Evening the wheel track width on a K5 (Installed! Before and after Pics.)

[mrluhman]

So the front wheelbase is approx 66" and the back is 63". Is there a reason for this design? I have read others on here putting in spacers to make the back end look right but why didn't the factory just design it that way? Are there drawbacks to spacers? Where do you get them?

 

[thfonz98]

Why:http://coloradok5.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2290142&postcount=4

"Fix": http://coloradok5.com/wheelspacers.shtml

Doing it will add wear due to added leverage from the tires/wheels.

 

[mrluhman]

Much appreciated info! I just am looking for a more asthetic look. It makes a lot of sense as to why they have them staggered like that. My truck really doesn't see rain or snow let alone mud. Is this a common upgrade? As to "leveling" the front and rear as well are those blocks? I can see that the rear wheel well is lower in proportion to the front (when compared to the mid body line crease).

Edit. It's harder on the axle as I should have read further on the spacer description. I have a 10 bolt rather than a Dana which is recomended. Is this still a safe bet? The description says the jury is still out.

 

[CherryK5]

Its no worse than a wheel with more offset. Go for it. Although new wheels would be cheaper

 

[mrluhman]

Its no worse than a wheel with more offset. Go for it. Although new wheels would be cheaper

I have factory 15" aluminum rims with 32" BFGs. I have no plans to change the rim or go bigger on the tire so I probably makes sense to go with the spacers.

 

[FrostBite]

Wheelbase is front axle to back axle, not wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface.

The rear axle is narrower to help with the turning radius. As for wheel spacers, I have been running 2" wheel spacers on the back of my Silverado for probably 30,000 miles since I swapped in a 3/4 axle from a 2WD (I was unable to locate a 4WD axle).

 

[496truck]

Its no worse than a wheel with more offset. Go for it. Although new wheels would be cheaper

But then you would have 2 wheels with one offset and 2 wheels with a different offset. With this you couldn't do a standard tire rotation. Not a good solution.

Wheelbase is front axle to back axle, not wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface.

The rear axle is narrower to help with the turning radius. As for wheel spacers, I have been running 2" wheel spacers on the back of my Silverado for probably 30,000 miles since I swapped in a 3/4 axle from a 2WD (I was unable to locate a 4WD axle).

Wheel track width would be the proper term.

I think the turning radius thing is a farce, but that's just my opinion as I have not measured turning radius myself. Nor will I ever. But it would be interesting info to find out.

Get a pair of 1.5" wheel spacers (hub centric if you can) and put them on the rear. You'll be good to go.

The tops of the wheel openings are not a place to measure ride height, nor are body lines. Body lines change height from front to back as well as the height of the wheel openings. The fronts are taller to allow the tire to be turned while also being compressed, as it would be in an off roading situation. The rear wheels just move up/down inside the wheel opening so they need less clearance and were designed a bit lower, most likely for less wind resistance. Which seems like a moot point on a vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick. But anyways, if you think the rear is sagging, there are points on the frame to measure from and specs to compare them to. Most body/frame shops would have this info and maybe an alignment shop.

 

[mrluhman]

Thank you both for the correction on the terminology. I will probably address the rear ride height later.

I ordered the aluminum spacers from Performance as recommended above. It looks like they are about 10 days out. When I get them installed I will post a before and after picture. I am doing a stock restore so it won't be that exciting but I have always thought the rear width looked off and this should fix that.

 

[driney]

I think the turning radius thing is a farce, but that's just my opinion as I have not measured turning radius myself. Nor will I ever. But it would be interesting info to find out.

I've kind of thought the same thing. I haven't done anything more scientific than sketching a few things out. If there is a difference, I sure didn't notice it when I put my 14 bolt SF axle in.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

GM and Ford have always believed in it. Don't think anyone else has. I know Dodge, Suzuki, and Jeep haven't.

 

[Blazinaire]

GM and Ford have always believed in it. Don't think anyone else has. I know Dodge, Suzuki, and Jeep haven't.

The rear axle on my 03 Dodge ram 2500 is actually wider than the front.

 

[mrluhman]

GM and Ford have always believed in it. Don't think anyone else has. I know Dodge, Suzuki, and Jeep haven't.

Is your Tracker the same way Andrew?

 

[ryoken]

not a fan... I'll take a couple extra foot turning, as opposed to it looking goofy from behind.... like it's been hit..... like a crabwalking old pontirat Ventura from the 70's.... always looked silly when behind one of those...

that being said, I'm doing nothing to correct mine at this point....

 

[AJMBLAZER]

Is your Tracker the same way Andrew?

Nope. Track widths are the same on all Suzuki's.

 

[mrluhman]

I finally got my spacers! Its not a very exciting modification but it does seem to reduce the body roll somewhat so that's a bonus. It also corrects that "wonky" look I have grown to hate when looking at it from an angle.

My business partner has a 92 Blazer sport and when I saw them parked side by side I thought my squarebody looked weaker in the rear due to the narrow wheelbase. We shall see if the axle has any issues but for the visually pleasing and more balanced look I am happy to take my chances.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

His truck's rear axle is narrower than his front btw. GM still does that to this day.

Looks good though. I have considered it but just not on the list right now.