MontanaChinook

Alright, thanks. I think probably I'm just looking for easier answers...for some reason I thought it would be a more clearcut issue. I do appreciate all the help. I ordered these http://www.summitracing.com/parts/wvi-38-4612334/overview/ A slightly more expensive route, but not too bad. Still within my "tax return" budget. Just 1" wider than stock, still within the 185/R14 tire suggested range of 5-6" wheels, and a positive offset of 6mm, only 6mm less than stock. So I feel like it's not straying far from stock, while making me feel a little better than I'm slightly wider (but way skinnier than what's on there now, so an improvement as far as load on the axle compared to what it's had) than stock. **I know we've been over this, and it mostly has to do with the type of tires available back then, but for my model Chinook, they did put on wider tires. My Chinook door tag called for L60x14 tire on 14x8 rims. The tires I bought are different, but definitely more narrow. So I think it's an ok compromise to go with 1" wider rims, with a little more width to the outside of the vehicle. Remember, this 1978 Newport is not the apex of Chinookery. My model is a "one-year-only" Chinook, much bigger and bulkier than your Chinook and all that came before it. On a 1978 pop-top I would completely agree with you.**

I'm just going to go on what, after doing more Internet searching, seems to be the consensus over the years: wider tires/wheels gives more stability, at the expense of more wear on bearings and axles. So within reason, going with wheels with less positive offset than stock would be an improvement in stability. No matter what wheels I get for the back, they're going to way more narrow and tucked in than what's on there now. Thanks everyone, for all the help!

Sorry I'm getting a little frustrated with the situation. I didn't expect this part of my project to be any trouble, and I don't feel like it even needs to be...I've just been buried under a gigantic pile of information, without having some very basic, direct questions answered.

Alright. Why? For the reasons i stated. Theres a giant camper attached to my truck. Its not a stock situation. I feel like this would be like telling a Dolphin owner they dont need duallies, "why would they?" "Toyota designed the single rear wheels the way they are". Ive framed this every way i can come up with, each time saying "to me, having a wider wheelbase in the back seems like it would provide stability, since i have a big wide camper back there. if that reasoning is not right, please tell me!!!" I understand you and everyone else are going out of their way to help me and I really appreciate it. It's just that I've laid out very clear, basic assumptions I'm making, over and over, asking to be corrected if my assumptions are wrong. I've never heard that they're right or wrong...just more info that is good to know, but isn't addressing some of my most clearly stated questions and assumptions. We could have ended this thread days ago if someone could tell me: Is my assumption that wider is better in the back, since we aren't talking about a stock 2wd Toyota, we're talking about an overloaded, oversized camper on a little 2wd frame, right or wrong? If there's no reason to be looking for a wider stance, then absolutely those stock rims you were nice enough to find are perfect, and if I had heard this in relation to my questions of "is it a correct assumption that wider=more stability, and is something I should go for, or not?" I would have the rims by now. I guess I've just been in enough situations where someone tells me something, over and over, but they aren't taking everything into account...no matter how many times I bring up what they aren't including, I get the same response, with no acknowledgement that they're hearing the whole question...and if I listen to them...sometimes they're right, but sometimes they really were wrong. So the reason I'm still bugging you is that I guess I would like, PLEASE, an answer acknowledging the one point of my concerns: This is not a stock Toyota. It's got a camper on it. Does this NOT make a wider rear stance make sense? Is this assumption wrong? It seems to me Toyota did NOT build these trucks expecting this much bulk and weight in them their entire lives. If its wrong, I'm buying those stock rims. If its not a wrong assumption, I'll deal with summit or someone like them on getting a more negatively offset rim than stock. And we can put this thread to bed.

Well, like I said, I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that being wider in the back would be a GOOD thing. No? I'm not replacing the front rims. They're the stock rims and they're fine. I'm replacing the rear rims, because what's on there now will only fit a super wide passenger tire. I've ordered d rated tires in 185/R14. Because I don't have a dually, but I do have the bigger Newport Chinook, I feel like any little bit of extra width in the back would be good. Is that incorrect? So I'm ready and willing to go with those stock wheels you posted, but if I'm finally understanding offset and back spacing correctly (which I'm not sure is true...), then maybe I can find something that'll make my rear wheelbase a little wider than stock, and provide just a bit of extra stability.

So if I'm looking to have my tires set slightly wider than stock, I'm looking for a NEGATIVE offset. Correct? Or say with these...since their offset is zero, they would stick out slightly farther than stock? http://www.summitracing.com/parts/wvi-12-451203/overview/ Most of the wheels I've been seeing have positive offsets.

So I had it backwards when I thought I had it figured out, a few posts back? Negative offset makes my rear slightly wider, positive slightly more narrow? Should be a very straightforward question...

So, reading through the posts again, please clarify...which is positive, and which is negative? I thought positive offset meant that the mounting surface moved back, making the tires be out farther (wider). If I'm looking at an aftermarket rim with +12mm offset, is this wider than stock, or more narrow?

I'm hoping you meant positive offset, or else everything I just thought I understood goes out the window... : ) Thank you!

Ok. After re-reading some posts...I gather, based on what I've seen that ANY rim with back spacing is going to have positive offset. Correct? Because any amount of back spacing will be the lug nut holes moving in, towards the center of the vehicle, from the the center of the wheel, which by definition is a POSITIVE offset, since the center of the wheel is now out past the mounting surface. Do I FINALLY understand?? And within reason, since my Chinook is kind of wide, the more back spacing the better, since it'll widen my stance a little? It would follow that the more back spacing, the less likely the rim would rub any vehicle parts, since its sticking farther out away from the vehicle than in? Yes? No?

Thank you. Unless anyone sees a problem with those stock 79-88 wheels JD posted, that's what I'm going to go with. The price is right, and there's no offset or back spacing to worry about. http://www.capitalwheels.com/store/customer/product.php?productid=1800&cat=&page=1

Well, it's still clear as mud to me. I'll likely just go with those stock wheels JD posted and move on. The price is definitely right. If the tire is 6" wide with 3.5" back spacing...what does that tell me? Because that's the info given for all those aftermarket wheels. No idea if that's positive or negative offset.

Ok, so if the stock wheels had less than half an inch positive offset, how does that compare to, say...3.5" backspacing? The word backspacing doesn't make it obvious to me whether it's positive or negative offset. Or am I missing the point?

That's looking really nice.

I just ordered Hankook RA08's for $84.00 a piece. Right at $400.00 for four of them, shipped.

I HATE white spoke rims It's a character flaw, I know, but I can't stand the way they look, and to a certain extent I really do care how things look. They're what I have on the back now, and even before I knew I was going to have to replace the rear rims due to size issues, I was planning on replacing them anyways, because they're white spoke rims. Black spoke rims would be a whole other deal...and that's what I was originally going to go for. So most of the rims JD posted (aftermarket ones) are between 3.something - 4" backspacing. They don't mention whether they're for front wheel drive or not.

I've got some on the way. Not good to hear that they aren't good in snow...but out of almost all the good tires I found in my size, they were one of the very few "all season". I should probably get myself some chains, even though I'll rarely have the Chinook out in the winter.

Great, thanks. I got led very far astray by that tire guy... I'm going with the Hankooks, and might just go with those stock rims. They're definitely the cheapest option. Do I need to pay attention to backspacing? They don't seem to vary too much, but there definitely is some difference in the aftermarket wheels. The stock wheels don't say.

Thank you! I'll check some more tires out. I was going to go with the Hankook RA08, but they actually look to be pretty much just highway tread. I'll check out some of those other options in your post and see what I can get in an A/T. Although from your first post with all those tires, the Hankooks are the only all season tire. I think I'll be ordering them. The guy measured my front bolt spacing and he got 5 x 112mm, 14". Is 112mm close enough to your 114mm that it's all the same? If I've got some options in aftermarket rims (unlike what the tire guy told me), that would be cool. But if your Chinook rims are in un-rusted shape and you're willing to part with them, send me a private message with price and all that, please!

Huh. Maybe I do need to go to a different tire shop...

So everybody's into these Hankook ra08? And they're trailer tires, right? Here again, I would need to trust your expertise. Tire guy thought there truly is a difference, and he strongly recommended against putting these on a passenger vehicle. I already know you disagree. What's the reasoning? Why are they only trailer tires? I had no idea this would be so difficult... Looks like its time to hit Craigslist and the junkyards. Would I be correct in assuming that any 75-78 or so 2wd toyota pickup rim would work?

Alright, thanks. Well...roadblock #2! Tire guy agrees that what I've got on there now is not good, mostly because of the sidewall ply. Nothing available in that width tire, other than the same kind of car tire ie thin sidewall. Ok. Fine. I'll get new rims and tires in 185 r14, all around. Nope... For the bolt spacing and size, they do not make rims that fit anymore. Anybody want to unload some chinook rims? I could sure use some.

Thank you. I'm getting the tire size info off the Chinook tag inside my drivers side door. So yes, that's why I'm saying its the stock size Chinook is calling for on my camper. Wider than in the front. When I drive by one of those radar/speed limit signs they're starting to put up around tow, my speedometer is right on with them. The radar might not be perfect, but clearly it's within an ok margin of error. Of course this is at 25-30mph speeds...not sure where I'd be at with highway speeds. I'll do a little more looking around. Sounds like in the end, we just don't know if I should go wider in the back. But I'm hearing that if the choice is between the "correct", according to Chinook, tire size in the back, with car tires, non-D rating, or going with more narrow than what chinook recommends, but in a D tire, I should choose the more narrow than stock, D rated tire?

Ok. Well, I can find good tires for the front, in load range D, no problem. I'm beyond that. It's the rear tires and whether or not to go wide, as Chinook recommends. The recommended tire size for the rear seems to only come up in muscle car tires. Good weight rating, but not many-ply sidewall. I guess what I'm really wanting to know now is what people feel the reason for the wider tire recommendation is, and whether I should A. Follow Chinooks recommended size, even though it seems to mean car tires with a good weight rating but only I think 3-ply sidewalls or B. say that whatever Chinooks reasoning was for the wider tires probably has more to do with what was available back then than anything to do with really needing wider tires, and I'm just fine with skinnier tires back there. I don't know enough about weight load, stability, and RVs to take the available info and make my own, informed decision.

And going with wider tires seems to = going with car tires, it seems. Right?? They cannot find those wide tires in truck or van class. So your advice is to go the same size all around (which means skinnier tires than stock in the rear), and do LT, load range D?