What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Rear wheel spacers ...... size ?

T

tunerautomotive

Registered Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Posts
22
Reaction score
0
Location
bend , oregon
What is the correct size of wheel spacer for my 89 GMC Jimmy ? Id like to get the back wheels to line up with the front as I dont like the offset look.

Currently running 265/75/16 tires .

Thanx
 
3" total narrower. so 1.5" should do just fine.

you do know it will take more room to turn like that tho.

thats the reason for narrow rear. cut down turning radius.
 
sweetk30 said:
3" total narrower. so 1.5" should do just fine.

you do know it will take more room to turn like that tho.

thats the reason for narrow rear. cut down turning radius.
Click to expand...

That may be a minor side effect, but not the reason they did it. It's more for high speed dynamic handling. Do you really think they would go to all the trouble of optimizing the rear axle width to make the turning radius at idle a tiny bit smaller? This is just another one of those internet myths where somebody's speculation as to why they did the narrower rear axle has grown into a "fact" in many people's minds.

I've ran 1.5" spacers on my Blazer to match track widths and there was no "seat of the pants" difference in turning radius. Maybe with a tape measure you could tell but definitely not from just driving it.
 
6.2Blazer said:
That may be a minor side effect, but not the reason they did it. It's more for high speed dynamic handling. Do you really think they would go to all the trouble of optimizing the rear axle width to make the turning radius at idle a tiny bit smaller? This is just another one of those internet myths where somebody's speculation as to why they did the narrower rear axle has grown into a "fact" in many people's minds.

I've ran 1.5" spacers on my Blazer to match track widths and there was no "seat of the pants" difference in turning radius. Maybe with a tape measure you could tell but definitely not from just driving it.
Click to expand...

Good to know.

Id ultimatly like to go narrow tire to a 235/85/16 so as to get less rolling resistance and optimize fuel economy . The Jimmy is only driven for camping and winter driving which entales 30 minutes up to Mt Bachelor in the snow . Im not an off roader . Just want to get to the Mt and to camping spots . Found the narrow tire performs great on the packed and 1-3" of snow that is on the roads.
 
:D
chalet2506 said:
I believe that's the first I have ever heard "high speed dynamic" used in reference to a blazer.
Click to expand...
:D

Ha, good point. Should have clarified that "high speed" in the automotive testing world is what most people would consider "highway speeds". Believe it or not there is not a ton of emphasis placed on the handling of a 4 door Accord or diesel pickup at 120 mph.
 
There is one more reason too. The front wheels make a little wider track going through mud and snow then the rear wheels get to add to forward momentum by biting on the inside of that track. It gives the rear axle more purchase on the terrain. otherwise they would be stuck just riding directly in the rut made by the front. I'm sure everybodies seen how this works by holding to one side or the other when going through established mud hole ruts. Same principle different application. Most newer cars have equal or near equal track widths and they have the speed on k5s. Due to not being rear or 4 wheel drive they dont need the offset.

and yes it does look like:poo: I'm putting the spacers on my burb too.
watch the lug stud sizes though. All the 6x5.5 ones I found have 14mm studs so you will need to change rear lug nuts. They may make them with the 7/16x20 studs but I dont know who has them:dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom