Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Front and rear back spacing

Discussion in 'The Garage' started by K5Steve, Nov 15, 2005.

  1. K5Steve

    K5Steve 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Carson city, nv.
    I am going to buy some new rims for my k5 and I'm sick of the rear tires being sucked in and the fronts sticking out.I want all 4 wheels to stick out.I will most likley buy some 15x10 Eagle 589's on 33" bfg a/t's and would like to know what back spacing some of you guys run front and back to get the look I want.Pics would be nice.
     
  2. guido666

    guido666 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    788
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Longmont, CO
    Looks are for ricers. There are very good reasons the rear is narrower, and the reasons get better offroad. It decreases your turning radius by about 2' on a K5 to have the narrower rear. It also gives the system more physical stability powering into turns since without a locker force isn't split evenly between the wheels; this give the force an inverted triangle to push against. Offroad it increases the width of the ground patch you're contacting, giving the rear wheels that couple inches of fresh untouched earth to bite into. Onroad however it doesn't take advantage of the full width of the dry contact patch that well-siped onroad tires would make on wet pavement. It was designed by very smart people (contrary to what most uniformed or improperly educated gearheads will tell you), so leave it alone. :doah:
     
  3. K5Steve

    K5Steve 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Carson city, nv.
    :eek1: I didn't know all that.It's not offroad enough to worry about that part but I do like having a better turning radius,that's for sure.
     
  4. guido666

    guido666 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    788
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Longmont, CO
    Some people really insist on "the look" though. I personally never do anything to my rig just for looks that will decrease performance.

    If you had to do it, just measure the width of your front axle at the mounting flanges. Do the same for the back. Subtract the difference and divide by 2. That's how far out the wheel has to come on each side of the rear. Just order new wheels with appropriate backspacing difference, or get spacers that wide.

    Why not just run wider tires in the rear? You'd lose the turning radius, but keep the extra bite and traction.
     
  5. K5Steve

    K5Steve 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Carson city, nv.
    I think I will keep it the way it is,I drive in the snow and that extra contact will help.Plus I don't want to lose my turning radius.
     
  6. guido666

    guido666 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    788
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Longmont, CO
    I would have to do some more investigation and calculations, but it may also be designed in to correct an understeer/oversteer situation inherent in the setup. The thing is, the entire suspension and drivetrain is designed very specifically to behave and act together. When we, as custom modifiers, start screwing with stuff, we rarely adjust everything else to compensate for the changes. And without that most of our modifications have negative effects, or correct one problem only to create more. It gets real bad on independent suspension systems too, where track width, camber, and a bunch of other things can change while the suspension is moving. It's quite elegant actually how well everything is figured out.
     

Share This Page