rScherzer wrote:Iv spent a few days of digging around for this very same thing. I was looking for a beadlock simulated type wheel in a 16" or a 17" AE wheels made a series 101 in our bolt pattern with a perfect offest and back spacing, after a bit of checking around I found that they had dicontinued that wheel. IMO the 6x5 bolt pattern should have never desinged into our patform. Im going with the 6x5.5 adaptors from Markmc. Its a little exta expense but the wheel configuations are endless.
rScherzer wrote:...IMO the 6x5 bolt pattern should have never desinged into our platform. .....
navigator wrote:rScherzer wrote:...IMO the 6x5 bolt pattern should have never desinged into our platform. .....
I think we all agree.
I would also venture to say that I don't see how GM saved any money by developing the 8.0 rear for our platform instead of just putting the 8.6 under it.
Take the silverado, suburban, tahoe 8.6 rear and chop a few inches off of each side. Makes too much sense to me.
TBYODA wrote:navigator wrote:rScherzer wrote:...IMO the 6x5 bolt pattern should have never desinged into our platform. .....
I think we all agree.
I would also venture to say that I don't see how GM saved any money by developing the 8.0 rear for our platform instead of just putting the 8.6 under it.
Take the silverado, suburban, tahoe 8.6 rear and chop a few inches off of each side. Makes too much sense to me.
That is the problem it makes to much sense. A quote that I always seem to have to remember in situations like this. "It does have to make sense it's just how we do it."
Trailblazin Ahead wrote:Does trailblazers have a 8.5" rear end. Its a 10 bolt right so a 8.5" rear end with 30 splines
rScherzer wrote:I like to joke about the engineering process, when it comes to designing a system or part for a vehicle. It seems to me that there are a few type of "engineers" out in the world today. Type A make a product that is cheap reliable and can be fixed by everyone in the world. Type B looks back at all the failures of a particular product and then reinvents it by changing one thing on it. Type C starts from scratch brings a whole new product to the market that will require millions of $$$ in R&D, tooling and warranty cost. Type C also baffles the lead designer in to using their product. That's where all the odd ball stuff comes from. I like to look back at the old stuff and think about how simple things were. Stuff just worked.
The Roadie wrote:Engineers (I can generalize after 42 years as one) don't usually get out of bed intending to screw up or make bad tradeoffs. Pointy haired management motivated by $$ instead of elegance are the root of all evil.
Jrgunn5150 wrote:The Roadie wrote:Engineers (I can generalize after 42 years as one) don't usually get out of bed intending to screw up or make bad tradeoffs. Pointy haired management motivated by $$ instead of elegance are the root of all evil.
They never care do they? I just left a meeting where we have decided to do something completely moronic to save... Wait for it.... .07 cents a part. And we make less than 50,000 of these a year. 3500 Bucks saved, to be eaten up in RMA costs and labor, not to mention goodwill lost to our customer, hooray, the company is saved!
The Roadie wrote:Engineers (I can generalize after 42 years as one) don't usually get out of bed intending to screw up or make bad tradeoffs. Pointy haired management motivated by $$ instead of elegance are the root of all evil.