Difference Between Wheel Spacers vs New Wheel Offset

I know the topic has been discussed before, but humor me.

What is the difference between running wheel spacers versus a wheel with less backspacing/more aggressive offset? I see a few differences in the nuances of the two, but is there really a difference between the effective offset of a stock wheel running spacers and a new set of wheels? Here’s how I’m seeing it, but please point out any errors or something I missed. Let’s compare stock TRD wheels with spidertrax 1.25” hubcentric spacers to something like the SCS f5 18x9 +25.

Spacers are going to be heavier since the stock wheel is heavier, then you are adding the weight of the spacer. You end up with an offset of +28mm and the outside edge of the wheel pushed 1.25” further out from the center of the vehicle.

The SCS F45 is a significantly lighter than the stock wheel And spacer. It has a barely more aggressive offset of +25 but because it is a 9” wide wheeL instead of 8” wide, the outside edge of the wheel is pushed even further out from the center of the vehicle but just over 1/2”.

When the topic of wheel spacers is brought up, there are always several who comment “just do it right and buy a new set of wheels with the correct offset”. I’m not opposed to a new set of wheels, but what is “wrong” with using spacers instead? I’m asking that as a legitimate question not an argument.

Hubcentric wheels transfer the load of the wheel through the hub flange, not the lugs; so should a hub centric spacer transfer the load through the same path. The lug nuts are responsible for any additional side loading forces in order to keep the wheel attached to the hub. If we were able to pull a full G on the skid pad (as impossible as that sounds), and we achieved 100% weight transfer on a 7000lb rig (yes, that means the inside tires are supporting zero side load) that would be 3500 lbs per wheel or 700 lbs per stud. I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me but I’m fairly certain that’s not even close to the tensile strength of the wheel stud. So wheel studs on a hub centric wheel or spacer ought to be a moot point. I’ve seen several “spacer failure” threads on other sites but they mostly appear to be the lugs shearing, which is dollars to donuts - from some wheel jockey going while hog with the impact gun.

Ok, so what about wear and tear on things like ball joints and wheel bearings? Increasing the wheel offset (or rather, pushing the center of the wheel out so that the offset approaches zero or negative numbers) is going to create a larger lever, and in turn a larger moment arm acting on the bearings and front end components. This can increase west on those items. That’s a given. But do those components see that moment differently when transferred through a spacer to the hub face than when directly through the wheel to the hub face? If so, how?

In the case of the two aforementioned wheels, the “correct choice” of new wheels actually creates more of a moment arm on the hub face since the edge of the wheel is further away from the mounting flange, so couldn’t the case be made that spacers with a narrower rim would actually be gentler on front end components? I realize that one could say “just get an aftermarket 18x8 wheel” and it would be the same geometry and distances as the spacer. But in our case, those wheels are harder to come by and, IMO, look like dog vomit.

So what about imbalance issues? Tire shops can balance a wheel but not a spacer and wheel… Most wheels are cast; some are forged; rotary forged is basically cast with some additional hardening. All processes involve final machining which should put them true, but once we mount a tire to it and beat it up offroad or on potholed streets, the wheel tire combo needs balancing. Spacers, on the other hand, are billet and ought it have concentric and mirrored machining, so they should be inherently balanced. So I would think that as long as the spacers are machined correctly they should not induce any shimmy or imbalance issues. Remember - your brake rotors are also rotating with the tire and wheel and they are cast, then finish machined like the wheels. They don’t typically cause imbalance issues unless warped… errr… have excess deposits..

Again, this is a question I pose to you - what is the difference between quality spacers with a stock wheel and new wheels with more aggressive offset? What’s makes spacers “the wrong way” to achieve a more aggressive stance or offset?

 

No takers, huh?

 

In answer to this question, may I present your own words.

You are getting no takers because you are cherry picking a very specific anecdotal scenario to dispute a general rule. The general rule exists because a common motivation for spacers is because of cost, and when people are pinching pennies they often wind up buying cheap chinesium that doesn't fit your scenario. Thus, the general rule of just getting quality wheels. It eliminates all those arguments.

 

No disrespect here. I read the first paragraph and scrolled down and saw how long this post was. Decided to give u a response before leaving. This information can be found by google search as it’s general automotive knowledge and not specific to tundras. My guess is not many are willing to take the time to read ur post and respond with anything of value, about this particular topic. I know this isn’t what you’re looking for but hope it helps with you’re future request for info.

 

Perhaps you did not read the post. I am not promoting or justifying spacers; I am inquiring about the nuts and bolts of spacers.

Rules are based in logic; logic can usually be explained in words or numbers; numbers are a language. I posted the above not to dispute or fight about them, but because every other spacer discussion elicits the same response you have felt to contribute:"they are bad because the rule says so". But why does the rule exist other than somebody said as much?

I use the example to illustrate my thoughts, not to cherry pick my "proof" as I have no dog in the fight. Just an inquisitive mind.

 

Yes.

But... there are some limitations with the stock 8" width not fitting wide tires. 295 and 285 are usually it. And at those widths you don't need spacers... and that would be even gentler on front end components!

IMO +35-40mm is the real sweet spot for our trucks with bigger tires. So long as you clear the UCI, making space for the other inner stuff is easy. The less outward the tire is, the easier it is to clear fore and aft in the wheelwell.

 

I could post one sentence without clarity or focus and receive a million responses in as many directions an options. I have googled the topic and read much about it. As noted above, there are two camps: spacers are fine and spacers are evil. No logic or proof is presented by either side (at least not much) other than "I've run them for years without any issues", "manufacturers just want to sell you something", or "see this example of spacers failure". More often than not, the failure mode I see is in the lugs shearing from improper installation, over torquing, or the wheel studs protruding past the hub and preventing the wheel from being properly secured to the wheel. And those failures are far and few between.

The longwindedness would hopefully suggest that I have done much research and am looking for a more in-depth discussion.

 

You glossed over where I said where the general rule is likely originating.

 

I think a happy medium works great!

anyway, you’re getting the attention u we’re looking for right this very moment. Enjoy!

 

Not everybody runs 50" wide tires like you... Ha.

But by the same logic, why run a 9" wide wheel most guys run a 295 or smaller tire?

 

I saw the part where you said money was the common motivation for spacers. Not sure how that makes the rule. Oh, he who has the money makes the rule. I think that's from a kid's movie...

Does that mean that it's a status thing? Spacers are for cheap rednecks, not refined mall crawlers or hardcore off-roaders cuz they wouldn't want to be seen in that same group of sweaty uglies...?

I noted the disparity in cost in my first post, and also noted that I'm not averse to purchasing new wheels, thereby removing cost from the equation. I realize that is a motivator for many things in life but that doesn't make things necessarily a bad option. My tundra was $19k less than the 6.2 GM I was looking at; I'll take the tundra any day.

 

To sum up and actually address your original question @blenton , the general rule of spacers being bad is because cheap ones can be. They are everywhere and everybody wants "a good deal" and they don't think about possible safety issues from low quality spacers. That's it. If you get a high quality one as you describe and the offset is the same as the wheel being looked at, the stress from leverage is going to basically be similar. No win or loss for either. The only real reason not to use a high quality spacer is because adding spacer introduces additional points of failure.

 

I read your entire post and the rest of the thread. You sound like an engineer. Very knowledgeable and obviously spent a lot of time researching. Seems like your mind is made up and you want confirmation. I am not an engineer nor any kind of expert. I have never run spacers and usually have kept the factory wheels. That being said, here’s my opinion. The less components you have in action and the less fasteners your assembly requires, the less likely you are to have a failure. Either from the additional pieces or from poor assembly (think torque or fabrication)

 

I would agree with you 100% that chinesium spacers are a bad thing. That is for why I chose spideretrax in the example as they appear to be the defecto standard. But I was also trying to avoid the brand name bias - be it good or bad - and focus on the original question comparing two setups assuming parts and installation are quality and squared away.

I would also agree that the chance for failure does increase the more parts you add in to the equation - but by how much? And is that risk higher than, say increasing tire size and weight that affects stopping and handling in an emergency situation? Or the added weight of a camper shell and/or rooftop that raises the center of gravity? Or by doing your own brake job? (I cringe when I think about the first time I did the brakes on my bronco when I was 15 and then drove it down the road...) My tone and intention are not to be condescending or elitist, but present evidences and possible conclusions in way to make people think about the question and rule and discuss it rather than say "that's they way it is". If the rule exists for a good reason, one should be able to suss out why.

 

Nothing wrong with spacer, but new wheels gives the truck a new look…

 

Not really looking for confirmation as I'm happy running stock wheels. Speaking of stock wheels, I'm usually not a fan of anything other than factory wheels. Anecdotally, I have a sibling who lost a wheel on his Duramax once pulling his 5th wheel on the freeway half way across the country. If I were to guess at what is going through people's heads right now it would be something along the lines of "he must have been overloaded; 5th wheels are heavy and surely it was too much for his 3/4 truck". Or "he must not have properly maintained the vehicle". Or perhaps "he must have been driving too fast or aggressive". In retort, he was doing 65-70 in cooler weather with an empty bed and camper that weighed 7.5k. Tires were new on the truck and mild all terrains in a stock or close to stock size, newish on the trailer rated fro 80 mph. But in my head, I took one look at his aftermarket wheels with a slightly more aggressive offset and said 'yup, that's the culprit. Stoopid aftermarket wheels. Prolly weren't even hub centric. Never gonna run anything but stock wheels". That's my own bias creating a rule for me that appeared logical given my experiences at the time. After further investigation, it appears that several lugs had been overtightened on that wheel and one or two had been cross threaded then run down with an impact by a tire shop or previous owner at some point. Some of the lugs sheared with apparent necking, some had stripped. The wheels had been on the truck for years without issue. So it came down to poor installation practice, not poor principles.

That is the kind of thing I'm trying to learn about and discern between with spacers: it it just bias because of chinesium wheel spacers and anecdotal evidence? Or is it rooted in maths and logic?

 

That's funny - only because I don't like the look of most aftermarket wheels. Not saying others don't/shouldn't, just that most aren't for me.

 

You could paint the factory wheels to different colors too, when you bored of the looks.

 

Thats what I did with some basically new TRD takeoffs - had them powder coated and I very much enjoy the look. But that's me.

 

As a note, I’ve fit tested both spydertraxx and bora on a first gen, and although hub centric, the tolerance is not what I would consider tight on the hub side. Bora was a tad tighter. I’m running steel (Stahl).

 

An answer as a drawing..


(scale not guaranteed.... maybe abused to add emphasis)

 

Big fat tires do look best on a Tundra... it's the truth...

 

Stock TRD OR wheels with factory tire size 275/65/18 and 1” wheel spacers.
Before:

after:

side profile:

 

Just to clarify, I'm a fan of pizza cutters (285/75r18 etc), but I dont think those tires (typically anyway), require spacers. Stock-ish sized tires (275,265/70 r18s and the like) seem to look better than the tall skinny tires when both are running spacers. Just my zero value opinion.

 

I am also looking for an answer to your questions…. It would be great if somebody has these answers to your questions with real world experience or knowledge. BUT also another point, isn’t there a lot of aftermarket wheels made in China?

 

Yes, there are a lot of aftermarket wheels made in China. This is also something to consider.