1.5" vs 2" Wheel Spacers

[derekmac]

While in the process of repairing and extending my rear bump stops today, I noticed that the rear tires are hard into my Bilsteins when starting to stuff.

My WJ is sitting on a 4" lift, and I'm running 255/75-17's on Rubi rims. I'm already well trimmed, and have no problem pounding in the foot well area in the front if needed. The front bump stops are also extended.

I can get 4 new (second hand) Spidertrax 1.5" for $150 (cheap for Canada), or a set of 2", not sure of the brand, also $150.

[scott]

Less is more, if you can get away with it I would use the smallest spacer possible. Your front hubs will thank you.

[derekmac]

Yeah, I ended up getting the 1.5" Spidertrax.

[snaps]

Correct me if I'm wrong from a load analysis point of view there is no difference between hub spacers and wheels with the same amount of back spacing. the forces applied on the HUB lugs are exactly the same in both cases. And there is zero added stress on the axle shaft due to that load being taken by the balljoints and inner Cs.

I understand that if they arent installed correctly with clean mating surfaces and accurate torque then they pose a serious concern but I run 2" hubcentric spacers on my WJ without issue. This of course is only a bandaid until i can afford steelies with adequate back spacing to not rub my longarms but people have run huge spacers for years...

[fluxcap]

Just avoid adding backspace and spacers. This can leas to bent shafts. Ask johnboulderco.

[snaps]

The addition of spacers (or backspaced rims for that matter) can not possibly increase the likelyhood of bending a shaft. Bent axle tubes possibly due to the increase on fulcrum arm length but even then you will break a ball joint or bend an inner C before that happens.

[fluxcap]

I was speaking of an 8.8 rear. The fulcrum is the bearing ...