Actual Wheel Bores for Hubcentric Wheels

[nolimits]

Has anyone actually measured their wheel bores on their stock wheels?

We know Bronco hub bores are 93.1 but the wheel bores would need to be ever so slightly larger for fitment. The question becomes how much exactly is “slightly”?

Ford Performance shows the Method 703 bead grip wheels as a 93.25 wheel bore.

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-1007K-M1785MB

That 0.15mm difference equates to 0.005905” or slightly larger than 3/512th inch (0.005859).

In comparison, the Icon Rebound Pro (wheel I personally like a lot) is shown with a wheel bore of 95.1 on the 25mm offset variant. The 0mm offset variant has a larger universal wheel bore. Also several Icon wheel styles are offered in 25mm offset with 95.1 wheel bores.

https://www.iconvehicledynamics.com/wheel/15050/icon-alloys-rebound-pro/?finishID=275

This small 2mm difference equates to 0.07874” which is nearly 5/64 inch (0.078125). To put in terms with the Method 703’s, this difference would be over 13x the size and would ring in at 40/512th inch.

Understandbly both variances are tiny. And undetectable to the naked eye. However, the question remains….at what point/variance is a wheel considered hubcentric?

I would assume stock wheels are 93.25 or less since that is what the 703’s meet and I assume Ford said you have to meet X to get FP approval.

For clarity, this isn’t meant to bash or promote any manufacturer, style, etc. I’m just curious what the tolerances are and will be compiling a spreadsheet of options as I’m personally looking for something hubcentric and light weight.

@Dusty at ICON
@Discount Tire

Sponsored

 

[Silver-Bolt]

Hubcentric should be an interference fit. Meaning no play between wheel and hub. Just shy of a press fit. 2mm of play is not hubcentric.

 

[Bronco1010]

I have been told by wheel distributors that a wheel was "lug centric" since the center bore was much larger then the hub fitment. He tried to sell me on the fact that the lugs were supposed to center the wheels. Not knowing if that was correct I measured and bought hub centric rings to bridge the gap.

 

[BigHoof]

If you buy the 106.1 mm Icon's, then you could get rings to fill the gap for a perfect fit. Can't do that with the 95.1 mm.

One example of many:

https://lugnutguys.com/products/hub-centric-rings-106mm-to-93-1mm-set-of-4

 

[nolimits]

I have been told by wheel distributors that a wheel was "lug centric" since the center bore was much larger then the hub fitment. He tried to sell me on the fact that the lugs were supposed to center the wheels. Not knowing if that was correct I measured and bought hub centric rings to bridge the gap.

I would say most wheels are lug centric as manufacturers tend to produce 1 wheel that will fit multiple vehicles. I’m far from the expert but my understanding is using the correct lug nut type and tightening in the proper wheel pattern will center the wheels properly.

What I dislike with that methodology is the wheel lugs are carrying all your load. Perhaps I have the wrong mindset but that doesn’t seem like a great idea. So I would like to avoid that if possible.

 

[Dusty at ICON]

I'm guessing ours are 95.1 for cross-compatibility with Toyota applications. Does that then make it technically not hub-centric for a 93mm hub? I'm not an expert on it but it would seem so.

But we are not alone in that. It seems most wheel manufacturers do the same, to increase compatibility and reduce the number of SKUs they have to keep on the shelf. I can't speak for Method but my guess is that was a requirement of that particular wheel being offered through Ford Performance.

For what it's worth, I've weighed in on my personal opinions on hub-centric versus non-hub-centric several times, and my opinion is that it has been a non-issue for my personal experience. Almost every vehicle I've ever owned had lug-centric wheels on it. I've never had one fall off or ride rough because the wheel was out of center. I have almost 43,000 miles on a set of 106mm-bore Rebound Pros (without rings) on my personal Bronco and it rides like butter.

 

[BigHoof]

Being you are ordering new, why would you not just order the 106 vs 95? Seems like a no brainer then you can use the rings.

 

[nolimits]

@Dusty at ICON thank you for taking the time to respond. Prior to your post I wasn’t aware Toyota had 95.1 hubs. This makes more sense to me now.

I appreciate you sharing your personal experiences. It’s not surprising most guys are running larger wheel bores, with or without rings, as finding anything with a 93.1 hub is tough. Saw some custom stuff but that is approaching $900/wheel. I will run SAS wheels before I spend that kind of coin. Although you make a good case that most are going lug centric with no real issues.

@BigHoof I will likely buy new but may consider used if a deal comes my way. I do agree the simple answer would be to get a larger wheel bore and throw rings on. However, one issue (at least with Icon) is the majority of their +25mm offset wheels are on 95.1 bores. You have to change to a 0mm offset to get the larger bores. Most vendors don’t have 95.1 bores so this is likely an isolated issue to Icon but I really like those Rebound Pros and don’t like a ton of poke. Eventually I plan to run KBD fender flares or ADV fenders, both with narrower flares than stock non-SAS so that is also being considered.

Lastly I would pay the extra for billet aluminum rings instead of plastic if I were to run them. Again maybe my old school mentality but something solid vs easily breakable makes more sense to me.

When I had my 392 Challenger, several of my Hellcat and Demon buddies ran stuff from these guys.

https://www.uswheeladapters.com/hub-centric-rings/

 

[nolimits]

FYI I have reached out to RTR and Rosch to see what size of wheel bores their offerings have as their websites aren’t clear. Also I have asked for both packed weight and wheel only weights.

@Dusty at ICON by chance have you got any wheel weight data you can share on Icon wheels? All the stuff on the website is packaged weight and that’s normally a few pounds more than wheel only. I’m trying to stay cognizant of adding additional weight/rotational mass in the process.

 

[Dusty at ICON]

FYI I have reached out to RTR and Rosch to see what size of wheel bores their offerings have as their websites aren’t clear. Also I have asked for both packed weight and wheel only weights.

@Dusty at ICON by chance have you got any wheel weight data you can share on Icon wheels? All the stuff on the website is packaged weight and that’s normally a few pounds more than wheel only. I’m trying to stay cognizant of adding additional weight/rotational mass in the process.

The box and packaging materials for a 17" wheel is just under 3 lbs. So you can just subtract 3 from the listed shipping weight for our wheels.

 

[Silver-Bolt]

I would say most wheels are lug centric as manufacturers tend to produce 1 wheel that will fit multiple vehicles. I’m far from the expert but my understanding is using the correct lug nut type and tightening in the proper wheel pattern will center the wheels properly.

What I dislike with that methodology is the wheel lugs are carrying all your load. Perhaps I have the wrong mindset but that doesn’t seem like a great idea. So I would like to avoid that if possible.

You are on track.

 

[87-Z28]

For what it's worth, I've weighed in on my personal opinions on hub-centric versus non-hub-centric several times, and my opinion is that it has been a non-issue for my personal experience. Almost every vehicle I've ever owned had lug-centric wheels on it. I've never had one fall off or ride rough because the wheel was out of center. I have almost 43,000 miles on a set of 106mm-bore Rebound Pros (without rings) on my personal Bronco and it rides like butter.

agreed. I can’t imagine this is an issue. The lugs are conical and therefore make complete and intimate contact with wheel when torqued. No gap, 0mm. The lugs will most definitely carry the load for a wheel/hub that has 2mm gap. The bearing area for the wheel/hub can be calculated from the hub diameter (93.5 mm). To get the same linear bearing length out of six lugs requires a lug wheel hole diameter of >15.6 mm. Easy to achieve similar bearing areas for lugs taking load versus hub taking load. Hard to imagine that not being hub centric is an issue.

Sponsored