PDA

View Full Version : List your stock Backspacing here....


Red97XJ
April 16th, 2004, 04:22
Hey everyone, I ordered my 3.5 Rubicon Lift. I have a 97 XJ. Now I am on the tire hunt, along with MAYBE some wheels. ($) I have the alloy Jeep 5-stars, I am told they are 5.25 Backspace and that really so they don't rub the outer fender I will need 1.25 spacer, well, I assume that I will do all 4 wheels with the spacers, and that will be around $180! (anybody run just front spacers? how's it look?) Seems like once I spend that much cash I can get some new wheels, but all the ones that I LOVE are the Mickey Classic II style, like the Eagle alloy 589's etc. (polished, big holes going around)

I got to thinking, what about OTHER stock 4.5 bolt pattern rims, what backspacing do they have? I have seen TJ's with aluminum with the big 4 holer, ZJ's with different stuff etc, etc. What about other 4x4 (not jeep)

Does anyone know what these other wheels have for backspacing?

Does anyone know of a rim that looks anything like the 589's that can get a backspacing of around 4 to 4.5?

Thanks Guys, you rock

Jason

SyCo
April 16th, 2004, 04:35
Only wheels I can think of that are 4.5" BS and look like the 589s are the Mickey Thompson Classic I's, but good luck finding a set since they're not in production anymore.

If you're planning to run 31" tires you will be fine with stock wheels, it will rub the inner fenders at full compression and the LCAs at full steering lock, but I always thought that both were bareable.

It seems that running 4.5" BS with 31s and a 3" lift will cause the tires to stuff into the fender flares rather than the wells, so you would have to trim your flares a bit.

Other OEM wheels in the 4.5x5 flavor include Ford Exploders/Rangers, Chevy Blazers/S10s, but most of their wheels are also around 5" BS. All stock XJ, TJ, ZJ wheels are 15x7 with 5.25" BS, except the TJ canyons (sunk -4n 5 spokes) which are 15x8 with 5.25" BS.

Hope this helps, good luck.

MaXJohnson
April 16th, 2004, 06:16
All stock XJ, TJ, ZJ wheels are 15x7 with 5.25" BS, except the TJ canyons (sunk -4n 5 spokes) which are 15x8 with 5.25" BS.

My '90 XJ came with stock 15X6 factory steel wheels. I believe these were 5.25" BS as well.

Vug
April 16th, 2004, 06:39
Ford Rangeer/B2's of the late '80's/early '90's had 5 on 4.5 wheels with 4" of backspacing. There's your inch and a quarter.

poppabear
April 16th, 2004, 06:51
got to a 16" wheel ... most have 4-5" bs...

Eagle
April 16th, 2004, 11:17
Hey everyone, I ordered my 3.5 Rubicon Lift. I have a 97 XJ. Now I am on the tire hunt, along with MAYBE some wheels. ($) I have the alloy Jeep 5-stars, I am told they are 5.25 Backspace and that really so they don't rub the outer fender I will need 1.25 spacer, well, I assume that I will do all 4 wheels with the spacers, and that will be around $180!

Somebody's steering you wrong. I notice you didn't mention what size tires you plan to run, and that makes a difference. Ed Stevens has proven that 31x10.50s on stock Jeep rims will tuck up inside the stock fenders and flares both front and rear. When I say stock Jeep, I'm referring to any Jeep 15x7 rim ... they are all 5.25" back spacing. I'm not sure what the back spacing is on the TJ 15x8 Canyon rims.

If your concern is hitting the outer fender, the LAST thing you need is 1.25" spacers. That would guarantee that you'll drive the shoulder of the tire into the lip of the flare every time the suspension compresses.

Jared
April 16th, 2004, 12:04
Eagle is right.

Also, S-10 Chevys have a 5 on 4.75" bolt pattern, not 5 on 4.5".

Rangers and Explorers have less backspacing than Jeep wheels. I currently run some 5 spoke 15x7" Explorer wheels for my street tires. They seem to have about 4" of backspacing, but I haven't measured them. Stick to the stockers, they work great and make clearing the flares much easier. Plus those 5 spoke Jeep wheels are just a classic.

Jared:patriot:

Vug
April 16th, 2004, 12:29
I can verify the TJ Canyons being 15x8 with 5.25" backspacing and also that the S series Chevys had 5 on 4.75".

Red97XJ
April 17th, 2004, 21:27
OK, sounds like I am going to go with the stockers for now.... I think... Maybe....

Latter I may go to a 32" with a BB and a little trimming, anybody run a stock 7" rim with those? I am getting Goodyear MTR's.

Thanks,
Jason

P.S. By slim chance, anyone out there have or know of someone with a red XJ that has about 3.5 lift with 5-star stock wheel pics? Please post or/and E-mail me is so.... jkcobra@bnin.net

TekkaMaki
April 18th, 2004, 00:36
...Seems like once I spend that much cash I can get some new wheels, but all the ones that I LOVE are the Mickey Classic II style, like the Eagle alloy 589's etc. (polished, big holes going around)...

Centerline Eclipse (http://www.centerlinewheels.com/wheel_deals_detail.php?id=3&type=bolt&data=5-4.5) but like Eagle said with 4" backspacing you will be getting on your fenders. FWIW I have those same wheels but 15 x 7 with 4.5"bs and they fit perfect (same lift)

:sunshine:

hpi_jeep
April 18th, 2004, 06:47
we had a ford ranger with the offroad package, anyways the wheels looked like rubicon wheels sort of. i always thought they would look nice on a clean jeep.

hpi_jeep
April 18th, 2004, 06:49
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43956&item=2473277804&rd=1

there is a set of what i was talking about. i always thought they looked a little closer the rubi wheels but in that picture they dont resemble them as much as i thought

jkkj
April 18th, 2004, 17:40
I'm running ranger "deer hoof" rims with 31 MTs and it will sit on the bumpstops with only minor rubbing. my lift came with longer LCAs and the tires rub the lower front plastic while on the bumpstop. It is going away in the next week or so because of the homemade winch bumper.

I also have a set of 15X8 wheels with 3.75 bs and they work well as well. They rub, but none of the plastic has ever gotten torn off.

As for putting big tires on the 7inch wide rims I don't think you will have any problems with the mounting/tire wear. The reason I say that is because a lot of the SuperDuty Ford guys run the metric equal to a 33-12.50-16 on 7 inch factory rims. I have a cousin on his second set and they wear fine.

PapaPump
October 30th, 2004, 19:33
This is and old thread, but it had some of what I was looking for and missing something too. i dont understand why the 15x8 jeep canyon wheels have the same bs as the 15x7s, that would make them no longer hubcentric. i would expect that they would have MORE backspacing.

another thing i noticed was about the topic of Ranger and Exploder wheels. the explorer rear is considered a great swap for us, except that it is .75" inches narrower than stock. if you were to order up some steelies in stock BS for the front and Exploder BS in the rear, you would have the rear being 1.75" wider overall at the edge of the tires. with 4.5" backspacing, you would have the front being .75" wider per side and the rear being .875" narrower per side, for a total of 1.625" (1 5/8") per side difference. damn, no wonder people need spacers.

PapaPump
November 9th, 2004, 10:15
Does anybody have pics of a Cherokee on OEM Ford wheels? These can be had cheap and would set the stance a little wider, so I am curious how the new stance would look. There are a few good looking designs on the Ranger and the Explorer to choose from. Maybe I get some Cobra Rs for the bling! Hahahah

Eagle
November 9th, 2004, 10:25
I have the alloy Jeep 5-stars, I am told they are 5.25 Backspace and that really so they don't rub the outer fender I will need 1.25 spacer,
I think you misunderstood something.

First, all Jeep 15x7 rims have 5-1/4" backspacing. That basically includes all XJ, YJ, TJ and ZJ rims with the exception of the 15x6 steel rims that were the base wheel on early XJs and on YJs, and with the exception of the 15x8 rims used on TJs with the 30" tire option. It also includes the 16x7 rims used on the XJ Classic and Limited, and on some Liberties.

Adding 1.25" spacers with stock rims is NOT the way to ensure that your tires won't hit the outer fenders. In fact, it's a good way to ensure that they WILL hit the outer fenders. Ed Stevens has done considerable reasearch and found that the stock wheels tuck inside the stock wheelwells when the suspension is compressed. Push the tires out an inch and a quarter and they won't fit up inside, they'll hit, Spacers help when running Ford Explorer rims, and spacers help when running tires large enough that they rub the shock turrets, but in exchange for the inner clearance you have to trim the outer fenders to allow the tires to move up when the suspension compresses.

Eagle
November 9th, 2004, 10:32
This is and old thread, but it had some of what I was looking for and missing something too. i dont understand why the 15x8 jeep canyon wheels have the same bs as the 15x7s, that would make them no longer hubcentric. i would expect that they would have MORE backspacing.
"Hubcentric" has nothing to do with backspacing. Hubcentric means that the rim is located and centered on the axle by the center hole of the rim being a snug fit on the raised portion of the hub center, rather than being located entirely by the lug nuts.

What you're thinking of has to do with offset, whether the center plane of the tire and wheel is located within the bearing, or is inboard or outboard thereof. Someone, I think MaXJohnson, a long time ago produced a drawing showing that with stock wheels and tires the center plane of the XJ wheels does not fall anywhere near the bearing centerline. I think it is inboard, but I don¿t remember. If so, less backspacing (or spacers) would tend to improve the condition ... until you go far enough to put the center plane outboard of the bearings.

XJ_ranger
November 9th, 2004, 10:43
http://www.yuccaman.com/jeep/image/backspace.jpg


so that everyone knows what they are talking about...
taken from http://www.yuccaman.com/jeep/backspac.html

ok, here is some actual expierence. a friend with a 93 Explorer and a 99 TJ had 31x10.5's on the explorer and wanted to put the wheels on the TJ, and the exploder wheels didnt fit because the hub on the TJ axle was just a hare to big. and he was a weenie and dindt want to get the grinder and make them fit. So it may not be a direct bolt on, as the hubs MAY not fit. the difference between the two was so close...

i dont know how this stands for XJ axles, but yeah, just thought id give what i know...

PapaPump
November 9th, 2004, 15:13
Thanks for the info Eagle. I do know what hubcentric means, I don't know why i used it there. I did mean centered on the wheel bearing. I am curious about this drawing you are talking about.

Do you think having the wheel centerline inboard of the bearing would decrease bearing loads under cornering? Perhaps that is what they were thinking. With the stock setup, the intention was probably to center the wheel close to the steering center line, to decrease scrub radius. I hear that increasing this scrub radius (less backspacing), makes steering easier because your tires roll when turned.

Glad to know I can decrease BS without going too far outboard of the bearings, since the tire in stock form is inboard apparently. What I was mostly wondering was about the stock Jeep 8" wheel backspacing. The wheel is 1" wider: did they increase backspacing .5" to recenter the wheel or did they leave the BS and add the 1" to the outside side of the wheel?

About the Explorer wheels: how would spacers help? They already sit out further because they have less backspacing, that would make them sit out even farther and rub the fender lips more. Another note: I have tried to fit Ranger wheels on a Toyota PU and had the same problem with the hub being too big for the hole in the wheel. Ford must use puny wheel bearings.

Eagle
November 9th, 2004, 19:38
About the Explorer wheels: how would spacers help? They already sit out further because they have less backspacing, that would make them sit out even farther and rub the fender lips more. Another note: I have tried to fit Ranger wheels on a Toyota PU and had the same problem with the hub being too big for the hole in the wheel. Ford must use puny wheel bearings.
My bad!

I was thinking axles when I was writing about wheels. The Exploder 8.8 axle is slightly narrower than the XJ rear axle, so when doing an 8.8 conversion you either need to run wheels with less backspacing or run spacers on the rear axle.

Thanks for keeping me honest.

XJ_ranger
November 9th, 2004, 20:20
I have tried to fit Ranger wheels on a Toyota PU
funny - id sware all the toy light truck/suv was a 6 lug pattern... are their p/u different?

PapaPump
November 10th, 2004, 01:09
funny - id sware all the toy light truck/suv was a 6 lug pattern... are their p/u different?

yeah they are, mostly. this was a 2wd 4cylinder which has a 5 on 4.5 pattern and i believe a toyota 7.5 inch axle. they guy liked to autocross it and the ranger wheels sat out further and could fit 245s.

I was thinking axles when I was writing about wheels. The Exploder 8.8 axle is slightly narrower than the XJ rear axle, so when doing an 8.8 conversion you either need to run wheels with less backspacing or run spacers on the rear axle.

i getcha, and actually i knew what you were getting at, i just felt like clarifying. i was trying to stir discussion about this very same thing. if you were to run stock backspaced wheels in front, and explorer backspaced wheels in back, you would keep the track from being to narrow, and decrease bearing loads on the 8.8. the factory wheels on explorers have 4.5" backspacing, so they should sit out .75" per side wider and give a 3/8" per side wider track in the back than in front. this is not what we want of course, as it may slightly increase turning radius. i think the best solution would be to have 4.5" backspacing in the front (making the tires stick out .75" per side from stock), and 3.5 in the back (making the tires stick out 1" per side further from the stock 8.8 with explorer wheels, and only 1/8" narrower per side than the front.) i know the usual .75" difference in width with the 8.8 isn't much, but this solution i think will bring my specs closer and give me a better track width at the same time. too messy?
later,
mike

PapaPump
November 12th, 2004, 03:57
Okay, another post I read shows that the difference per side with the Exploder 8.8 is actually .75" per side (narrower). If this is true, 4.5" BS in the front would make the D30 track .75" wider per side (than stock). 3.5" BS in the rear would make the 8.8" .25" per side wider (than stock). 3" backspaced wheels in the rear and 4.5 BS in the front would make the tracks equal! Now what to do about that pinion being 1+7/16 further to the passenger side...I guess that's not very much difference. Damn, I am a nitpicker. Why the hell couldn't jeep have just put a Dana 44 with discs in Cherokees?!

sarvermr
November 12th, 2004, 11:46
3" backspaced wheels in the rear and 4.5 BS in the front would make the tracks equal!

forget to take your ADD medicine again this morning?

first:
my 8.8 is 1.5" narrower than my D30. thats .75" per side. these are my actual measurements, not something i've read. you're talking about running this backspacing in the front and that backspacing in the rear and.... keep it simple. one backspacing, one spare, the ability to rotate your tires, etc. its not really that big of a difference. you can barely tell by looking and i've certainly never noticed any ill effects.

besides, running 3" bs rear and 4.5" bs front will still make your front wider. the difference is only .75" per side. if you want them to be equal you need to make the back .75" wider. i.e. 4.5" bs front and 3.75" bs rear would be an equal trackwidth.

here are some pics:

http://img46.exs.cx/img46/1573/14506.th.jpg (http://img46.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img46&image=14506.jpg)

http://img46.exs.cx/img46/9838/14505.th.jpg (http://img46.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img46&image=14505.jpg)

second:
exploder wheels...i'm running this exploder wheel for my spare. the backspacing is 5". once again, this is my measurement, not something i've read. i have no idea about any other ford wheels, only this one.

http://img46.exs.cx/img46/7821/14503.th.jpg (http://img46.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img46&image=14503.jpg)

third:
the pinion is offset. it hasn't affected me at all. i did have to beat my muffler back over after i smashed it once to keep it off the driveshaft, but thats been the only problem.


click the images for bigger pics.


.

PapaPump
November 13th, 2004, 00:32
wow talk about over complicating it? it was 4 in the morning and i was trying hard to think about it all, so no i hadn't had my ADD medicine (cookie crisp). I hadn't even been to bed at that time. it seems there are different listing for explorer backspacing, though most of the wheels seem to look more like 5", as you said. you are here responding to me and have measured it yourself, and i have no reason to assume you are wrong. with wider wheels, i guess it really doesnt matter much anyhow like you said.