BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner

What size spacer is max for OE lugs?

5K views 31 replies 7 participants last post by  Freude_am_Fahren 
#1 ·
Anyone happen to know what size spacer you can use with the OE lugs and still catch the hub with plenty of threads and no worries or need for extended lugs?

Thx!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#3 · (Edited)
... to maintain full thread engagement.
+(1) Under all circumstances!

An E39 M5 reviewer on a Dutch car forum (www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/bmw-m5-2000-3/, see under BIJNA FOUT = Almost Wrong) who was also using spacers, was only just in time to stop his car on a highway shoulder, immediately after feeling a strong vibration from the rear end of his car: 2 hub bolts broken, 3 hub bolts gone*, meaning zero (!) bolts left ..., a damaged rear-axle hub and a damaged wheel hub ...

The reviewer realized he got away with this pretty well ... and ordered his garage from then on to torque his longer hub bolts by 25% more: 110.6 lbf ft = 150 Nm instead of the standard 88.5 lbf ft = 120 Nm.
Increased torque is a good start, but any one here on the board (though not prescribed) using Loctite on these bolts? I'm considering it even without using spacers, after reading this horror story ...

Add the thickness of the spacer you're going to use to the standard hub bolt length and you get the required length of your new 'lugs'.

*) Friction on the threads + conical bolt heads normally keeps hub bolts in place. Longer bolts stretch more + soft (aluminium?) spacers result in more variation in contact force (and thus friction force) between wheel & conical bolt head, so more chance of hub bolts loosening.
 
#5 · (Edited)
As long as you install the studs with a locking product, like Loctite or similar.

Indeed, studs will bring you a 39% increase (from the ratio of unthreaded diameters, squared: (12.0/10.16)^2) in max. bolt force if studs are chosen identical to the bolt class (somewhere around 10.8 or 10.9 if I remember cor-rectly), so less chance of stud-rupture like in the bolt (also bold, that driver ...) case of post #3.
The percentage of reduction in stiffness (due to longer bolts or studs) is equal. Those spacers have to be accommodated, if you intend to use them. The advise to use an increased torque setting remains, when adding spacers.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Ok

Indeed, studs will bring you a 39% increase (from the thread-free diameter increase ratio, squared: (12.0/10.16)^2) in max. bolt force if studs are chosen identical to the bolt class (somewhere around 10.8 or 10.9 if I remember correctly), so less chance of stud-rupture.
The percentage of reduction in stiffness (due to longer bolts or studs) is equal. Those spacers have to be accommodated, if you want to use them. The torque setting, increased from standard value, remains when adding spacers.
A fastener in a hub will be subjected to variation in clamp force and tensile load along it's access due to thermal expansion, provided this is "elastic" elongation and not yield, no problem.

Here is a grate article on the stud vs. bolt debate as it pertains to cylinder heads, same principles apply.
https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/...01.590610088.1560530620-1083154199.1560530620
 
#9 ·
Thanks for the explanation.


I completely agree about using Loctite on studs during a conversion. But I have never heard of anyone using it on lug nuts.

Lug nuts always have a torque spec. I have found that if you are close (you can be a few lb./ft. off), there should be no issue on the street. Of course, if your lug bolts are too short, then you have done something incorrectly. But you shouldn't need Loctite to keep a lug nut or bolt securely fastened.

It seems if you are doing that, then you are covering up something else that is not correct. So I guess I would rather correct the flaw than mask it.


Regards,
Jerry
 
#10 ·
Agree with others that any spacer requires longer lug boots or proper length studs. I too have never heard of using any substance, be it thread-locking compound or anti-sieze on the lug bolt or nut threads. Perhaps in special circumstances or with special equipment that's different but I go as far as cleaning the hub threads, bolt thread and seats and the wheel seat during reinstallation to ensure that it's a "dry" torque I'm applying.
 
#12 · (Edited)
Post #3 is supposing whether it's a consideration to use locking compound on the wheel bolts.

Post #8 states that Loctite 243 is going to be used on the studs and wheel nuts.

Thread locking compound should be used for the stud conversion on the threads that go in the hub. I'd use a high-strength one myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gsfent
#15 ·
Wow thanks for all the helpful insight here guys.. after removing my recently purchased 18 x 9 style 32's from the car and inspecting the strut tube and inner edge of the wheel and tire, I am happy to report that there were zero marks from rubbing anywhere. So I think I'm all set with the spacer issue and will not run them as my clearance appears to be good.
 
#16 · (Edited)
No spacers means no effects of them on the hub bolt connections !

In my previous posts I was trying to find an explanation for the broken hub bolts as reported by the reviewer, mentioned in post #3, when spacers are used with standard torque setting an no locking compound on the hub bolts. Here some factors of influence.

Operational loads on hub bolts depend on cornering direction, wheel position (front, rear axle and driver-side, passenger side) and vary during the wheel rotation (top or bottom position of the bolt in the ring of hub bolts). If you torque them equally, they all have the same pretension load. The driving wheel torque, which we all love so much from our M5, is normally delivered by the friction forces (all working in a direction tangent to the hub bolt circle) between axle hub/ (spacer/) wheel hub. In the sidestep below, about friction, you can see that if the contact is not dry/ clean the factor is lower and if transverse loads on the wheel during heavy cornering 'eat up' part of the axle-hub/ wheel-hub contact force, less contact force remains to generate friction load at that hub bolt. If friction load is reduced to a level less than the transverse load each hub bolt has to deliver for the drive wheel torque, then the hub bolt cross section has to support the rest. It is then loaded by a shear load. The combination of tension load plus shear load is more severe for any bolt or stud. They are able to support this combination of loads (always with a bit of torsion stress, due to the torquing), up to their ultimate limit.

Adding spacers to a wheel, increases the eccentricity from the contact area-center on the road to the center of rotation (seen in an axle vertical cross section plane), somewhere in between the wheel bearings. Depending on the direction of the turn (see left or right turn below) and a wheel sitting on drivers side or on passengers side, some hub bolts feel a relief of their tension load because of this, while other hub bolts have a higher load to carry.

Less torquing of hub bolts may sooner lead to friction not helping the bolts enough and thus in larger shear loads on the hub bolts. Using spacers without using a locking compound increases the chance of hub bolts loosening. Normally, without spacers, the conical bolt heads provide sufficient friction (if installed dry of course) to prevent this from happening. Less bolt pretension load plus variation in load staying the same (only depending from driving/ cornering conditions) means higher chance of wheel-hub + spacer reaching the start of their reaction curve. If this start is reached (meaning spacer- + wheel hub-compression force is zero), a jerky hub bolt force occurs. In the worst case this may lead to failure of a hub bolt due to fatigue. And in this matter hub bolts behave just like sheep: If one goes, more will follow ... :frown

Your wheels provide control over where you're going. I would never cover up something there. Using a bit higher torque setting and adding Loctite to your hub bolts or studs and stud nuts could just regain some of the safety, that was offered by adding spacers ...



Side step - Friction force
Friction force = factor * contact force. Factor is the coefficient of friction, depending from the contact conditions. Dry/ clean = 0.15 (-), greased = 0.05 (-), oil film = 0.0xx (-) in big end bearings. Contact force = how much the two adjoining surfaces are pressed together. Never grease the surfaces of wheel hub (or flange on the front wheel) and inside of the wheel. You may grease the center ring (the wheel hub may seize on it) since it hardly contributes to the friction loads.

Side step - Left or right turn
In a right turn the tension load in every hub bolt on top of the wheel on drivers side wheels is increased (as is on bottom side of the wheel hub bolts at passenger side wheels), the hub bolts there stretch more, spacer and wheel hub are compressed less and thus the contact force between axle hub and wheel hub (or spacer, if present) reduced. In a left turn top and bottom position + drivers side and passenger side have to be exchanged in the expression above. Every bolt changes position many times per second and so does the contact force: real dynamic loads.
 
#17 · (Edited)
I do the opposite.

I cleaned and de-greased the hubs and studs then used high-temp Loctite 272 when I installed them into the hub. I use silver anti-seize (sparingly, just the threads) on the lugs to prevent galling & galvanic welding between the two dissimilar alloys. I have done this for decades on studs and wheels bolts, never had one loosen up on me, street cars, track cars, trucks etc. I would never put Loctite on on a lug nut or wheel bolt that is conical or ball seat, plenty of mechanical friction. I have seen multiple studs/bolts twist in half at inopportune times from being over-torqued or seized on due to corrosion, likely the culprit of the broken wheel bolts mentioned by the thread originator.
 
#18 · (Edited)
... I use silver anti-seize (sparingly, just the threads) on the lugs to prevent galling & galvanic welding between the two dissimilar alloys. ...... I have seen multiple studs/bolts twist in half at inopportune times from being over-torqued or seized on due to corrosion, likely the culprit of the broken wheel bolts mentioned by the thread originator.
I agree that corroded threads is a thing worth to avoid and that loosening a cor-roded bolt or stud nut can easily end up in a broken bolt or stud. When torsional stress occurs simultaneously with tensional stress, the torsional stress contributes about 1.7 times as much as the tensional stress does. So far, I also use plain grease (not even anti seize) on the hub bolt end-threads, to prevent rust/ seizure. But I think you will have to admit that Loctite is able to provide this service too and as a bonus adds some extra safety against hub bolt or stud nut loosening ...

To prove that the hub bolts of the reviewer in post #3 are not over-torqued I did a quick calculation of the torque needed to load an M12 x 1.5mm bolt of class 10.8 (Sy = 800 (N/mm^2) = 116 (Ksi)) and of class 10.9 (Sy = 900 (N/mm^2) = 130.5 (Ksi)) with tension stress alone, to HALF their yield capacity. Hub bolts need more spare than ordinary bolts in static applications because of the dynamic loads they have to support, as explained in my previous post. In general design with static loads, often a design limit of 2/3 of the yield capacity is used. In that case the safe-ty factor = 1.0 (-). In high-risk applications safety factors of 2.0 (-) or even 3.0 (-) are more common. Engine head bolts are stretched even closer to their yield capacity, since the internal combustion load is only a 'small ripple' compared to their pretension load.

M12 x 1.5mm, class 10.8: M_t = 143.7 (Nm) = 106.0 (lbf-ft) @ half-yield capacity
M12 x 1.5mm, class 10.9: M_t = 161.7 (Nm) = 119.3 (lbf-ft) @ half-yield capacity

Friction on the conical bolt head eats up 81% of the torque applied, so you were right about 'plenty of mechanical friction' at the conical or ball seat ... as long as the contact force is there. Under the circumstance of a jerky hub bolt force, it may disappear for only a fraction of a second during every wheel revolution. Enough for a hub bolt to loosen, in some reported unfortunate cases.

If the reviewer would have used 'only' class 10.8 bolts, his pretension load using a 150 (Nm) = 110.6 (lbf-ft) of torque setting is only less than 5% above HALF the bolt's yield capacity. No reason therefore to appoint this torque setting, a bit higher obviously than you are used to, as the main cause of the failed hub bolts.

His broken bolts are not the result of over-torquing but of some bolts loosening due to too low pretension load + more dynamic loads with spacers than without spacers. Using Loctite maybe could have stopped the complete development of a loose wheel. Loose bolts means more shear load will occur on the bolts and also more bending load on the bolts (not mention in my previous post). If bolts even disappear from the hub bolt circle, the remaining bolts almost certainly are over-loaded and at their load limit, they break ...
 
#20 · (Edited)
The recommended torque, found here on the board, is 120 (Nm) = 88.5 (lbf-ft).
The reviewer used 150 (Nm) = 110.6 (lbf-ft), 25% more than recommended.
On my scale 88.5/110.6 = 0.80 which is way more than 1/3 ...

My calculated torque for a M12x1.5 class 10.9 hub bolt, to load it for only HALF the acceptable load, of 161.7 (Nm) = 118.3 (lbf-ft), was only to indicate that even at that ridiculous high torque setting there's plenty of capacity (and indeed plenty of spring) left. Even more so at the reviewer's lower setting of 110.6 (lbf-ft). No chance therefore of that torque setting being the main cause of his reported hub bolt failure. Finally, to clear any misunderstanding, I'm nowhere stating in my post #18 that 118.3 (lbf-ft) should be regarded as the 'new recommended' torque setting. Read my post more carefully.

With spacers, I would use a 25% increased torque setting of 110.6 (lbf-ft) plus Loctite. Without spacers, I feel safe at the recommended torque setting of 120 (Nm) = 110.6 (lbf-ft), but adding Loctite at the bolt end-threads (to replace the anti-seize), can't hurt.

P.s.: I'm not (yet ...) a Henkel-shareholder, which you might start thinking after all this!
 
#21 ·
With a quality spacer of proper design, most of the stress on these clamping bolts will be tension as the hub, by design will locate the wheel and bear the torsion in the system. In a turn this varies.

****ty quality bolts, ****ty over-used, and fatigued bolts, ****ty spacers, ****ty hub bores or snouts, improperly/under-torqued bolts, untrue, fouled or dirty wheel or hub flange? All are much more likely to cause a wheel to come off unexpectedly than using spacers and torqueing the bolts to the E39 M5 specification.

Use thread-locking compound if you want. Apply unnecessary torque if you want. Just consider that the wheel hub approaches 400F during lazy, normal operation.

I'd much sooner consider something like NYLOK or similar before liquid thread locker. Increases prevailing torque without unnecessary tensioning of the fastener. Resists vibration, reusable, clean.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Good spacers indeed have a center ring (pointing towards the wheel) and sit on the existing center ring of the wheel hub (or flange at the front wheel). Then shear loads from the car's dead weight or from driving over a bump on the road will be supported by that center ring(s, in case of spacers).

The torsion in the system (I used that term for the effects of the driving wheel torque), which I prefer to call bending, is supported by increase and decrease of hub bolts in top-half bolt-circle and those in the down-half bolt-circle. The bore in the wheel hub is normally not attached to this center ring. Only in the case of the reviewer in post #3, with a wheel actually loose and sitting a bit tilted, then this center ring on the hub or on a (good) spacer will be able to transfer a small bending moment. In reviewers case it was the reason he was still able to steer his car to the highway shoulder. But it did leave eat-away marks on the axle hub center ring and on the wheel hub bore ...

The operational temperature of hub and bolts of 400F = 204.4C indeed reduces the yield limit of the bolts. This is the main reason the recommended torque setting is lower than the torque setting maximum possible at room temperature.

NYLOK bolts are indeed very handy in the construction of dynamic applications, but I doubt if they will prevent the occurrence of any rust just as anti seize compound does. A bolted connection is most of the time not air/ moisture tight ...


On the track, torque checked before EVERY session.
That's the real engineering spirit!
I won't mention the word Loct... anymore now :wink
 
#22 ·
Albeit that my memory has been failing for the past few years so specifics can elude me, so I looked it up since in my head it was 40NM, but I use anti seize because of the salt here and that might actually be the correct number with anti seize on the bolt. You have to reduce the torque when you lube them. I have to lube them or they may not come out the next time. Turns out it is 80ftlbs for either winter or summer and 90 for the other. Like I said bad memory could not remember long enough to type it out.
Bad memory aside it only effects details not principals. Best way to break a wheel bolt is over torque it. That is what the reviewer did. Shock load does that because there is no spring left it the material to absorb said shock. There is no need for an adhesive.
 
#23 · (Edited)
I am no engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last week...…. :)

I typically use a tiny DAB of antiseize on the nuts (did conversion long ago). I torque all of my BMW's to 85. NEVER had a nut loosen, street or track.

On the track, torque checked before EVERY session. I even check a student's car if I am not comfortable with how the person handled it. Takes all of about 1 minute, including time to reset the torque wrench.

YMMV.

Regards,
Jerry
 
#25 ·
I see what you're saying about the torsional stress changing as the wheel rotates. If you loosened the bolts evenly on a stationary M5 and then rolled forward, the way the wheel becomes canted is an exaggerated example of the changes in stress the wheel and bolts might see.

I think it is a good idea to check wheel bolt/nut torque regularly. That can cause its own issues. In the earlier part of my life, I was a subject matter expert and maintenance technician. Part of my responsibilities included performing periodic cleaning and inspections of electrical equipment. There were steps to check tightness of the various connections inside the equipment. The accepted method was to put a screwdriver or wrench on the hardware and check them tight. Seems simple enough.

Occasionally, there would be administrative or practical reviews which would include monitored maintenance actions. It seemed rhet during the reviews, the same pieces of equipment would be cleaned and inspected time and time again due to ease of access or criticality to operations, etc. What started happening was s rash of broken hardware either during later operation or during the maintenance. The #8, #10, 1/4"-20, etc. hardware was torqued to yield over the years, little by little.

The initial answer was to break torque and then retighten the hardware but could add hours to the maintenance for some of the larger equipment. Eventually the procedure was changed so that the hardware was checked for tightness by hand and tools were used if a loose connection was found and only then on like connections and hardware.

What I described above is a little different than our wheel bolts or studs, of course. Our hardware is larger so the margins are much different and most of us use click type torque wrenches and are careful enough. There is a risk. I think poor hardware is much more likely to cause issues, torque values being equal.

If grease or anti-sieze is used on the threads, applied torque should definitely be increased by at least the difference in prevailing torque. I've mever had problems with the bolts on my X5 or M5 coming out of going on. Only the X5 is driven in the winter. The wheels do sieze on the hub, more so on the X5. I apply a smear of copper anti-sieze on the hub snout before putting the wheel on to alleviate that.

I don't know that I could ever get behind using thread-locking compound in this application. I feel that any compound that would stand up in this environment would just make them a pain in the *** to remove. I guess that's kind of the point.
 
#26 · (Edited)
... If you loosened the bolts evenly on a stationary M5 and then rolled forward, the way the wheel becomes canted is an exaggerated example of the changes in stress the wheel and bolts might see.
A very nice way to visualize, what I tried to describe in words!

I think it is a good idea to check wheel bolt/nut torque regularly.
A good advise indeed. After all, our safety and that of the drivers surrounding us depends on those 4 x 5 lugs, or sometimes 4 x 4 lugs, or in the worst case even 4 x 3 lugs (no, I won't go any lower ...!) if you would loose one or two lugs on each wheel. Luckily we don't have to start with 4 x 3 lugs as drivers of some European cars back then had to: ... https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_2CV*
*) 2 CV = 2 Chevaux Vapeur = 2 HP, that was the engine's power when production started in 1949. At the end of production in 1990 power had risen to 29 HP. Still a lot less than near 400 HP, so why use 20 lugs!

What started happening was a rash of broken hardware either during later operation or during the maintenance. The #8, #10, 1/4"-20, etc. hardware was torqued to yield over the years, little by little.
Over-torquing is a bad thing especially on short/ stiff bolts (like lugs) with relatively soft layers in between (like aluminium wheel hubs + ditto spacers). Then you get the effects of a 'soft joint' curve as very well described here: Bolted joint graphs of Boltscience dot com ** A (small) increase in external load results in a large increase of total bolt load. If the bolt (under dynamic load) starts to yield (meaning the red inclined line will extend into a lower inclined, curved line, not drawn in the graphs) the applied load (blue line) doesn't fit anymore between red line and green line so clamping force will further be reduced. At the start of the green line, clamping force is completely gone and any variations in applied load result in a jerky bolt load. Besides the possible overload of bolts due to the loss of friction, as described in post #18, in time the bolt will fail due to fatigue, if torque setting is not corrected.
**) Was still looking for this link when I wrote my posts #16 & #18 ...

... If grease or anti-seize is used on the threads, applied torque should definitely be increased by at least the difference in prevailing torque.
I'm sure you meant to type 'decreased' here instead of 'increased'. Less friction on the threads means less of the torque is lost there and more of it remains to transfer into axial bolt load. Sailor24 said it nicely in his post #22.

... I apply a smear of copper anti-seize on the hub snout before putting the wheel on to alleviate that.
Keep on doing that, it indeed will save you a lot of trouble. Long time ago on a Ford I had a seized rotor (fitted by PO without anti-seize), which I didn't dare to hammer off any more fierceful. Only with a giant puller I was able to remove it from the hub center ring, no sooner than when it broke into two halves ...:frown

I don't know that I could ever get behind using thread-locking compound in this application. I feel that any compound that would stand up in this environment would just make them a pain in the *** to remove. I guess that's kind of the point.
This may be true for the high strength locking compounds, but not for the medium strength ones. Despite higher operating temperatures they still remain easily to be remove with a wire brush (on bolts) or with a pipe brush (in threaded holes). To clean threaded holes from locking compound you can always (carefully) use a plug tap or use the (identical) bolt-with-saw-cut trick.
 
#27 · (Edited)
Ok so consider this point:

In my case, the spacers I was using last year are not only hub-centric to my existing hubs and fit perfectly on that, but are also hub-centric to the wheel center, meaning the spacer has a lip on the hub, in the exact E39 bore that the wheel center fits perfectly on and it ends up mimicing the OE hub flange.

Does any of this have any impact on all of the warnings and complaints here about Lug bolt torque?? Meaning, since the wheel is hub-centric so the weight is supported by the hub, not the bolts, does that lessen the concern about bolts backing out when using spacers, etc?

Look like this:
 
#28 · (Edited)
Ok so consider this point:

In my case, the spacers I was using last year are not only hub-centric to my existing hubs and fit perfectly on that, but are also hub-centric to the wheel center, meaning the spacer has a lip on the hub, in the exact E39 bore that the wheel center fits perfectly on and it ends up mimicing the OE hub flange.

Does any of this have any impact on all of the warnings and complaints here about Lug bolt torque?? Meaning, since the wheel is hub-centric so the weight is supported by the hub, not the bolts, does that lessen the concern about bolts backing out when using spacers, etc?
Now, these indeed deserve the name 'spacers'! Having a thickness of over 20 mm I guess? You don't happen to go West, over Trans-Am's railroad? ...:wink

Serious now. No, that's how every spacer that is going to be used on any car should look like and certainly spacers of this thickness. The center rings do support shear loads from the car's dead weight and from dynamic loads during driving, but can't help the hub bolts in being loaded by varying tension loads.

Adding spacers means a bit increased bolt forces (and also bearing forces), com-pared to not using spacers. When using spacers without the center ring protruding towards the wheel, where the wheel bore should perfectly fit on, chances are higher that things start to move, ONLY IF load combinations occur that are that high that contact forces between axle hub/ spacer/ wheel hub becomes too low and thus friction load is reduced. A sufficient torque setting will prevent this from happening. Center rings on the spacers help to avoid the movement of parts in the early stage of diminishing friction. They should be present on spacers of any thickness.

Use longer bolts (length increased by an amount equal to the spacer thickness), use a bit higher (25% won't hurt*) torque setting than standard (of your class 10.8 or your class 10.9 bolts, check the tables) and use some locking compound (if only for peace of mind, it won't hurt either) as a replacement for anti seize, on the bolt end threads or on the threading of the stud nuts. Keep the conical heads clean/ dry just as all other faces, except the cylindrical surfaces of axle hub center ring, spacer center ring inside and outside and wheel bore inside. There it is advisable to use an anti seize compound to prevent (due to heat + moisture => rust) seizures.

Check your torque setting periodically, as advised by other posters. The locking compound will allow for a bit longer intervals between checks. Here a slight disadvantage of locking compound submerges: If you do need to increase the torque considerably, the lock will brake during turning of the bolt and you have to clean the bolts and apply locking compound on them again, if you are aiming for its added safety. But you would have to dismount the wheel anyway to find the cause of the disappeared torque setting ...

*) In the mean time I found some articles where a torque setting was advised to reach a bolt force of 50% of the static yield capacity. I also found a BMW torque spec for a M12 x 1.5 mm class 10.9 bolt (not being a hub bolt and most certainly used in lower operational temperature applications), where 70% of yield capacity was reached.
Don't use these figures and corresponding torque settings for your lugs! It's only to show there's lots of spare capacity in the M5 lugs at 150 (Nm) torque setting even at sometimes pretty high operating temperatures (from heat of the brakes) on the axle flanges/ hubs.
 
#29 ·
Yes, I meant decrease the torque value. I was thinking the applied torque of a lubricated fastener is increased because it takes less torque to turn the fastener in.

I know that there's a lot of different thread-locking compounds out there. My concern was finding one that could stand up environmentally that wouldn't be classed as high-strength and therefore, a pain to use and clean off after use.

I'm using hub-centric 12mm spacers in front now and had 3mm spacers before that. I torque those bolts to 125 N-m. I agree that there is benefit to increasing the torque when using spacers.

You don't need a lot of anti-sieze on the hub. I use a dollop on the hub face, hub flange and the spacers, where used. A little goes a long way. Use it behind the brake rotors when they're replaced. Makes everything so much easier. In the spring time the winter wheels come right off and even after successive New England winters, the rotors come off easily.
 
#30 · (Edited)
... You don't need a lot of anti-seize on the hub. ..... Use it behind the brake rotors when they're replaced. Makes everything so much easier.
I fully agree if you incorporate in that treatment the cylindrical bore of the rotor that sits on the protruding center cylinder of the front axle flange/ cylinder bore of the rear axle hub. And if you opt for a completely trouble free rotor removal, also put some anti seize on the threads of the two Allen head bolts that keep the rotor in position, when the wheel is removed.

Though the fit of the rotor bore on the flange- or hub-cylinder is quite tight, a capillary crack exists, which attracts moisture. Water + heat will generate rust on not coated steel surfaces and may seriously seize your rotors if installed dry. A little plain grease or anti seize compound indeed will prevent the occurrence of rust. Grease repels moisture and provides an easy to remove coating that cuts off a major fraction of the oxygen.
 
#31 ·
So back to these 20mm spacers I had posted a picture of. I only purchased that set because when I bought my E39, I came from an E46 and I had replica 18" style 5 wheels that I had purchased that as luck would have it, came in E39 center bore with hub centric rings to fit the E46! I didn't want to waste a completely good set of tires, and didn't want to run with my stock wheels and tires in the winter, so I got the 20mm spacer set as that was the best thickness to ensure the wheel center line matched up with where the stock wheel center line was at. AKA I got the end offset result to match more or less what the stock offset was with these spacers.

No way I can use these spacers on the Stock wheels, or even the new Style 32's I got. I did do a simple test with one style 32 up front and they were pushed out so far, and with no spacer in place the wheel and tire was not even rubbing the strut, so I abandoned that test and figured my best option was only using the style 32's with no spacer.

So I think I will be spacer-less from now on, thankfully!
 
#32 · (Edited)
So I think I will be spacer-less from now on, thankfully!
Seems as if I can hear a big 'thank you' from your front wheel lugs & bearings in the background, since they're heading towards a more easy life ... :smile

If the Style 32 offset with spacer approaches that of the original wheel without spacer, then using the Style 32's now without spacers means reduced offsets compared to the original wheels and thus a bit reduced bearing loads. Peak values in bearing loads keep occurring (with or without spacers) during heavy braking, heavy cornering and driving along pot-holed roads.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top