4.6is (Star Spoke 87) wheel weights?

[Hans_ACS]

The type 87 are very light yes, and I think that is the reason why a lot a X5 owners who upgraded to them, do not feel a difference in handling or acceleration. Some even claim to give you a better ride

Speaking for myself, I felt the car handled surely as good as when I had my 19s on.

I do not know how much the 168 wheigh sorry for that.

[Teutonaddict]

Was at the $tealer today, and struck up a conversation with the parts man. He went zipping thru the ETK and pulled up the following list weights for the Style 87 (4.6) and Style 168 (4.8) wheels;

The following weights are for the rears, 20 x 10.5

4.6 Style 87 14.3 kilo 31.5 lb
4.8 Style 168 12.2 kilo 26.9 lb

These weights seem closest to what my gut says--the five-spoke versions are pretty 'beefy' (substantial) and so it makes sense they're slightly heavier--but not by a large degree.

[DINANM3]

So the 168s are really lighter than the 87s. Damn now i want the 168s. any one want to buy my 87s.

[DinanX5]

Originally Posted by Teutonaddict

The following weights are for the rears, 20 x 10.5

4.6 Style 87 14.3 kilo 31.5 lb
4.8 Style 168 12.2 kilo 26.9 lb

Can that be right? There's so much conflicting data out there...

[Teutonaddict]

Originally Posted by DinanX5

Can that be right? There's so much conflicting data out there...

Agreed. All the different data found during searches led to this post.

These are the posted weight 'specs' from the BMWAG online catalog, or ETK. There may well be variance from this, but I'd use it as a comparative guide, much like RMS Watts power ratings on A/V receivers.

FWIW, I think that attempts to weigh 'at home' can lead to wildly varying numbers as most home scales have poor reliability below 40lbs or 18 Kilos.

[DinanX5]

Originally Posted by Teutonaddict

...FWIW, I think that attempts to weigh 'at home' can lead to wildly varying numbers as most home scales have poor reliability below 40lbs or 18 Kilos.

Good point about home scales - they probably wouldn't give an accurate measurement of weights in this range.
As far as the weights for 168's and 87's, since they're both OEM BMW wheels, I'd think that comparing the weights listed in BMW's spec sheets should at least be accurate enough for a comparison b/w the two... (even if BMW weighs their wheels differently from others, presumably they're consistent). I'm just surprised that 7-spoke wheels are 15% lighter than 5-spoke wheels.
Anyone know if they're both made for BMW by the same manufacturer? And by the same forging process?

[///Bruce]

Originally Posted by DINANM3

So the 168s are really lighter than the 87s. Damn now i want the 168s. any one want to buy my 87s.

You still looking to trade your 87's for 168's?

[TheGodfather]

Does it not make sense that BMW would use the lightest wheels for their highest performance engine X5?

I would be pretty stupid to design a wheel that is going to hinder the performance of your SAV showpiece.

[papasmurf]

I thought the 87s weighed WAY more than 30 pounds. Someone told me that they are in the 70 pound range for a 10.5 with a tire.

[FSETH]

Originally Posted by papasmurf

I thought the 87s weighed WAY more than 30 pounds. Someone told me that they are in the 70 pound range for a 10.5 with a tire.

Rear tires alone (size 315/35/20) weigh in around 40 pounds. Runflats are closer to 46 pounds... 70 pounds total is about right.