Very difficult to see IMO.
The Wets were not very cohesive about what they wanted, other than they were in vague opposition to Thatcherism, principally in policy terms the monetarist experiment of her first term. That was a passing policy, so you don't have the overriding series of permanent wedge issues which are going to lead to the Wets bailing from the party that you had with Labour. The whole train of the Labour party was pushing people like the Gang of Four totally to the margins, personally and in policy terms. Some Bennites even said they should be purged from the party. Is it any wonder they defected? The Wets really believed it was their party. And, frankly, they were pretty much right. Moderate Toryism had a long history; Thatcherism did not. Ian Gilmour, and I think he was pretty much typical, was always expecting her to somehow cock-up and precipitate her own downfall, after which the party would revert to type. And she did, in fairness, even though it took fifteen years. You couldn't be that sanguine about Labour in the early eighties. It really did look like the party institutionally was heading towards a permanent shift to the left.
Frankly you can overstate the differences, and people usually do, and this arises largely because it has been in everyone's interest for it to be so. It's such an opaque situation that sometimes people become confused about who was and who was not a Wet. I have seen, for example, Howe described as a Wet, despite him being the father of said early monetarist experiment as Chancellor. With Hezza, often also called a Wet, there was not a cigarette paper of difference between him and Thatcher on privatisation and trade union reform. The real Wets were people like St. John-Stevas, Gilmour, Soames etc, and their power was never very great. The real story of the downfall of Thatcher is one of her mishandling and utterly alienating her own natural Cabinet supporters, rather than giving people who always wanted to see the back of her the means to do just that.
To mirror the Gang of Four process, I think the party would have to look like it was going Powellite, and somehow perma-Powellite a la Gordon Banks, to have people seriously contemplating splitting off. And that is very difficult to concieve of.
In terms of a 1997-2005, split, you can totally forget that, the number of proto-modernisers could be pretty much counted on two hands, and most of them weren't even elected anyway. What we got IOTL with the Pro-Euro Tories was as big a split as you were going to get in that period.