48 2.2 Track width measurement request

[obessedwithrc]

Can someone measure their EB48 2.2 from outer hex to outer hex? (picture below for reference). I'm trying to find out if the Tekno EB48 2.2 has the same track width as the discontinued Arrma Senton 6s BLX. I realize that I can look up track width, but I have a suspicion there is no industry-wide standard method for measuring track with, and that each person/manufacturer may vary in their method.

If the track width between the EB48 2.2 and the Senton 6s are "close enough" I'm going to start a build thread for an "TekArrma" Senton 6s. Thanks guys!

 

[Billl DeLong]

even if the track widths were the same, I seriously doubt any chassis parts will be compatible between the brands without major modification. I would encourage you to sell your Arrma as a parts lot and buy a new kit where TEKNO offers parts support for all their legacy platforms as well. Re-inventing the wheel may sound like fun at first, but without a CNC or ability to make custom plastic injected molds, you're treading down a frustrating path.

Good Luck!

 

[obessedwithrc]

Hey @Billl DeLong -

I'm actually just looking to build a stock EB48 2.2, slap on some SCT tires, SCT body posts, and then use the Arrma Senton 6s body. There will be no other Arrma parts other than the Senton 6s body.

Since the Senton 6s has been discontinued for many years, most Arrma fans will convert the Typhon BLX or TLR into a Senton 6s; however, the track width on the Typhon is wider than that of the Senton 6s. Therefore, those who have made the Typhon to Senton conversion have had to cut the body wheel arches. I don't want to do that.

Here's an example of the original Senton 6 side-by-side with a Typhon with a Senton body. You can see how far the tires stick out on either side of the body, keeping them from "tucking in" as they are meant to on a short course truck.

I am a huge Tekno fan and have many Tekno rigs. It appears the EB48 2.2 may have a slightly shorter wheelbase than the Typhon. If that's true, I may be able to use the EB48 2.2 as a better alternative to a Typhon for the conversion.

Do you have an EB48 2.2 that you can measure real quick? I really appreciate the support!

 

[obessedwithrc]

Also—side note. I was able to tweak the body posts with a heat gun to get the Senton 6s body to fit the Tekno SCT410 2.0; however, the front and rear bumpers do not stick out far enough to protect the body. If I'm able to use the EB48 2.2 platform, I know of bumpers that will stick out far enough (and are beefy enough) to protect both ends of the body.

It's hard to see from this picture, but the bumpers I have on my M2C-modded ET48 2.0 are compatible with the EB48 2.2 since the buggy and the truggy share the same differential housing bolt pattern.

A few companies make these bumper styles—Phase1RC (Germany), TP (China/ AliExpress), and Oktay (Germany). The Phase1RC and Oktay versions are comparable in quality to that of T-Bone Racing, who of course, is no longer in business.

 

[Billl DeLong]

If you don't mind the wheels sticking out wider than the body and mounting the body higher, the EB arms are going to be a pinch wide.

If you're wanting to run an SCT body then you'll want to get the SCT410-2.0 which has shorter arms to get proper fit with true SCT wheels. DE Racing makes SCT wheels with 17mm hex, but they'll still be too wide on the EB48 arms.

I believe the SCT410-2.0 will have the same hole spacing for diff cases as the EB48.

Just don't get the SCT410-SL as that's based on the smaller ET410 chassis.

 

[RustyUs]

Hey @Billl DeLong -

I'm actually just looking to build a stock EB48 2.2, slap on some SCT tires, SCT body posts, and then use the Arrma Senton 6s body. There will be no other Arrma parts other than the Senton 6s body.

Since the Senton 6s has been discontinued for many years, most Arrma fans will convert the Typhon BLX or TLR into a Senton 6s; however, the track width on the Typhon is wider than that of the Senton 6s. Therefore, those who have made the Typhon to Senton conversion have had to cut the body wheel arches. I don't want to do that.

Here's an example of the original Senton 6 side-by-side with a Typhon with a Senton body. You can see how far the tires stick out on either side of the body, keeping them from "tucking in" as they are meant to on a short course truck.

I am a huge Tekno fan and have many Tekno rigs. It appears the EB48 2.2 may have a slightly shorter wheelbase than the Typhon. If that's true, I may be able to use the EB48 2.2 as a better alternative to a Typhon for the conversion.

Do you have an EB48 2.2 that you can measure real quick? I really appreciate the support!

I'm guessing they did not want to go the full transformation and skimped on proper arms and axles for whatever reasons. That is one of the main differences of a 1/8th scale buggy and a 1/8th scale buggy based SCT. Just slapping a SCT body on a eBuggy chassis does not have that genie effect... "POOF"... it's a SCT now. Nope (if you want to play by the rules).

After the arms and axles, you'll maybe want to look at the shock towers and shock length differences.

 

[obessedwithrc]

I'm guessing they did not want to go the full transformation and skimped on proper arms and axles for whatever reasons. That is one of the main differences of a 1/8th scale buggy and a 1/8th scale buggy based SCT. Just slapping a SCT body on a eBuggy chassis does not have that genie effect... "POOF"... it's a SCT now. Nope (if you want to play by the rules).

After the arms and axles, you'll maybe want to look at the shock towers and shock length differences.

Hey Rusty. I will be not be using the stock EB48 2.2 shocks. I will be building custom length shocks to get as close to a standard SCT as possible, however, one of the reasons I'm looking at using the buggy platform (if the track width doesn't end up being too wide for the Senton 6s body), is that I bash my trucks on terrain that's a little too much for the average 1/10 SCT.

My goal is to build a truck that has a slightly wider track, additional ground clearance, and more suspension travel so that it's more stable over rough terrain. I like to drive at high speeds as well. The custom rig I'm going for will be used as a basher only. Not a racer.

My goal is to build something unique and to have fun doing it. I like technical challenges. I care for an autistic 7 year old (my son) and this hobby is a way to relieve the stress of managing his care.

So, nothing has to be done "the right way" if that makes sense.

I do have the 1/8 Arrma Mojave, two 1/7 Arrma Mojave's, three 1/7 trophy trucks that do well on the terrain where I bash.

I just really love the look of the Senton 6s body and I'm a huge Tekno fan so I thought I'd try something different.

I have already build completely and fully upgraded the ET48 2.0, MT410, MT410 2.0, SCT410 2.0, SCT410SL, and the ET410.3.

Do you have an EB48 2.2 that you can measure for me from outer hex to outer hex? I'd appreciate it.

 

[obessedwithrc]

If you don't mind the wheels sticking out wider than the body and mounting the body higher, the EB arms are going to be a pinch wide.

If you're wanting to run an SCT body then you'll want to get the SCT410-2.0 which has shorter arms to get proper fit with true SCT wheels. DE Racing makes SCT wheels with 17mm hex, but they'll still be too wide on the EB48 arms.

I believe the SCT410-2.0 will have the same hole spacing for diff cases as the EB48.

Just don't get the SCT410-SL as that's based on the smaller ET410 chassis.

I built an SCT410 2.0, but the reason I'm thinking of converting the EB48 2.2 into an SCT is for a couple of reasons.

(1) Slighter wider track width (without adding hex extenders/ adding wheel scrub)

I like to run 4s (sometimes 5s) on large, open terrain at high speeds and would like to have more stability at those higher speeds.

I actually run 5s on my ET48 2.0 and MT410. 4s seems underpowered for really wide open spaces (and loose sand). 6s makes the trucks ballistic and unmanageable. 5s seems to be the sweet spot.

(2) Better shocks

IMHO, the shocks that come on the SCT410 2.0 are a big let down. I've found them to be no where near as durable as the 17mm shocks that come on the 1/8 scale trucks.

Also, I am going to be trying out the Sota RC tunable position sensitive damping shocks. Sota RC is based out of Australia and I believe they have started an RC shock technology evolution that will be mainstream in the hobby a few years from now.

Check them out: https://sotarcproducts.com/

(3) Additional ground clearance/ suspension travel

Again, for my driving style (full pin on 4s on "Baja 1000 trail" style terrain, the extra ground clearance and suspension travel will provide a bit more stability (especially if I can dial in the shocks).

(4) 17mm hexes

I realize that M2C makes 17mm hex adapters for the MT/ SCT 410 2.0, but again, I don't want to add additional offset. The adapters they offer add +5mm offset which will may require the act wheel arches to be trimmed. I don't want to chance the aesthetics of the Senton 6s body, not do I want the body to look like it belongs on a monster slash with 3.8 Badlands.

I realize that Tekno does offer 17mm hex-compatible CVDs (and I have them, but there are more issues than just the hexes with regard to the build I'm going for).

(5) Adjustable motor mount

I'm not a fan of the fixed motor mount on the SCT410 2.0. I know some complain they can't seem to get the mesh right (mostly because they are not using a Tekno pinion) but also, the motor mounts were mislabeled, too.

On top of that, the entire motor mount needs to come out for a simple pinion change. Not my style.

I realize that M2C makes a bitchin' infinitely adjustable motor mount (I have one installed on my MT410 2.0) but it adds a whole lot of weight. The motor mount is really meant for folks that like taking their trucks to skate parks. It's super beefcake.

(6) Greater aftermarket parts availability

There's definitely a lot more aftermarket parts support for the EB/ET48 platforms than there is for the MT/SCT 410 2.0, since the latter platforms are newer to market and likely do not sell as well as the 1/8 scale racing platforms.

Those are just a couple of reasons I can think of as to why I'd like to take the conversion path over the easy way.