This mustang ii heat bs theory is easily debunked with simple research from the makers of the bearings and hubs themselves and some simple common sense and math.

Fyi, I deal strength and load testing every single day for my job. I have to find out the bending and breaking points of all sorts of metals and alloys. It's what keeps the engines of the company I work for together.


Also, one last note. The mustang 2 bearings are actually larger in diameter than the mopar bearings, they are however, slightly thinner in the bearing width, less than a 1/16 of an inch. So if you're gonna say the mustang 2 spindle bearing isn't big enough diameter wise to handle a 3000 lb car, then the mopar bearing isn't either........using your line of thinking

Last edited by csmopar; 09/11/16 12:23 AM.
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: jcc] #2152005
09/11/16 12:39 AM
09/11/16 12:39 AM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
C
csmopar Offline
member
csmopar  Offline
member
C

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
Originally Posted By jcc
On this M2 spindle topic, there is one thing not yet mentioned, that IMO becomes a shortcoming, and that is the typical wilwood M2 alum hubs. As first noted, a 3000lb+ car on the track, running hot laps, with the related likely brake temps heating the alum hub, is far from ideal, being at 375F? (if I'm reading graph correctly?)6061 has lost nearly half its strength, combined with a non robust bearing already mentioned, ie small outer race diameter, and alum expansion, things cannot be improving. There are of course aftermarket steel hub solutions, but some weight reduction is lost and cost now becomes a factor. twocents

http://www.burnsstainless.com/images/technology/YieldStrength-1.gif



To continue my post from above, let's look at physics and chemistry of the metals commonly used. Below is the heat transfer rate of those metals. The higher the metal, the faster they lose aka dissipate heat. This assumes the metal at the same mass as one another.

Copper – 401
Aluminum – 273
Brass – 109
Stainless Steel – 16

So what this means is that stainless steel is the SLOWEST to lose its heat. In other words, it retains heat in itself.


Now, the flip side of this is that aluminum will heat up a tad quicker from a cold start than stainless steel, assuming the same mass and same heating intensity. However, as soon as the heat source stops or reduced, the temperature of aluminum will drop almost instantly. Steel or stainless steel however will stay closer to the temperature it was heated too MUCH longer than aluminium. So in a braking action, as you as you let off that brake pedal, the aluminum is already cooling down by the time you get to the next braking section, steel however, isnt, at least not as quickly. This is why on race cars at night, say nascar at bristol, you'll see the rotors glowing red almost entirely around the track. Because they take forever to cool.

You can test this youself, all you need is some aluminum and steel rods that are the same mass, a blow torch, a digital laser thermometer and some safety equipment. Heat both pieces up to the exact same temp, then use a stop watch to see which drops faster. But I'll save you the time, it'll be the aluminum one.

Hope that makes sense, I'm not always very good at explaining things via type.

Last edited by csmopar; 09/11/16 12:46 AM.
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: csmopar] #2152014
09/11/16 12:48 AM
09/11/16 12:48 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
Originally Posted By csmopar
Originally Posted By jcc
On this M2 spindle topic, there is one thing not yet mentioned, that IMO becomes a shortcoming, and that is the typical wilwood M2 alum hubs. As first noted, a 3000lb+ car on the track, running hot laps, with the related likely brake temps heating the alum hub, is far from ideal, being at 375F? (if I'm reading graph correctly?)6061 has lost nearly half its strength, combined with a non robust bearing already mentioned, ie small outer race diameter, and alum expansion, things cannot be improving. There are of course aftermarket steel hub solutions, but some weight reduction is lost and cost now becomes a factor. twocents

http://www.burnsstainless.com/images/technology/YieldStrength-1.gif


Now you're really grasping at straws. First, the bearings are almost identical between the mopar factory bearings and the mustang 2. Second, all of wilwoods kits for mopars use aluminum hubs just like their kits for mustang 2, if there was a heat problem with aluminum hubs, it would affect every wilwood kit regardless of bearings or brand spindles. 3rd, ypu can get steel hubs for the mustang 2 just like you can for mopars. Heck, speedway sells a kit for 200 bucks with hubs, rotors, calibers the works. Granted it's just stock style brakes but those aren't any different than a stock mopar brake kit.
4th:aluminum doesn't hold heat like steel. Aluminum will dissipate heat much quick, so while it does have a lower melting point (1280 degrees for 6061) than steel, it's going to take a lot longer to heat via braking to get to that point. 5th: everyone from nascar to IRL to GT use aluminum hubs. If there was a heat problem with aluminum hubs, we'd know it. 6th: if youre getting your hubs heated to the point of failure, youre gonna melt a bead on the tire long before the hub fails and you probably should adjust your line and driving style. 7th: I just looked up the temp ratings for both the bearings used in stock hubs on stock spindles for both the mustang ii and the mopars, both have a operating temperature of -140 degree C to 1030 degree C, if you can get that bearing to 1030 degrees C, you've got some serious issues, far more than just the type of spindles you're running. That'd be well over 2000 degrees F and close to the melting point of even steel.

This mustang ii heat bs theory is easily debunked with simple research from the makers of the bearings and hubs themselves and some simple common sense and math.

Fyi, I deal strength and load testing every single day for my job. I have to find out the bending and breaking points of all sorts of metals and alloys. It's what keeps the engines of the company I work for together.


Also, one last note. The mustang 2 bearings are actually larger in diameter than the mopar bearings, they are however, slightly thinner in the bearing width, less than a 1/16 of an inch. So if you're gonna say the mustang 2 spindle bearing isn't big enough diameter wise to handle a 3000 lb car, then the mopar bearing isn't either........using your line of thinking


Your last point, that IS what I'm saying. As to the rest, We could have done without the straw comment. You missed some dots in the above. First , nobody I think is worried about melting temps. I stated my concern was "on track" that means at speed, repeated use. I clearly stated alum and included a supporting graph that indicates pretty well alum loses strength at fairly low operating temps forget melting. Most front hub heat is received by radiant and conduction, from the brakes, thru often, an alum rotor hat/plate. I have not mentioned nor really am I concerned about any bearing generated heat. However, with these smaller bearings/races, in an alum hub, with alum having a much higher expansion relative to steel, I am concerned about the combined effects of heat induced expansion of hub in the race area and loss of strength rating. Comparing what we do to IRL/Nsacar is pointless. And Nascar I believe, does not allow in higher classes alum almost anywhere in the wheel area. Additionally, they have extensive cooling ductwork, fans etc to try and keep heat out/remove from this area. There are very few here with any brake ducting, unfortunately. The Wilwood typical alum Hub, was originally intended for weight reduction and drag use. Its designed has changed little for over 2+ decades, I do not know if one can infer that is due to great adequate design, luck, or lack of interest, etc. I agree, a failed hub will alter one's driving line. grin As for as steel available in aftermarket M2 hubs, I can't comment on price, and the weight gain is obvious and likely counterproductive for the goals.


Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: jcc] #2152038
09/11/16 01:13 AM
09/11/16 01:13 AM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
C
csmopar Offline
member
csmopar  Offline
member
C

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
Originally Posted By jcc
Originally Posted By csmopar
Originally Posted By jcc
On this M2 spindle topic, there is one thing not yet mentioned, that IMO becomes a shortcoming, and that is the typical wilwood M2 alum hubs. As first noted, a 3000lb+ car on the track, running hot laps, with the related likely brake temps heating the alum hub, is far from ideal, being at 375F? (if I'm reading graph correctly?)6061 has lost nearly half its strength, combined with a non robust bearing already mentioned, ie small outer race diameter, and alum expansion, things cannot be improving. There are of course aftermarket steel hub solutions, but some weight reduction is lost and cost now becomes a factor. twocents

http://www.burnsstainless.com/images/technology/YieldStrength-1.gif


Now you're really grasping at straws. First, the bearings are almost identical between the mopar factory bearings and the mustang 2. Second, all of wilwoods kits for mopars use aluminum hubs just like their kits for mustang 2, if there was a heat problem with aluminum hubs, it would affect every wilwood kit regardless of bearings or brand spindles. 3rd, ypu can get steel hubs for the mustang 2 just like you can for mopars. Heck, speedway sells a kit for 200 bucks with hubs, rotors, calibers the works. Granted it's just stock style brakes but those aren't any different than a stock mopar brake kit.
4th:aluminum doesn't hold heat like steel. Aluminum will dissipate heat much quick, so while it does have a lower melting point (1280 degrees for 6061) than steel, it's going to take a lot longer to heat via braking to get to that point. 5th: everyone from nascar to IRL to GT use aluminum hubs. If there was a heat problem with aluminum hubs, we'd know it. 6th: if youre getting your hubs heated to the point of failure, youre gonna melt a bead on the tire long before the hub fails and you probably should adjust your line and driving style. 7th: I just looked up the temp ratings for both the bearings used in stock hubs on stock spindles for both the mustang ii and the mopars, both have a operating temperature of -140 degree C to 1030 degree C, if you can get that bearing to 1030 degrees C, you've got some serious issues, far more than just the type of spindles you're running. That'd be well over 2000 degrees F and close to the melting point of even steel.

This mustang ii heat bs theory is easily debunked with simple research from the makers of the bearings and hubs themselves and some simple common sense and math.

Fyi, I deal strength and load testing every single day for my job. I have to find out the bending and breaking points of all sorts of metals and alloys. It's what keeps the engines of the company I work for together.


Also, one last note. The mustang 2 bearings are actually larger in diameter than the mopar bearings, they are however, slightly thinner in the bearing width, less than a 1/16 of an inch. So if you're gonna say the mustang 2 spindle bearing isn't big enough diameter wise to handle a 3000 lb car, then the mopar bearing isn't either........using your line of thinking


Your last point, that IS what I'm saying. As to the rest, We could have done without the straw comment. You missed some dots in the above. First , nobody I think is worried about melting temps. I stated my concern was "on track" that means at speed, repeated use. I clearly stated alum and included a supporting graph that indicates pretty well alum loses strength at fairly low operating temps forget melting. Most front hub heat is received by radiant and conduction, from the brakes, thru often, an alum rotor hat/plate. I have not mentioned nor really am I concerned about any bearing generated heat. However, with these smaller bearings/races, in an alum hub, with alum having a much higher expansion relative to steel, I am concerned about the combined effects of heat induced expansion of hub in the race area and loss of strength rating. Comparing what we do to IRL/Nsacar is pointless. And Nascar I believe, does not allow in higher classes alum almost anywhere in the wheel area. Additionally, they have extensive cooling ductwork, fans etc to try and keep heat out/remove from this area. There are very few here with any brake ducting, unfortunately. The Wilwood typical alum Hub, was originally intended for weight reduction and drag use. Its designed has changed little for over 2+ decades, I do not know if one can infer that is due to great adequate design, luck, or lack of interest, etc. I agree, a failed hub will alter one's driving line. grin As for as steel available in aftermarket M2 hubs, I can't comment on price, and the weight gain is obvious and likely counterproductive for the goals.


No, you said, and I quote "a non robus bearing, ie a smaller outer race DIAMETER"

The mopar bearing outer diameter is SMALLER than the Mustang 2 even, though not by much. If the bearings are rated dang near identical, there's no difference. So youre missing the point. If the mustang 2 aluminum hub kit is going to have issues with heat, THE MOPAR ALUMINUM KIT WILL AS WELL.

Also, you grab whatever graph off google that you want. But posting it with out knowing how to actually read it and posting it without all the testing parameters is like trying to drive your car with half your windshield painted over. There's a LOT of factors that go into testing. Also, do note that on the graph, the starting tensile was 40,000 lbs per square inch. At roughly 400 degrees, that'd drop to right at 30,000 psi, and yes it kept dropping. Do you know the how much pounds per square inch you're putting on your hub during a hot lap? I'm not gonna do the math tonight, but let's just say you're not gonna get anywhere near 40,000 psi. Or 10,000 psi. Your control arms would bend first.

Also, this aluminum hub weakening and failing is a pure myth. I've looked through out the day for an example of an aluminum wilwood hub busting. I can't find one anywhere, on any forum or any google search. I have found their rotors busting or grenading, but nothing on their hubs. If you can find an example of one, by all means, please share it with me as I am curious.

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: csmopar] #2152173
09/11/16 10:12 AM
09/11/16 10:12 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,239
north of coder
moparx Offline
"Butt Crack Bob"
moparx  Offline
"Butt Crack Bob"

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,239
north of coder
the thing about a M2 front suspension i have observed over the years [and all of it's adaptions to anything on the planet] has been this. the M2 was available with the 302v8. it's position was almost centered over the spindle center line in the original car. although it's weight is not as much as a 318 [i think, but please correct me if needed], i believe all engines in our brand have a setback to where the engine[s] are mounted rearward of the spindle center line, thereby if using a M2 suspension design, even a stock cradle deal, the engine setback on our brand allows the M2 design to be almost, or just as stout as the original suspension due to the weight being positioned to the rear of the spindle center line. i hope you can understand what i'm trying to explain here. when putting this type of suspension in a 30's/40's/50's car, it is even more pronounced. at one time, a M2 kit manufacturer had several pics showing what i'm trying to convey here. it was stated that was the reason most guys complained the ride was way too stiff using V8 coils in their conversions, and had much improvements in all aspects using 4 or 6 cylinder springs instead. the bearing information was a much better presentation on why these things can work because of the loads involved, but i found the above diatribe a simplistic explanation without getting involved in the scientific explanation. and it seems using a quality M2 type kit made today pretty much eliminates any worries concerning failures of any kind. "quality" being the key word. i'm pretty sure i would not change over a suspension from an A,B, or E body to a M2 type, but over the years, i have been involved in many conversions on older and odd ball stuff, and the M2 derived kit swaps have all worked flawlessly. just an old guy's experience and observations over 50+ years of playing with cars. your results may vary. nascar cup cars not included.
beer

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: moparx] #2152237
09/11/16 11:53 AM
09/11/16 11:53 AM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
C
csmopar Offline
member
csmopar  Offline
member
C

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
Originally Posted By moparx
the thing about a M2 front suspension i have observed over the years [and all of it's adaptions to anything on the planet] has been this. the M2 was available with the 302v8. it's position was almost centered over the spindle center line in the original car. although it's weight is not as much as a 318 [i think, but please correct me if needed], i believe all engines in our brand have a setback to where the engine[s] are mounted rearward of the spindle center line, thereby if using a M2 suspension design, even a stock cradle deal, the engine setback on our brand allows the M2 design to be almost, or just as stout as the original suspension due to the weight being positioned to the rear of the spindle center line. i hope you can understand what i'm trying to explain here. when putting this type of suspension in a 30's/40's/50's car, it is even more pronounced. at one time, a M2 kit manufacturer had several pics showing what i'm trying to convey here. it was stated that was the reason most guys complained the ride was way too stiff using V8 coils in their conversions, and had much improvements in all aspects using 4 or 6 cylinder springs instead. the bearing information was a much better presentation on why these things can work because of the loads involved, but i found the above diatribe a simplistic explanation without getting involved in the scientific explanation. and it seems using a quality M2 type kit made today pretty much eliminates any worries concerning failures of any kind. "quality" being the key word. i'm pretty sure i would not change over a suspension from an A,B, or E body to a M2 type, but over the years, i have been involved in many conversions on older and odd ball stuff, and the M2 derived kit swaps have all worked flawlessly. just an old guy's experience and observations over 50+ years of playing with cars. your results may vary. nascar cup cars not included.
beer


Hmmm very good points. Didn't think of it that way before but it makes sense.

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: dusterpt440] #2152386
09/11/16 03:00 PM
09/11/16 03:00 PM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 656
Florida
CJD AUTOMOTIVE Offline
mopar
CJD AUTOMOTIVE  Offline
mopar

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 656
Florida
Not sure if this is still a discussion anymore....

I stand by what I say in that the thrust load of the M2 bearing is not designed (rated) to handle a sticky WIDE tire with lots of brake on a 3000+ lbs. car. The fact that they are almost identical to the Mopar bearing, only moves my point to include them as well. They were designed for hard compound, narrow 14" or 15" tires, not 18" tires with 300mm + rubber at any where close to 1G load. Same goes for all other period makes.

I know someone will say they been doing it for 30 years, but the tire compounds, coefficient of friction, and widths I'm talking about simply weren't available until just a few years ago.


Craig Scholl
CJD Automotive, LLC
Jacksonville, FL
www.CJDAUTOMOTIVE.com
904-400-1802

"I own a Mopar. I already know it won't be in stock, won't ship tomorrow, and won't fit without modification"
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: dusterpt440] #2152420
09/11/16 04:02 PM
09/11/16 04:02 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger Offline
master
72Swinger  Offline
master

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
Wade on here had heat warped Wheel seals on the stock bearing aluminum hubs we use with SRT rotors and Viper calipers. Anything has a limit, you may never see it.

Last edited by 72Swinger; 09/11/16 04:02 PM.

Mopar to the bone!!!
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: CJD AUTOMOTIVE] #2152457
09/11/16 05:20 PM
09/11/16 05:20 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
C
csmopar Offline
member
csmopar  Offline
member
C

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
Originally Posted By CJD AUTOMOTIVE
Not sure if this is still a discussion anymore....

I stand by what I say in that the thrust load of the M2 bearing is not designed (rated) to handle a sticky WIDE tire with lots of brake on a 3000+ lbs. car. The fact that they are almost identical to the Mopar bearing, only moves my point to include them as well. They were designed for hard compound, narrow 14" or 15" tires, not 18" tires with 300mm + rubber at any where close to 1G load. Same goes for all other period makes.

I know someone will say they been doing it for 30 years, but the tire compounds, coefficient of friction, and widths I'm talking about simply weren't available until just a few years ago.


100 percent agree.

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: csmopar] #2152475
09/11/16 06:13 PM
09/11/16 06:13 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
Originally Posted By csmopar
Originally Posted By CJD AUTOMOTIVE
Not sure if this is still a discussion anymore....

I stand by what I say in that the thrust load of the M2 bearing is not designed (rated) to handle a sticky WIDE tire with lots of brake on a 3000+ lbs. car. The fact that they are almost identical to the Mopar bearing, only moves my point to include them as well. They were designed for hard compound, narrow 14" or 15" tires, not 18" tires with 300mm + rubber at any where close to 1G load. Same goes for all other period makes.

I know someone will say they been doing it for 30 years, but the tire compounds, coefficient of friction, and widths I'm talking about simply weren't available until just a few years ago.


100 percent agree.


eek, I must have a reading comprehension problem, or that is a 180 degree u turn? But then this whole thread has been a SF Lombard Street anyway. laugh2


Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: CJD AUTOMOTIVE] #2152482
09/11/16 06:35 PM
09/11/16 06:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,394
The Pale Blue Dot
Skeptic Offline
master
Skeptic  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,394
The Pale Blue Dot
Originally Posted By CJD AUTOMOTIVE
Not sure if this is still a discussion anymore....

I stand by what I say in that the thrust load of the M2 bearing is not designed (rated) to handle a sticky WIDE tire with lots of brake on a 3000+ lbs. car. The fact that they are almost identical to the Mopar bearing, only moves my point to include them as well. They were designed for hard compound, narrow 14" or 15" tires, not 18" tires with 300mm + rubber at any where close to 1G load. Same goes for all other period makes.

I know someone will say they been doing it for 30 years, but the tire compounds, coefficient of friction, and widths I'm talking about simply weren't available until just a few years ago.
Man you keep on moving the goalposts in your argument, are you a politician in RL?

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: jcc] #2152686
09/11/16 10:26 PM
09/11/16 10:26 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
C
csmopar Offline
member
csmopar  Offline
member
C

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
usa
Originally Posted By jcc
Originally Posted By csmopar
Originally Posted By CJD AUTOMOTIVE
Not sure if this is still a discussion anymore....

I stand by what I say in that the thrust load of the M2 bearing is not designed (rated) to handle a sticky WIDE tire with lots of brake on a 3000+ lbs. car. The fact that they are almost identical to the Mopar bearing, only moves my point to include them as well. They were designed for hard compound, narrow 14" or 15" tires, not 18" tires with 300mm + rubber at any where close to 1G load. Same goes for all other period makes.

I know someone will say they been doing it for 30 years, but the tire compounds, coefficient of friction, and widths I'm talking about simply weren't available until just a few years ago.


100 percent agree.


eek, I must have a reading comprehension problem, or that is a 180 degree u turn? But then this whole thread has been a SF Lombard Street anyway. laugh2


Yep you do. I'm agreeing with him on the point that mopar spindles are no better and no worse than mustang ii spindles. I'm also agreeing with him about the wider, softer tires being used today not existing till recent years.

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: csmopar] #2152766
09/11/16 11:21 PM
09/11/16 11:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
Originally Posted By csmopar
Originally Posted By jcc
Originally Posted By csmopar
Originally Posted By CJD AUTOMOTIVE
Not sure if this is still a discussion anymore....

I stand by what I say in that the thrust load of the M2 bearing is not designed (rated) to handle a sticky WIDE tire with lots of brake on a 3000+ lbs. car. The fact that they are almost identical to the Mopar bearing, only moves my point to include them as well. They were designed for hard compound, narrow 14" or 15" tires, not 18" tires with 300mm + rubber at any where close to 1G load. Same goes for all other period makes.

I know someone will say they been doing it for 30 years, but the tire compounds, coefficient of friction, and widths I'm talking about simply weren't available until just a few years ago.


100 percent agree.


eek, I must have a reading comprehension problem, or that is a 180 degree u turn? But then this whole thread has been a SF Lombard Street anyway. laugh2


Yep you do. I'm agreeing with him on the point that mopar spindles are no better and no worse than mustang ii spindles. I'm also agreeing with him about the wider, softer tires being used today not existing till recent years.



"Also, one last note. The mustang 2 bearings are actually larger in diameter than the mopar bearings, they are however, slightly thinner in the bearing width, less than a 1/16 of an inch. So if you're gonna say the mustang 2 spindle bearing isn't big enough diameter wise to handle a 3000 lb car, then the mopar bearing isn't either........using your line of thinking"

And simultaneously disagreeing with his earlier comment here:

"Just an FYI, doesn't seem to be a standard for KPI on the M2 spindles. Everyone is a little different. Also, the bearings are way undersized for 3K plus cars being tracked.


Edited by CJD AUTOMOTIVE (09/09/16 06:24 PM)"

My beef is with the dainty alum wilwood hubs, the bearings are what they are, and that track induced braking heat weakens them, find any graph online that suits your fancy, it is still a fact, especially at the temps we might see on the track, and the drop off in strength is sharp and profound. Choose whatever decrease in strength you can accept is your choice, I'm not changing my driving line because of poorly chosen, lightweight alum drag hubs. Stating alum cools faster and therefore not an issue, completely ignores the fact it also heats faster, the bearing issue dovetails with the this, because smaller bearings/races are more likely mire prone to the heat expansion issues of the hub, in addition to the observation the wilwood hubs are not a Robust design, ie very thick in stressed areas, even when compared to steel OEM hubs, and alum needs to be thicker then steel in almost every case in similar applications, but you know all that.

Last edited by jcc; 09/11/16 11:36 PM.

Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: jcc] #2153048
09/12/16 01:40 PM
09/12/16 01:40 PM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 27
Indiana
D
dusterpt440 Offline OP
member
dusterpt440  Offline OP
member
D

Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 27
Indiana
Originally Posted By jcc


My beef is with the dainty alum wilwood hubs, the bearings are what they are, and that track induced braking heat weakens them, find any graph online that suits your fancy, it is still a fact, especially at the temps we might see on the track, and the drop off in strength is sharp and profound. Choose whatever decrease in strength you can accept is your choice, I'm not changing my driving line because of poorly chosen, lightweight alum drag hubs. Stating alum cools faster and therefore not an issue, completely ignores the fact it also heats faster, the bearing issue dovetails with the this, because smaller bearings/races are more likely mire prone to the heat expansion issues of the hub, in addition to the observation the wilwood hubs are not a Robust design, ie very thick in stressed areas, even when compared to steel OEM hubs, and alum needs to be thicker then steel in almost every case in similar applications, but you know all that.


Okay, been watching this back and forth. I think what csmopar is trying to say, or at least how I understand it from his posts, is that wilwoods uses aluminum hubs on ALL their kits for all brands. So if the hubs were an issue, they'd be having that issue on all brands. Also, seeing csmopar's challenge above about finding an example online of a wilwood hub failing, I tried as well, I didn't find anything when search "wilwood hub failure" other than this very thread. So maybe it has happened but perhaps it was years ago? I just dont know.

while I was doing that though, I decided to check other "name brand" brake kits and see what they use for hubs for both mopar and mustang II.

Baer Brakes: Uses aluminum hubs for all their big brake "road race kits" regardless of make or model, ford,chevy,mopar, etc

Brembo: doesn't make kits for either, but scrolling thru the kits they do make, they also use aluminum hubs

Aerospace: Aluminum hubs on ALL kits

Wilwood: aluminum hubs on ALL kits

Strange: Aluminum hubs on ALL kits

SSBC: Aluminum hubs on ALL kits(kind of a misnomer considering their name)

Heidts: Aluminum hubs on all kits for all brands



These are just the companies i knew off of top of my head, others dont make kits for mopars, like brembo, but their hubs are aluminum as well. Yes, you can get cast iron hubs from any of the above, if you want stock brake rotors that aren't drill or slotted and that feature 1 or maybe 2 pistons. From what I' seen this morning, you CANNOT get an aftermarket brake system without getting aluminum hubs.

So based on this, jcc, I think csmopar is right and I dont think his comment about you grasping at straw was off base or uncalled for. Im beginning to think you have something else to prove and are simply putting down mustang II spindles like you've tried to this entire thread. Mustang II spindles are used throughout the hobby, arguably as popular or more popular than C5 spindles. Surely if there was a problem, someone somewhere would report it.

Last edited by dusterpt440; 09/12/16 02:13 PM.
Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: dusterpt440] #2153063
09/12/16 02:19 PM
09/12/16 02:19 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
OzHemi Offline
Penguin-hating Ginger
OzHemi  Offline
Penguin-hating Ginger

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
Why not just get steel hubs made and then make your own brake setup ? It isn't all thaaaaat hard. (I've done it)

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: OzHemi] #2153068
09/12/16 02:37 PM
09/12/16 02:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 27
Indiana
D
dusterpt440 Offline OP
member
dusterpt440  Offline OP
member
D

Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 27
Indiana
Originally Posted By OzHemi
Why not just get steel hubs made and then make your own brake setup ? It isn't all thaaaaat hard. (I've done it)


I suppose you could, if you're concerned about the aluminum hubs in the off shelve kits. And who knows, might be able to do it cheaper.

Re: Watts link for a mopar? [Re: dusterpt440] #2153074
09/12/16 02:43 PM
09/12/16 02:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
OzHemi Offline
Penguin-hating Ginger
OzHemi  Offline
Penguin-hating Ginger

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
If you were worried about using aluminum hubs in the first place I did mean.

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1