JeepForum.com
> General Technical Discussions
> Tires & Wheels
>
Wheel weights... MT vs. ProComp
 |
|
09-25-2006, 04:46 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 261
|
Wheel weights... MT vs. ProComp
I am debating between MT Classic II and Procomp 1069.
The MTs are listed at 21 lbs. each (16x8)
The Procomps are listed at 30 lbs. each (16x8)
Anybody know why that is?? Can that even be correct? I got the info. of their respective web sites. I wonder why the Procomps are 9 lbs. heavier. They look exactly the same.
__________________
2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited
Mineral Gray / Black
5.7L Hemi
ORA2
|
|
|
|
09-25-2006, 08:16 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 170
|
Not sure about the 16's, the 15's have about .5" of difference in BS. That shouldn't affect the weight, but if you haven't already done so, you might check the 16's. That might be more of a deciding factor than the weight (I don't see how the ProComp could weigh nearly 50% more).
|
|
|
|
|
09-25-2006, 08:26 PM
|
#3
|
|
BecauseRacecar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 13,320
|
Get the lighter ones. 21lbs sounds right. My aluminum 16x7's are are 18lbs per
__________________
2013 FR-S
|
|
|
|
|
09-25-2006, 08:29 PM
|
#4
|
|
Choosy moms choose jeep.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,934
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BlaineWasHere
Get the lighter ones. 21lbs sounds right. My aluminum 16x7's are are 18lbs per
|
The only problem is the lighter ones have 3.2 ish BS where the heavier ones have 3.75 BS. so it all depends on if you mind the extra BS or not.
__________________
Jake Davis
97 Jeep Wrangler
4.0, 5 speed AX-15, D44 & Ford 8.8 w/Detroit - 4.88, NP-231, OME 2.5" coils w/1.25" spacers on front, 1.25" JKS BL, 35X12.50R15 KM2 on 15x8 Eagle alloys, Banks Header, Banks Monster Exhaust, Brown Dog MML, Rhino Liner, Tuffy Glove Box, AtoZ Rockers, Optima Red Top Battery.
1998 GMC Yukon
Wilmington weekly 4x4 meet
|
|
|
|
|
09-25-2006, 09:31 PM
|
#5
|
|
BecauseRacecar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 13,320
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jakemd98
The only problem is the lighter ones have 3.2 ish BS where the heavier ones have 3.75 BS. so it all depends on if you mind the extra BS or not.
|
Unless you have a decent amount of lift with large tires 3.2 will stick out really far.
I run 3.5" of BS and that is almost to much.
__________________
2013 FR-S
|
|
|
|
|
09-25-2006, 10:56 PM
|
#6
|
|
Do it right or not at all
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Escondido, California, California
Posts: 57,627
|
MT's insufficient backspacing has always kept me from buying their wheels, there's just not enough for me. For that reason alone, I'd go with the 1069 which is a decent quality wheel. I'll rag on the MT reps again at this coming 4x4 Expo in Pomona Calif. next month about their lack of backspacing. 
|
|
|
|
|
09-26-2006, 03:33 AM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Iberia, Louisiana
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Bransford
MT's insufficient backspacing has always kept me from buying their wheels, there's just not enough for me. For that reason alone, I'd go with the 1069 which is a decent quality wheel. I'll rag on the MT reps again at this coming 4x4 Expo in Pomona Calif. next month about their lack of backspacing. |
Please do. I sure would like a set of 15x8 M/T's with a 4.5" BS. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
