Help me make up my mind.

[Kevin B.]

Good deal, a little over 33 I can handle. Thanks for the size check!

 

[I Lean]

I think you should run some 285/75/16's that are mostly worn out so they're smaller than the new-tire size. As an added benefit, you could get the tires out of my driveway for me! :greg:

 

[Kevin B.]

If I was going to do that, I'd run the mostly worn out set of 285/75/16s sitting on my back deck that I grabbed before I knew I was getting free KM2s.

 

[I Lean]

If I was going to do that, I'd run the mostly worn out set of 285/75/16s sitting on my back deck that I grabbed before I knew I was getting free KM2s.

You aren't helping. These tires need to go away someday, somehow....

 

[sixstringsteve]

What I like about the ball joint spacers it leaves the stock amount of downward suspension travel (droop). The last IFS Toyota I cranked the torsion bars on rode like crap and it had almost no droop in the suspension. I would use the spacer or leave it stock long before I cranked the torsion bars personally.

I stand corrected. I apologize for thinking I knew more about the topic than I do. Thanks for the education. Cary on Kevin, and feel free to ignore my 2nd gen IFS comments.

 

[jentzschman]

I have 33x10.50R15 and they are good. I should get some wheel spacers as tires do rub the frame at full turn.

Hope that helps...

 

[Rot Box]

I stand corrected. I apologize for thinking I knew more about the topic than I do. Thanks for the education. Cary on Kevin, and feel free to ignore my 2nd gen IFS comments.

Crap sorry Steve I wasn't trying to make you look bad .

 

[sixstringsteve]

I know you weren't. Don't worry, I make myself look bad. I just realized I made some comments based on assumptions rather than fact/experience. I try not to do that, but I caught myself here.

 

[TurboMinivan]

I'm strongly opposed to body lifts (and wheel spacers too, but they're the lesser evil).

I think getting properly spaced wheels is the preferable solution.

Not to pick sides, but here is something else for you to consider, Kevin:

Within certain limits, body lifts are street legal in Utah. Wheel spacers, on the other hand, are not. (At least that's what Utah law was the last time I looked it up.)

FYI

 

[sixstringsteve]

wheel adapters are legal. From what I understand, wheel spacers with their own studs are considered adapters. To the best of my knowledge, the illegal wheel spacers are the ones that don't have studs. They're just like 6-hole washers. Either way, properly backspaced wheels are the right way to do it.

 

[TurboMinivan]

wheel adapters are legal. From what I understand, wheel spacers with their own studs are considered adapters.

I asked one of my techs before posting. He said that adapters are legal, including adapters that space the wheel outward. However, simple spacers are illegal. Were he to inspect a vehicle, if the adapters installed did not change the wheel bolt pattern, he would be required to fail it. Thus to stay legal you'd have to install adapters and different wheels... and if you're going to do all that, why not just buy wheels in your current bolt pattern of the required size and offset and skip the spacers all together?

Either way, properly backspaced wheels are the right way to do it.

Agreed 100%. (This is why my new 35" tires are already mounted on equally new wheels of the proper offset.)

 

[sixstringsteve]

well that's stupid. So it's legal only if it changes the bolt pattern. Even though there is zero difference in going from a 6 lug to a 5 lug vs a 6 lug to 6 lug. But I don't really care, nobody makes a 17" aluminum wheel in the backspacing I need, so my wheel "adapters" are the only solution for me.

 

[Kevin B.]

wheel adapters are legal. From what I understand, wheel spacers with their own studs are considered adapters. To the best of my knowledge, the illegal wheel spacers are the ones that don't have studs. They're just like 6-hole washers. Either way, properly backspaced wheels are the right way to do it.

This. When you look at the inspection manual, it blatantly states that spydertrax style adapters that bolt to the existing studs and provide a new set to bolt the wheel to are legal and called "adapters", while the shims are what should correctly be called "spacers" and aren't legal. But good luck finding an inspection place willing to pull their heads out of their butts and read that. I couldn't find one when I was running mine, I had to pull them off to get a place to pass me.

I'm not keen on them anyway. I don't like the additional point of failure, and I don't like the increased scrub radius and stress on the steering and suspension. If the tires I get end up needing more room, I'll probably beg Steve to show me how he tubbed his Taco.

 

[sixstringsteve]

I'd it comes to that, I'd be happy to help.

 

[SAMI]

FWIW, I never had issues passing the '06 Xterra with Spidertrax wheel adapters. Changed from 6x4.5 to 6x5.5.

 

[TurboMinivan]

When you look at the inspection manual, it blatantly states that spydertrax style adapters that bolt to the existing studs and provide a new set to bolt the wheel to are legal and called "adapters", while the shims are what should correctly be called "spacers" and aren't legal.

If anyone wants further clarification, you can read the law for yourself. From page 22:

a. REJECT when:
3) Spacers are used to increase the wheel track width.

NOTE: A wheel adapter changes the bolt pattern of a vehicle’s hub and
moves the wheel out allowing the use of custom wheels for most cars.
Wheel adapters are not spacers.

(They then show pictures of two styles of illegal spacers, one of which looks like an adapter but retains the same bolt pattern. Even though this looks like an adapter, it is still illegal.)

And there you have it.

FWIW, I never had issues passing the '06 Xterra with Spidertrax wheel adapters. Changed from 6x4.5 to 6x5.5.

Per the law, you should not have had any trouble--those adapters are completely legal.

 

[sixstringsteve]

I read it differently.

"NOTE: A wheel spacer is fitted between the wheel and the hub, exchanging
the existing wheel studs for longer ones. The wheels are then fitted to
the hub/spacer with the existing wheel-nuts"


By this definitions, I have neither a wheel adapter or spacer. My wheel adapters don't change the bolt pattern, but they don't exchange the wheel studs for longer ones either.

It's confusing because they have a picture in both examples that look like mine. I don't really care though, as mine function as adapters, and they're stronger than wheel adapters anyway. And I've never had an inspector care about them.

 

[Kevin B.]

I have read the law, Dempsey.

"NOTE: A wheel spacer is fitted between the wheel and the hub, exchanging
the existing wheel studs for longer ones. The wheels are then fitted to
the hub/spacer with the existing wheel-nuts."

That's a spacer. That's what should be rejected. The book defines adapters as "not spacers", and while the addition of the "changes the bolt pattern" verbiage might be confusing at first, it's perfectly clear after a moments thought that the intent is to define "spacers" that use the existing studs as unsafe, and to define "adapters" (that bolt to the existing studs and provide a new set of studs for the wheel) as safe.

Or to put it another way, there's nothing in there that says a spidertrax adapter is unsafe and should be rejected just because it doesn't change the bolt pattern.

 

[TurboMinivan]

I have read the law, Dempsey.

I expected as much, Kevin. I was trying to add clarification since I feel at least partly responsible for introducing the relevant headed debate to this thread in the first place. Just trying to keep the peace, that's all.

it's perfectly clear after a moments thought that the intent is to define "spacers" that use the existing studs as unsafe, and to define "adapters" (that bolt to the existing studs and provide a new set of studs for the wheel) as safe.

I agree with your intent, and I would be inclined to agree with your next assessment...

Or to put it another way, there's nothing in there that says a spidertrax adapter is unsafe and should be rejected just because it doesn't change the bolt pattern.

... except for the photo which specifically calls a non-bolt-pattern-changing adapter an illegal spacer. That's pretty damning when you're trying to coax an inspector into seeing things your way.

(shrug)

 

[Kevin B.]

Sorry, I apparently have some residual rage from spending 3 days and 2 tanks of gas driving around looking for a shop that would listen to me.

My argument then was the words as printed, together with common sense and the obvious intent of the rule, should take precedence over a fuzzy picture.