Correct diameter of centering hole in Mopar wheels?

[Ghoste]

Versus the diameter in some of the Ford ones?  (because some Ford wheels fit and some do not-at the back anyway)

[MaximRecoil]

The center holes in a set of stock stamped steel Mopar wheels I have here (and were on my car for a while; all fit perfectly on the hubs) measure 2-13/16" diameter. This agrees with what Google says too.

[Ghoste]

Thanks.

[dangina]

71.5mm
ford is 70.5mm

[MaximRecoil]

71.5mm
ford is 70.5mm

Both Ford and Chrysler wheels of this era were manufactured according to U.S. customary units, which means the correct measurements are:

Chrysler: 2-13/16"
Ford: 2-3/4" (for the ones with a center hole that almost fits on a Chrysler, but not quite)

For the folks who are fond of the French units, that translates to:

Chrysler: 71.4375 mm
Ford: 69.85 mm

[dangina]

For the fords i mean mustangs of that era - my spindles are a mustang hub and it's 70.5mm

[MaximRecoil]

For the fords i mean mustangs of that era - my spindles are a mustang hub and it's 70.5mm

Ford was using the metric system in the '60s? That's odd.

[bill440rt]

A measurement is a measurement no matter which method is used.

[MaximRecoil]

A measurement is a measurement no matter which method is used.

It is still odd that Ford would use the metric system for anything in the '60s. Nothing on my '69 Dodge is metric that I've come across yet.

70.5mm doesn't translate to any standard 1/16"-increment U.S. customary unit, nor even a 1/32"- or 1/64"-increment unit (it falls somewhere between 2-3/4" and 2-13/16", i.e., about 2-199/256", or more precisely, 2-775591/1000000"), which means they intentionally specified a metric dimension for that, and an American car company doing that in the '60s is bizarre.

[ws23rt]

The hub dia. on mopars that I have dealt with are different on the front vs the back. --The front is smaller than the back--  This leads me to think that the intent for wheel alignment to shaft center on the front relies more on the lugs than on the rear.

This may explain why an oversize or worn wheel from ford will fit with greater ease on the front vs the back.

No matter which unit of measure one uses the diameters are what they are. Inch vs metric are two languages that speak the same thing. If one has a metric measuring tool that is the unit of measure for the discussion. The number of decimal points of accuracy is I think the issue here. If it were not than the question would be about how close or accurate are the measurements.

When someone uses fractions of in. (for example) to describe a measurement they have taken I take that to be +/ 1/32.  In metric I would take it to mean +/- 1/2mm. Had dangina said his hubs were (for example)70.479mm than that would justify dragging this out further.

[MaximRecoil]

No matter which unit of measure one uses the diameters are what they are. Inch vs metric are two languages that speak the same thing. If one has a metric measuring tool that is the unit of measure for the discussion. The number of decimal points of accuracy is I think the issue here. If it were not than the question would be about how close or accurate are the measurements.

When someone uses fractions of in. (for example) to describe a measurement they have taken I take that to be +/ 1/32.  In metric I would take it to mean +/- 1/2mm. Had dangina said his hubs were (for example)70.479mm than that would justify dragging this out further.

I'm not just going by what Dangina said; I've looked at other sources and it seems that the actual measurement is indeed 70.5mm. For example, these wheel spacers which fit '60s Mustangs have a 70.5mm center bore, which means Ford was using the metric system to some extent in the '60s, and I find that bizarre.

When a metric measurement doesn't translate to a relevant U.S. customary unit measurement (which is usually in 1/16" increments on a car), that means the measurement was intentionally specified in the metric system by the manufacturer. Of course, that happens all the time these days on American and "American" cars, but until this thread, I never knew it happened with any American cars from the '60s.

[John_Kunkel]

Or the metric dimensions are just "rounded off" to the closest even number.

[bill440rt]

As occurred all to often with cubic inch engine displacements. (And still do.)

[MaximRecoil]

Or the metric dimensions are just "rounded off" to the closest even number.

No. 70.5mm is somewhere between 2-3/4" (69.85mm, which would be rounded to either 69.9mm or 70mm) and 2-13/16" (71.4375mm, which would be rounded to 71.44mm, or 71.4mm, or 71.5mm if rounding to the nearest half-mm).

As I said, 70.5mm doesn't translate to any relevant U.S. customary unit, and neither does any metric measurement that's within a half-mm of 70.5mm. That means that Ford intentionally specified a 70.5mm center bore for their wheels in the 1960s, i.e., it is obviously not a case where they specified a U.S. customary unit measurement that just happened to be close enough to 70.5mm to call it that later on (unless they specified e.g., 2-199/256", which would be just as bizarre as specifying a metric measurement).

Maybe they did it so that the only proper-fitting OEM wheels were made by them, knowing that no other American car company in the '60s was likely to do something so strange (for the time) as to have a metric-size center bore.

[Ghoste]

Very odd even more when you consider how unlikely it was that any European Ford product of that time (or since) required a center hole that large.  (as a once in the distant past Cortina owner)

[JB400]

All this bickering of fractions of an inch and millimeters, but no mention of tenths of an inch?

[Ghoste]

It kind of spun off into an interesting discussion of automotive history.  Trivial but still interesting in a way, Maxim raises a very good question.  Not a what is the meaning of life question by any stretch but mildly interesting to students of auto history.

[MaximRecoil]

All this bickering of fractions of an inch and millimeters, but no mention of tenths of an inch?

Tenths of an inch are only used to decimalize a fraction. British imperial and U.S. customary units were never designed around base-10; that's a metric thing. Standard wrenches, sockets, etc., are not sized in tenths of an inch; they are in 1/16" increments, or multiples thereof, such as 1/32" (rare) and 1/64" (even more rare) increments. Rulers and other measuring devices are the same way.

[ws23rt]

Or the metric dimensions are just "rounded off" to the closest even number.

No. 70.5mm is somewhere between 2-3/4" (69.85mm, which would be rounded to either 69.9mm or 70mm) and 2-13/16" (71.4375mm, which would be rounded to 71.44mm, or 71.4mm, or 71.5mm if rounding to the nearest half-mm).

As I said, 70.5mm doesn't translate to any relevant U.S. customary unit, and neither does any metric measurement that's within a half-mm of 70.5mm. That means that Ford intentionally specified a 70.5mm center bore for their wheels in the 1960s, i.e., it is obviously not a case where they specified a U.S. customary unit measurement that just happened to be close enough to 70.5mm to call it that later on (unless they specified e.g., 2-199/256", which would be just as bizarre as specifying a metric measurement).

Maybe they did it so that the only proper-fitting OEM wheels were made by them, knowing that no other American car company in the '60s was likely to do something so strange (for the time) as to have a metric-size center bore.

This is interesting that you have a definitive grasp on how dimensions are rounded off. And in this case you chose to use a second place decimal as the place to round from.  Some rounding is done from a first place decimal. Or even next whole number.

The reasons one rounds off dimensions vary and in nearly all cases they are not dimensions intended to fabricate from. 

Without a fabrication print of the parts and the hole size tolerance to refer to, this is just another exercise in picking nits and wondering.

When it comes down to it all advertised dimensions are false. What matters to the buyer is does it fit?

[MaximRecoil]

This is interesting that you have a definitive grasp on how dimensions are rounded off. And in this case you chose to use a second place decimal as the place to round from.  Some rounding is done from a first place decimal. Or even next whole number.

The reasons one rounds off dimensions vary and in nearly all cases they are not dimensions intended to fabricate from.  

Without a fabrication print of the parts and the hole size tolerance to refer to, this is just another exercise in picking nits and wondering.

When it comes down to it all advertised dimensions are false. What matters to the buyer is does it fit?

As usual, you are posting from way out in left field. Once again:

As I said, 70.5mm doesn't translate to any relevant U.S. customary unit, and neither does any metric measurement that's within a half-mm of 70.5mm.

If something on a car measures 70.5mm, the manufacturer decided to make it 70.5mm. This isn't a case of something measuring e.g. 19mm (~3/4") or 27mm (~1-1/16"); 70.5mm doesn't convert to any inch fraction that a car manufacturer would likely specify for a wheel's center bore, and neither does 70mm or 71mm, or anything in between.

I don't even know what it is that you are trying to say overall (because I don't speak "Left Field™"), but I do know that it is entirely irrelevant to anything I've said.

[Ghoste]

And then the train went crash.

[ws23rt]

Let's go back to the top

The center hole in wheels are generally not intended to center the wheel. The bolt circle and lug nuts do that.

Their are many manufactures of wheels and it is common that the center holes be of a size that allows for fitment to a range of hub sizes. The bolt circle diameters are much more universal than the hub diameters and do the centering. I'm sure their are exceptions and some folks use spacer rings as needed for greater security.

A manufacturer that sells a wheel intended for a ford could very well fit a mopar if the center hole is big enough so they make them that way. The size of hole they chose is arbitrary. Their are many aftermarket wheel manufacturers and for some of them to advertise dimensions in metric is no surprise.

It would be interesting to know what size holes for the wheels ford used as original equipment. It might be a round metric number

[JB400]

All this bickering of fractions of an inch and millimeters, but no mention of tenths of an inch?

Tenths of an inch are only used to decimalize a fraction. British imperial and U.S. customary units were never designed around base-10; that's a metric thing. Standard wrenches, sockets, etc., are not sized in tenths of an inch; they are in 1/16" increments, or multiples thereof, such as 1/32" (rare) and 1/64" (even more rare) increments. Rulers and other measuring devices are the same way.

Obviously, you know very little about machinist measurements, which is measurements used by engine builders and everyone else that work with metal.  They use tenths of an inch because it can easily be converted to metric, thus the same set of measurements can be used worldwide and the parts manufactured can be interchanged, no matter who made them.

Going by Dangina's measurements:  Chryslers' 71.5 mm =2.815 in.  Fords' 70.5 mm = 2.776 inches.  Put into this format, I hope you realize why Ford wheels "almost" fit on a Chrysler, but not quite.

As for why wrenches are put into fractions, it makes for quicker identification of the wrenches.  Otherwise, looking for wrenches would be like looking for drill bits.

If you wish to use your fractions, I would suggest you stick to building cabinets.

[MaximRecoil]

Let's go back to the top

The center hole in wheels are generally not intended to center the wheel. The bolt circle and lug nuts do that.

False. Practically all OEM wheels are hub-centric when installed on the type of vehicle they originally came on. Aftermarket wheels are usually lug-centric, or more specifically, they usually end up being lug-centric in application, because the center bore on many or most aftermarket wheels is intended to clear a variety of hub sizes, and in such cases, it is unlikely that the hole will ever exactly match up to the hub size on any given car.

Hub-centric and lug-centric are not inherent properties of the wheel itself, but rather, it is a property of the application, i.e., a Mopar wheel is hub-centric on a Mopar, but it would be lug-centric if you installed it on a Ford.

Their are many manufactures of wheels and it is common that the center holes be of a size that allows for fitment to a range of hub sizes. The bolt circle diameters are much more universal than the hub diameters and do the centering. I'm sure their are exceptions and some folks use spacer rings as needed for greater security.

A manufacturer that sells a wheel intended for a ford could very well fit a mopar if the center hole is big enough so they make them that way. The size of hole they chose is arbitrary. Their are many aftermarket wheel manufacturers and for some of them to advertise dimensions in metric is no surprise.

See above, and also, this particular line of the discussion is about OEM Ford wheels; not aftermarket wheels that will fit on a Ford. That should be obvious based on the number of times I've mentioned out how bizarre it is that Ford chose a 70.5mm center bore for some of their wheels in the 1960s.

It would be interesting to know what size holes for the wheels ford used as original equipment. It might be a round metric number

It has already been pretty well established in this thread that it is 70.5mm for certain '60s Mustangs (for example, I've already linked to those wheel spacers with a 70.5mm center bore, which are intended to be hub-centric, and fit a variety of Mustangs starting with its first model year in the mid-'60s, and Dangina has given his measurement), which is the entire basis for this line of the discussion in the first place.

The reason for your confusion is that you haven't read this thread properly and you have a fundamental misconception with regard to hub-centric vs. lug-centric.

[MaximRecoil]

Obviously, you know very little about machinist measurements, which is measurements used by engine builders and everyone else that work with metal.

This is a non sequitur (because the idea that "Obviously, [ I ] know very little about machinist measurements") doesn't logically follow from anything in this thread), and as such, consider it dismissed.

They use tenths of an inch because it can easily be converted to metric, thus the same set of measurements can be used worldwide and the parts manufactured can be interchanged, no matter who made them.

We are talking about 1960s American car manufacturers, plus we are talking about a center bore in a wheel which was usually stamped steel, not machined. Also, tenths of an inch are no easier to convert to metric than sixteenths of an inch or anything else. As I said, tenths of an inch are for decimalization, which makes calculations easier, particularly when using a calculator/computer which doesn't typically accept direct input of fractions.

And in the manufacturing process, extremely tiny increments, whether in multiples of 16 or base-10, are usually only used for tolerances, not for the intended nominal dimensions of a part. For example, a part might have an intended nominal diameter of 3/4" or some other standard fraction of an inch, but with a lathe tolerance of .001". Something like .776" as an intended nominal diameter of a part would be very unlikely for a company using U.S. customary units

Going by Dangina's measurements:  Chryslers' 71.5 mm =2.815 in.  Fords' 70.5 mm = 2.776 inches.

Chrysler = 2-13/16"; which is close to 71.5mm. As far as I know there is no reason to suspect that Chrysler specified that their wheels in the 1960s be manufactured with a 71.5mm center bore rather than a 2-13/16" center bore. The situation is different with Ford though, because as I've said many times now, 70.5" doesn't convert to any standard inch fraction, nor does it even sort of convert to any standard inch fraction.

Put into this format, I hope you realize why Ford wheels "almost" fit on a Chrysler, but not quite.

Is that a joke? I'm well aware that 70.5mm is smaller than 2-13/16", and you would already know that had you read the thread properly before posting. I've said that 70.5mm is somewhere between 2-3/4" and 2-13/16" at least twice already, and I've even given precise conversions for all of those dimensions.

As for why wrenches are put into fractions, it makes for quicker identification of the wrenches.

I didn't say merely that they were put into fractions, I said that they are put into 1/16" increments and multiples thereof, because that's what the U.S. customary and British imperial system has always been based on. That's why you won't find a size 7/10" wrench in your toolbox.

If you wish to use your fractions, I would suggest you stick to building cabinets.

It looks like we've got another deep left-fielder on board. JB400, meet Ws23rt. Ws23rt, meet JB400.

By the way (and not that it is relevant, because I said absolutely nothing at all about "wishing to use [my] fractions"; that's just something you pulled out of thin air out there in deep left field), decimalized numbers are fractions too. For example, .776 is just an alternate way of writing 776/1000 (97/125).

[JB400]

Either way, your fractions and use of words like "between", "rounded to", "approximate", and "close to" would not fly with the person that has to machine the hubs for these wheels.  The same would also apply to the person that has to manufacture the dies to produce these wheels, the supplier of the metal for the wheels, or anyone else that has to deal with making precision machined parts.  They're more better suited for woodworking and cabinet making where exact is not as important as getting close enough.
.
Nice edit on Post  #8 by the way, and the other ones as well.

[TUFCAT]

Women say bigger is always better.   

[MaximRecoil]

Either way, your fractions and use of words like "between", "rounded to", "approximate", and "close to" would not fly with the person that has to machine the hubs for these wheels. The same would also apply to the person that has to manufacture the dies to produce these wheels, the supplier of the metal for the wheels, or anyone else that has to deal with making precision machined parts.  They're more better suited for woodworking and cabinet making where exact is not as important as getting close enough.

I have no idea what you're talking about, because as I told the other left-fielder, I don't speak "Left Field™". As best as I can tell, you are confused about the difference between machining tolerances and intended nominal dimensions of parts (you are also utterly confused about how the English language works in general, given that my use of words like "between", "rounded to", "approximate", and "close to" had nothing whatsoever to do with instructing a machinist), but either way, how about you explain what any of this has to do with it being bizarre that Ford in the 1960s would call for a 70.5mm center bore on some of their wheels?

Nice edit on Post  #8 by the way.

What edit? You may just reside even deeper in left field than the other guy.

Edit: This is comically ironic:

Nice edit on Post  #8 by the way, and the other ones as well.

I bolded the part that you edited in. By the way, I don't remember which posts I've edited, but when I edit a post it is for things like typos. If I add new content, I mark it as edited, so I have no idea what you are talking about (and neither do you, for that matter).

[TUFCAT]

Who's on first? 

[bill440rt]

 

[Ghoste]

I'm just glad I got my question answered before the cliff.

[ws23rt]

  It is amazing how this happens.  I am partly to blame for it though.  Just commenting and rendering my opinion is enough to tip it over the edge.

Btw  2-13/16 inch is exactly 71-7/16 MM-----Just find this interesting

[MaximRecoil]

It is amazing how this happens.  I am partly to blame for it though.  Just commenting and rendering my opinion is enough to tip it over the edge.

"Partly" to blame? The first smartass comment in this thread (first sentence, reply #18) was made by you (no surprise there), and like always, it was based on your own failure to properly read and/or comprehend the words on your screen. Then JB400 came along with his own smartass comments (along with a vague and false accusation that I edited previous posts in some way that matters), also based on his own failure to properly read and/or comprehend the words on his screen.

[TUFCAT]

Maxim, this might be a little off topic but can you post picture's of your Charger?  With your ultra-high level of accuracy and personal demand for perfection in everything you do, it must be a 100 point show car right?  

[JB400]

Now Tuffy, that is entirely inappropriate of you to ask Maxim to post pix of his car.  Aren't you supposed to start a poll first to see if other members share your same interest in his car as you do?

[TUFCAT]

My apologies JB!  Obviously I haven't read Maxim's rules properly, and have a fundamental misconception for following logical procedures.  

As such, please consider my question dismissed.  

It was entirely irrelevant based on my own failure to properly read and/or comprehend the words on my screen.  

Maxim..... go easy on me please!      I speak "Left Field™".  

[ws23rt]

It is amazing how this happens.  I am partly to blame for it though.  Just commenting and rendering my opinion is enough to tip it over the edge.

"Partly" to blame? The first smartass comment in this thread (first sentence, reply #18) was made by you (no surprise there), and like always, it was based on your own failure to properly read and/or comprehend the words on your screen. Then JB400 came along with his own smartass comments (along with a vague and false accusation that I edited previous posts in some way that matters), also based on his own failure to properly read and/or comprehend the words on his screen.

Oh come on now maxim.  I admitted my part.  I was experimenting to see just how little it takes to make you go.
I know you call it free food but I see it as a performance treat.    You did just fine.

[MaximRecoil]

Maxim, this might be a little off topic but can you post picture's of your Charger?  With your ultra-high level of accuracy and personal demand for perfection in everything you do, it must be a 100 point show car right?

Not even close. My car is a beater, and I've already posted pictures of it before, somewhere. Your "theory" doesn't even make sense by the way, even if it did have a valid premise (which it doesn't).

Oh come on now maxim.  I admitted my part.  I was experimenting to see just how little it takes to make you go. I know you call it free food but I see it as a performance treat.   You did just fine.

Even a special ed. primary school student would roll his eyes at this laughable attempt at a "save" from you. He might even find humor (as I do) in the fact that every time you play your pathetic ad hoc "But I did that on purpose!" card, you are unwittingly admitting to being a "troll" (i.e., the trouble-maker, the instigator), by definition; a remarkably inept one at that. Of course, instigators like yourself and others on this thread don't bother me at all; in fact, the forum I've frequented most for the past dozen years or so has the following disclaimer at the top:

Here's the place to post your heated discussions that might irk the members of more tame boards. When someone tells you to 'take it outside'... take it here. Terms and Conditions still apply.

Note that discussions on this board may easily get out of hand and IMDb recommends people with a sensitive nature and/or people under 18 years of age should avoid The Soapbox.

But the funny thing about you guys is: you instigate and then whine about the direction in which it takes the thread.

When people of at least average intelligence and reading comprehension ability read threads like this, you come across as being perpetually confused and more than a little bit "out there", given that practically everything you type is false or irrelevant.

[ws23rt]

Maxim  you are clearly talking to the public and not me.  Why else would you keep repeating the same thing over and over. And bringing up that other site that can cause permanent psychological damage if not used with doctors care.  

Why spent the effort with me if it were not that this is public.  I think it's because you know I'm not offended or feel put in my place. So you need for it to at least look as though that's the case?

You are spending effort and I'm just watching like the rest.

[MaximRecoil]

Maxim  you are clearly talking to the public and not me.  Why would you keep repeating the same thing over and over. And bringing up that other site that can cause permanent psychological damage if not used with doctors care. 

Why spent the effort with me if it were not that this is public.  I think it's because you know I'm not offended or feel put in my place. So you need for it to at least look as though that's the case?

You are spending effort and I'm just watching like the rest.

Another textbook example of "out of left field". Are you on mind-altering drugs, or did you come from the factory that way?

By the way, if by "spending effort" you mean "typing posts", you are also typing posts, obviously (thus, not "just watching", which is also obvious). I don't know about you, but typing posts doesn't fall into the category of "spending effort" for me. I wouldn't go to forums at all if posting = "spending effort", nor would, I suspect, most other people.

[TUFCAT]

Are you on mind-altering drugs, or did you come from the factory that way?

FINALLY SOME ACTUAL HUMOR FROM MAXIM!  

[JB400]

Are you on mind-altering drugs, or did you come from the factory that way?

FINALLY SOME ACTUAL HUMOR FROM MAXIM! 

He might be part human after all

[ws23rt]

Are you on mind-altering drugs, or did you come from the factory that way?

FINALLY SOME ACTUAL HUMOR FROM MAXIM!  

He might be part human after all

It is sad but true---he is human---oops a presumption--- Learning to fit/adapt is an on going struggle for some. As we grow up we usually get the hang of it.

[MaximRecoil]

It is sad but true---he is human---oops a presumption--- Learning to fit/adapt is an on going struggle for some. As we grow up we usually get the hang of it.

As if I'd have any interest whatsoever in "learning to fit/adapt" with simpletons, and as if it would require a "learning" process even if I did want to do it. Acting like a moron isn't rocket science.

Someone saw something I posted and recognized it as humor, and this seemed unusual because the vast majority of what I consider to be humor wouldn't be recognized as such by this crowd ("this crowd" refers to the usual peanut gallery members; not every member of this forum is an idiot; far from it in fact), there would only be plenty of blank and confused stares.

[ws23rt]

It is sad but true---he is human---oops a presumption--- Learning to fit/adapt is an on going struggle for some. As we grow up we usually get the hang of it.

As if I'd have any interest whatsoever in "learning to fit/adapt" with simpletons, and as if it would require a "learning" process even if I did want to do it. Acting like a moron isn't rocket science.

Someone saw something I posted and recognized it as humor, and this seemed unusual because the vast majority of what I consider to be humor wouldn't be recognized as such by this crowd ("this crowd" refers to the usual peanut gallery members; not every member of this forum is an idiot; far from it in fact), there would only be plenty of blank and confused stares.

This forum is large enough to be a good example of a slice of life.

It would be mindful of you to accept that when you are speaking to those few that you hope are listening.

[MaximRecoil]

This forum is large enough to be a good example of a slice of life.

Which is why there are idiots here, just as in real life. By the way, "large" is only part of the equation. In this case, cars are a general enough interest that you'll find the full spectrum of people here, or at least, the full spectrum of males, but with forums dealing with more specialized topics, it is a different story. For example, on the EEVblog forum (13,814 total members compared to 15,501 total members here), I've yet to encounter an idiot. That's because generally only intelligent people are interested in working on electronics (while both intelligent people and idiots alike want a muscle car), and intelligent people don't typically get emotional and go into peanut gallery mode when someone disagrees with them, but rather, they argue about it intelligently.

Forum threads containing long, intelligent arguments are among the best sources of information on the internet. The argument among Richard Ehrenberg and others over using the "wrong" spindles for a disc brake conversion is a good example of this. If Ehrenberg had only been among people who lacked the mental horsepower to express their disagreement in the form of legitimate arguments and facts rather than mindless heckling, it would have been a worthless thread.

It would be mindful of you to accept that when you are speaking to those few that you hope are listening.

Left field again. Which "few" people do you imagine that I "hope are listening"?

[ws23rt]

Your post answers the question----Which few people do you hope are listening?---

Why would you bother speaking to idiots?  We are just something to be endured. Pesky little us.

[TUFCAT]

Maxim you are so demoralizing and socially inept. Do you have any friends on this planet? 

[TUFCAT]

This forum is large enough to be a good example of a slice of life.

Which is why there are idiots here, just as in real life. By the way, "large" is only part of the equation. In this case, cars are a general enough interest that you'll find the full spectrum of people here, or at least, the full spectrum of males, but with forums dealing with more specialized topics, it is a different story. For example, on the EEVblog forum (13,814 total members compared to 15,501 total members here), I've yet to encounter an idiot. That's because generally only intelligent people are interested in working on electronics (while both intelligent people and idiots alike want a muscle car), and intelligent people don't typically get emotional and go into peanut gallery mode when someone disagrees with them, but rather, they argue about it intelligently.

Forum threads containing long, intelligent arguments are among the best sources of information on the internet. The argument among Richard Ehrenberg and others over using the "wrong" spindles for a disc brake conversion is a good example of this. If Ehrenberg had only been among people who lacked the mental horsepower to express their disagreement in the form of legitimate arguments and facts rather than mindless heckling, it would have been a worthless thread.

It would be mindful of you to accept that when you are speaking to those few that you hope are listening.

Left field again. Which "few" people do you imagine that I "hope are listening"?

Better yet, have you ever found a woman that would even talk to you - without paying her first?  

[MaximRecoil]

Your post answers the question----Which few people do you hope are listening?---

No, it doesn't. The answer to the question should have been obvious due to my use of the word "imagine". In other words, there are no "few" that I "hope are listening"; that idea simply came from your imagination, as opposed to reality. That happens a lot with you, due to your residence in deep, deep left field.

Why would you bother speaking to idiots?  We are just something to be endured. Pesky little us.

Because arguing is entertaining, even though it is a lopsided argument when idiots are involved.

Maxim you are so demoralizing and socially inept. Do you have any friends on this planet? 

This isn't a social hall, simple fellow. You and your ilk come across as "socially needy" when trying to find social fulfillment from nameless, faceless strangers on an internet forum.

Better yet, have you ever found a woman that would even talk to you - without paying her first? 

Tufcat Presents: Amateur Hour: Live From the Peanut Gallery

[TUFCAT]

Your post answers the question----Which few people do you hope are listening?---

No, it doesn't. The answer to the question should have been obvious due to my use of the word "imagine". In other words, there are no "few" that I "hope are listening"; that idea simply came from your imagination, as opposed to reality. That happens a lot with you, due to your residence in deep, deep left field.

Why would you bother speaking to idiots?  We are just something to be endured. Pesky little us.

Because arguing is entertaining, even though it is a lopsided argument when idiots are involved.

Maxim you are so demoralizing and socially inept. Do you have any friends on this planet? 

This isn't a social hall, simple fellow. You and your ilk come across as "socially needy" when trying to find social fulfillment from nameless, faceless strangers on an internet forum.

Better yet, have you ever found a woman that would even talk to you - without paying her first? 

Tufcat Presents: Amateur Hour: Live From the Peanut Gallery

.... Once again you nailed it! 

[JB400]

Just correcting you on one issue:


This is a social hall.  There are quite a few of the members here that live thousands of miles apart, but do get together for car shows and other social events throughout the year. This forum is their way of staying in touch with each other, but still living their own lives in their own backyards.   Even Tufcat has held a party or two for members here.  So no, not everyone here is a nameless, faceless stranger.

[TUFCAT]

This is a social hall.  There are quite a few of the members here that live thousands of miles apart, but do get together for car shows and other social events throughout the year. This forum is their way of staying in touch with each other, but still living their own lives in their own backyards.   Even Tufcat has held a party or two for members here.  So no, not everyone here is a nameless, faceless stranger.

Thanks Justin!  

[JB400]

You're welcome Tom   As far as I'm concerned, Maxim can put us all out in left field.  We'll have one heck of a party.

[MaximRecoil]

Just correcting you on one issue:


This is a social hall.

No, it isn't. This is the Chassis, Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, & Tires subforum. The subforums which could be considered a virtual "social hall" are Off Topic Discussion and The Lighter Side.

There are quite a few of the members here that live thousands of miles apart, but do get together for car shows and other social events throughout the year.

Yes, and the Chassis, Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, & Tires subforum is not one of those social events, at least, it is not intended to be.

So no, not everyone here is a nameless, faceless stranger.

They all started out that way, except in the unusual cases of people who knew each other in real life prior to "meeting" on the internet.

[TUFCAT]

No, it isn't. This is the Chassis, Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, & Tires subforum. The subforums which could be considered a virtual "social hall" are Off Topic Discussion and The Lighter Side.

There are quite a few of the members here that live thousands of miles apart, but do get together for car shows and other social events throughout the year.

Yes, and the Chassis, Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, & Tires subforum is not one of those social events, at least, it is not intended to be.

So no, not everyone here is a nameless, faceless stranger.

They all started out that way, except in the unusual cases of people who knew each other in real life prior to "meeting" on the internet.

Are you serious?  Well if we can't be social here....maybe there should be a special subforum for guys like you?  

[MaximRecoil]

Are you serious?  Well if we can't be social here....maybe there should be a special subforum for guys like you?  

Most of the subforums here already are for "guys like me", i.e., they are intended as an information exchange on specific topics. They are not intended to cater to your budding online "bromances". 

[JB400]

For someone that is a stickler for the particular, you sure did veer this discussion off course.

[MaximRecoil]

For someone that is a stickler for the particular, you sure did veer this discussion off course.

That's your well-established reading difficulty talking. All of my posts have been perfectly relevant to whichever post I replied to, which means the people who authored the posts I replied to "sure did veer this discussion off course", you being one of them with your irrelevant nonsense about tenths of an inch and machining tolerances. Ws23rt, with his typical out-of-left-field ramblings, veered this thread toward the current talk about socializing.

[TUFCAT]

That's your well-established reading difficulty talking. All of my posts have been perfectly relevant to whichever post I replied to, which means the people who authored the posts I replied to "sure did veer this discussion off course", you being one of them with your irrelevant nonsense about tenths of an inch and machining tolerances. Ws23rt, with his typical out-of-left-field ramblings, veered this thread toward the current talk about socializing.

[JB400]

For someone that is a stickler for the particular, you sure did veer this discussion off course.

That's your well-established reading difficulty talking. All of my posts have been perfectly relevant to whichever post I replied to, which means the people who authored the posts I replied to "sure did veer this discussion off course", you being one of them with your irrelevant nonsense about tenths of an inch and machining tolerances. Ws23rt, with his typical out-of-left-field ramblings, veered this thread toward the current talk about socializing.

Feel free to reread this thread from the beginning.  WS23RT's post at the start was based on a comment of how you randomly round up or down on measurements, something the factories wouldn't do.  My mentioning of tenths of an inch was to introduce a measurement of manufacturing that wasn't being mentioned, but needed to be.  It was you that spiraled this downhill when you started putting people out in Left Field.  Just because you consider something irrelevant, doesn't mean others share your opinion.

[MaximRecoil]

Feel free to reread this thread from the beginning.

I don't need to. Reading isn't a problem for me, and you've already established that it is for you.

WS23RT's post at the start was based on a comment of how you randomly round up or down on measurements, something the factories wouldn't do.

1. That's not the post I was talking about.

2. I wasn't "randomly rounding up or down on measurements"; I was pointing out that 70.5mm doesn't convert to any commonly used fractional inch measurement, not even with rounding:

Or the metric dimensions are just "rounded off" to the closest even number.

No. 70.5mm is somewhere between 2-3/4" (69.85mm, which would be rounded to either 69.9mm or 70mm) and 2-13/16" (71.4375mm, which would be rounded to 71.44mm, or 71.4mm, or 71.5mm if rounding to the nearest half-mm).

3. His comments about rounding were out of deep left field, as usual, proving that he, like you, didn't even understand what the discussion was about.

My mentioning of tenths of an inch was to introduce a measurement of manufacturing that wasn't being mentioned, but needed to be.

No, it didn't need to be, because for a car manufacturer to call for a part to be manufactured to tenth-inch (or multiples thereof) dimensions in the 1960s would be just as bizarre as them using the metric system; in fact it would tend to indicate that they did use the metric system, because tenths/hundredths/thousandths/etc. of an inch measurements are normally the result of converting from the metric system, which nearly always translates to a non-standard inch measurement, so it is left decimalized.

It was you that spiraled this downhill when you started putting people out in Left Field.

That's hilarious. I can't "put" anyone out in left field; when someone posts something irrelevant, they are coming from out in left field by definition.

Just because you consider something irrelevant, doesn't mean others share your opinion.

Irrelevance isn't determined by opinion. Something is either factually irrelevant or relevant; it is determined by definition. Someone who can't read properly obviously can't correctly determine relevance/irrelevance, of course.

Make that a plug nickel.

[ws23rt]

Good grief maxim.  Tenths/hundredths/thousands/etc. of an inch measurement are not "normally" the result of  converting from the metric system. These are two separate systems and from the beginning they were both working independently. Conversions happened as needed.  

The reason we use base ten with the inch system is because of the cumbersome issues using fractions to measure dimensions to the precise degree needed in nearly all manufacturing. As you pointed out in an earlier post it would be absurd to use something like --for example--197/256". It hasn't been done that way from the beginning of the industrial age.

You are a relative newbe to this world and apparently new to the world of machining and manufacturing.  To make an assumption or state as fact that using base ten for measuring is or was normally a result of converting from one unit of measure to another just shows that you need to go back to google and study some more.

I'm used to you doing your homework better than this.---The up side is you are learning lots of new stuff with the time you must spend researching.

You can perhaps state that using base ten for measurements is metric but that is not the case.

An inch is an inch and a meter is a meter.

[ws23rt]

Feel free to reread this thread from the beginning.

I don't need to. Reading isn't a problem for me, and you've already established that it is for you.

WS23RT's post at the start was based on a comment of how you randomly round up or down on measurements, something the factories wouldn't do.

1. That's not the post I was talking about.

2. I wasn't "randomly rounding up or down on measurements"; I was pointing out that 70.5mm doesn't convert to any commonly used fractional inch measurement, not even with rounding:

Or the metric dimensions are just "rounded off" to the closest even number.

No. 70.5mm is somewhere between 2-3/4" (69.85mm, which would be rounded to either 69.9mm or 70mm) and 2-13/16" (71.4375mm, which would be rounded to 71.44mm, or 71.4mm, or 71.5mm if rounding to the nearest half-mm).

3. His comments about rounding were out of deep left field, as usual, proving that he, like you, didn't even understand what the discussion was about.

My mentioning of tenths of an inch was to introduce a measurement of manufacturing that wasn't being mentioned, but needed to be.

No, it didn't need to be, because for a car manufacturer to call for a part to be manufactured to tenth-inch (or multiples thereof) dimensions in the 1960s would be just as bizarre as them using the metric system; in fact it would tend to indicate that they did use the metric system, because tenths/hundredths/thousandths/etc. of an inch measurements are normally the result of converting from the metric system, which nearly always translates to a non-standard inch measurement, so it is left decimalized.

It was you that spiraled this downhill when you started putting people out in Left Field.

That's hilarious. I can't "put" anyone out in left field; when someone posts something irrelevant, they are coming from out in left field by definition.

Just because you consider something irrelevant, doesn't mean others share your opinion.

Irrelevance isn't determined by opinion. Something is either factually irrelevant or relevant; it is determined by definition. Someone who can't read properly obviously can't correctly determine relevance/irrelevance, of course.

Make that a plug nickel.

Oops----forgot to catch this as a quote just in case

[MaximRecoil]

Good grief maxim.  Tenths/hundredths/thousands/etc. of an inch measurement are not "normally" the result of  converting from the metric system.

Yes, they are. Look at a ruler; it is in 16ths of an inch. The imperial system is not base-10. Decimalizing an inch measurement is either used for calculation purposes (because most calculators don't accept direct input of the fraction format, and this is done even when it is a standard measurement, such as 1/4" [.25"]), or when converting from another system (usually the metric system) and it doesn't convert to any standard 1/16"-increment measurement, such as 6mm to 0.23622". 

The reason we use base ten with the inch system is because of the cumbersome issues using fractions to measure dimensions to the precise degree needed in nearly all manufacturing. As you pointed out in an earlier post it would be absurd to use something like --for example--197/256". It hasn't been done that way from the beginning of the industrial age.

Again with the irrelevance. A standard wheel is 14", or 15", or 16", and so on. Now what if the wheel were 14.1732"? Now it would be obvious to most people that the wheel was specified to be 36cm, rather than arbitrarily specified as 14.1732" which just so happened to convert to a nice, round 36cm. And that is the whole point here; something on a car which measures 70.5mm was specified that way, obviously. The idea that it was specified as 2.775591" which just happened to convert to a nice, round 70.5mm is absurd. For God-only-knows what reason, this causes you tremendous confusion.

You are a relative newbe to this world and apparently new to the world of machining and manufacturing.  To make an assumption or state as fact that using base ten for measuring is or was normally a result of converting from one unit of measure to another just shows that you need to go back to google and study some more.

Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo, as is your non sequitur in general (see above).

I'm used to you doing your homework better than this.

Another non sequitur; dismissed.

---The up side is you are learning lots of new stuff with the time you must spend researching.

I haven't, nor do I need to, research anything for this thread (aside from finding other sources to confirm the 70.5mm center bore measurement on certain '60s Ford wheels).

Remember your claim that most wheels are lug-centric? Remember your irrelevant rambling about aftermarket wheels? Remember when you wondered what size the center bore measurement is on an OEM Ford wheel, in a thread discussing the 70.5mm center bore of an OEM Ford wheel? To refresh your memory read reply #23, it is a shining example of your perpetual state of confusion and permanent residence in the deepest, darkest corner of left field. And even after it is absolutely proven to you that you haven't a clue, you retain the attitude that you're going to teach me something here, which is hilariously ironic.

An inch is an inch and a meter is a meter.

No kidding?

[ws23rt]

Wow talk about rambling on

I responded to a specific point in one of your posts and you rehashed nearly the entire thread.

So I went and looked at a ruler and you are indeed right it did have increments in 16ths of an inch. The one I found even had little biddy ones. I had to get reading glasses so I could count them to find out what they were and I think they represent 64ths of an inch. 

In all the years I've been using things like vernier calipers/ micrometers, dial calipers, dial indicators, optical micrometers, etc. I have yet to use one that uses fractions.  The graduations are decimalized as you call it which is to convert to base ten.  

Maybe this was adopted just incase there was a need to convert from metric.  A direct conversion from metric to imperial would be to fractions of inch and that conversion than can be decimalized.

A hole size  (for instance 2 13/16") is an approximation. The true size of the hole is identified by a tolerance +/- that surrounds that approximation and fractions of an inch are not the way that is done.

[TUFCAT]

See Maxim, insulting people isn't just fun-n-games... You can actually learn something once you've been "schooled". 

[ws23rt]

See Maxim, insulting people isn't just fun-n-games... You can actually learn something once you've been "schooled". 

Now that you bring up the insults it seems that the vast bulk of his text is to throw barbs
So much so as to make it clear that is his primary intent.

[MaximRecoil]

Wow talk about rambling on

I responded to a specific point in one of your posts and you rehashed nearly the entire thread.

More reading comprehension problems from you. I replied to each of your "points"; the only "rehashing" I did was with regard to a single post. Here it is again, because it's funny:

Remember your claim that most wheels are lug-centric? Remember your irrelevant rambling about aftermarket wheels? Remember when you wondered what size the center bore measurement is on an OEM Ford wheel, in a thread discussing the 70.5mm center bore of an OEM Ford wheel? To refresh your memory read reply #23, it is a shining example of your perpetual state of confusion and permanent residence in the deepest, darkest corner of left field. And even after it is absolutely proven to you that you haven't a clue, you retain the attitude that you're going to teach me something here, which is hilariously ironic.

Still no comment?

So I went and looked at a ruler and you are indeed right it did have increments in 16ths of an inch. The one I found even had little biddy ones. I had to get reading glasses so I could count them to find out what they were and I think they represent 64ths of an inch.  

In all the years I've been using things like vernier calipers/ micrometers, dial calipers, dial indicators, optical micrometers, etc. I have yet to use one that uses fractions.  The graduations are decimalized as you call it which is to convert to base ten.

I said previously:

And in the manufacturing process, extremely tiny increments, whether in multiples of 16 or base-10, are usually only used for tolerances, not for the intended nominal dimensions of a part. For example, a part might have an intended nominal diameter of 3/4" or some other standard fraction of an inch, but with a lathe tolerance of .001". Something like .776" as an intended nominal diameter of a part would be very unlikely for a company using U.S. customary units.

Note the bold text; it is in base-10. The context of this discussion continues to elude you. There is a difference between dimensions an American car parts designer in the 1960s would specify (which is nearly always a nice round dimension, i.e., a dimension which is marked on a standard 1/16" ruler), and machining tolerances (and the instruments used to measure such tiny things).

As for the following text (which again has caused you an untold amount of confusion) ...

No, it didn't need to be, because for a car manufacturer to call for a part to be manufactured to tenth-inch (or multiples thereof) dimensions in the 1960s would be just as bizarre as them using the metric system; in fact it would tend to indicate that they did use the metric system, because tenths/hundredths/thousandths/etc. of an inch measurements are normally the result of converting from the metric system, which nearly always translates to a non-standard inch measurement, so it is left decimalized.

... you once again failed to understand the context, which is measuring an already manufactured part and coming up with an oddball inch measurement that you leave decimalized because it doesn't equal any 1/16" fraction. As I said, this would tend to indicate that they did use the metric system when specifying the desired dimension for that part.

Maybe this was adopted just incase there was a need to convert from metric.  A direct conversion from metric to imperial would be to fractions of inch and that conversion than can be decimalized.

Fractions and decimals are the same thing, it is just a different way of writing them. However, there are certain fractions in the imperial system which are very commonly used (1/16" increment fractions), so when measuring a manufactured part, and it doesn't come out to a commonly used fraction, the dimension probably wasn't originally specified in the imperial system.

A hole size  (for instance 2 13/16") is an approximation.

It is a nominal dimension, and the only relevant thing to know is that it almost certainly was specified by the designer to have a nominal dimension of 2-13/16" if it measures 2-13/16" with a tape measure.

The true size of the hole is identified by a tolerance +/- that surrounds that approximation and fractions of an inch are not the way that is done.

See above; look for some bold text.

See Maxim, insulting people isn't just fun-n-games... You can actually learn something once you've been "schooled".  

You're not remotely qualified to determine who has or hasn't been "schooled", not even in a primary school playground argument.

Now that you bring up the insults it seems that the vast bulk of his text is to throw barbs
So much so as to make it clear that is his primary intent.

So says the admitted internet "troll", which of course is ironic.

[MaximRecoil]

And to simplify this, here is a question for Ws23rt, and/or JB400, and/or TUFCAT:

You have a set of OEM Ford wheels with center bores that measure 70.5mm in diameter. Type out the dimension for the center bore that you believe Ford intended.

[JB400]

I'll play

2.776 inches.  Assuming that they made the centering hole on the hub 2.750 inches (you can use 2 3/4 if you want  ), that'll allow for a 2 hundredths of an inch clearance, allowing for a snug fit on the hub, but still allow for easy removal of the wheel.  The wheel has to fit on the centering hub tight, or it could allow the wheel to wobble, oblong the bolt holes, and cause the wheel to separate from the vehicle.  (In other words,  it makes it hub centric.  The wheel sits on the hub, not the studs)

I have to assume because I currently do not have a vintage Ford hub to measure.

[TUFCAT]

Type out the dimension for the center bore that you believe Ford intended.

Maxim, isn't that one of them non sequitur's you've been complaining about?  

[ws23rt]

So if I had a bore that measured 70.5mm and I assumed that the hole maker was satisfied with the finished hole than I would further presume that the intended hole was to be about 2 397/512" (speaking in inches)

Of course one may need to know how may miles that is--1/22628th mi.---(about)

[MaximRecoil]

Type out the dimension for the center bore that you believe Ford intended.

Maxim, isn't that one of them non sequitur's you've been complaining about?  

Not even remotely. Exactly the opposite in fact.

I'll play

2.776 inches.  Assuming that they made the centering hole on the hub 2.750 inches (you can use 2 3/4 if you want  ), that'll allow for a 2 hundredths of an inch clearance, allowing for a snug fit on the hub, but still allow for easy removal of the wheel.  The wheel has to fit on the centering hub tight, or it could allow the wheel to wobble, oblong the bolt holes, and cause the wheel to separate from the vehicle.  (In other words,  it makes it hub centric.  The wheel sits on the hub, not the studs)

I have to assume because I currently do not have a vintage Ford hub to measure.

So if I had a bore that measured 70.5mm and I assumed that the hole maker was satisfied with the finished hole than I would further presume that the intended hole was to be about 2 397/512" (speaking in inches)

Of course one may need to know how may miles that is--1/22628th mi.---(about)

When a measurement is a nice round number in one system, and oddball numbers in other systems, the likelihood is that the measurement was originally specified in the system with the nice round number, because people like to build things according to nice round dimensions, and even when they decide to use an oddball dimension, it doesn't usually convert to a round measurement in another system, except by sheer coincidence.

With that said, JB400's latest post alludes to a valid point, i.e., when using the imperial system and you have two parts that have to fit together snugly (such as a cylinder through a hole), they can't both have round dimensions, because the hole has to be slightly larger than the cylinder, and in this size range, 1/16" is too large of an increment for a snug fit between the two (e.g., a 2-13/16" hole is too large to snugly fit onto a 2-3/4" cylinder). If his assumption of a 2-3/4" diameter Ford hub is correct, then the rest of his post is plenty plausible. If correct, it would mean that Ford chose a round dimension for the hub diameter, and then made the center bore of the wheel in a necessarily oddball size to fit it (which was coincidentally close enough to 70.5mm to call it that), while Chrysler chose a round dimension for the center bore of the wheel and then made the hub fit it.

[ws23rt]

This thread started with a simple question and was answered long ago with a simple answer. From then on it's been about fords use of a metric dimension in the sixties. --Awesome---

As to why a manufacturer would chose to make a wheel hub centric to begin with was not so much to carry the load or to have a proprietary fit but to center the wheel for clamping.  In mass production holding precise bolt circles cost more than holding one dimension (center hole dia.).

The hub center hole in the wheel cannot handle the loads seen by the wheel on the road and neither can the lugs alone in shear.

The wheel is held by the friction caused by the clamping force of "properly" torqued lugs. This is why many wheels are not hub centric (it is not required for proper function).

It is also the case that the lugs don't see the shearing force one would expect if not carried by the center hub unless they were loose. Even the normal torque loads from accelerating or braking will not put a significant shear load on the lugs if they are "properly" torqued.

[TUFCAT]

Even the normal torque loads from accelerating or braking will not put a significant shear load on the lugs if they are "properly" torqued.

Speaking of torquing bolts...

[ws23rt]

Even the normal torque loads from accelerating or braking will not put a significant shear load on the lugs if they are "properly" torqued.

Speaking of torquing bolts...

--Perfect---That is the real world from our beginnings with mechanics.

[Ghoste]

Love it. 

[TUFCAT]

Love it.  

Thank you I'll be here all week!     Look for me....     I'll be sitting with the clueless people in left field.