Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
THX,
I can't thank you enough. I was gonna do the same thing after I finished my finals -- YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!
One question. My 'fender" do you mean the inside edge of the fender lip (which can bent in or rolled to but another 7-10mm) or the very outside wall of the fender?
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by gurgenpb on 11/30/03 02:05 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
I can't thank you enough. I was gonna do the same thing after I finished my finals -- YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!
One question. My 'fender" do you mean the inside edge of the fender lip (which can bent in or rolled to but another 7-10mm) or the very outside wall of the fender?
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by gurgenpb on 11/30/03 02:05 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
Haha ... your welcome. Believe me this whole Sedan + Wheel thing has me some serious sleepless nights!!!
The 'Fender' line is the *outter* edge (adjecent to the body panel).
btw ... looks like I'm giong w. F: 19 x 8.0 (+38) and R: 19 x 9.0 (+45).
Clint
THX723
The 'Fender' line is the *outter* edge (adjecent to the body panel).
btw ... looks like I'm giong w. F: 19 x 8.0 (+38) and R: 19 x 9.0 (+45).
Clint
THX723
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
One other thing (sorry)
In the rear, because of negative camber, you would expect a little more room (compared to the calculated value) available for the top of the weehl away from the fender, right?
Gurgen
EDIT: I was gonna do rear 9" +45 but I wanted 275 tires. Do you think that will work or will they rub???
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by gurgenpb on 11/30/03 02:09 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
In the rear, because of negative camber, you would expect a little more room (compared to the calculated value) available for the top of the weehl away from the fender, right?
Gurgen
EDIT: I was gonna do rear 9" +45 but I wanted 275 tires. Do you think that will work or will they rub???
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by gurgenpb on 11/30/03 02:09 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
And... I have got a lowered car....
Tirerack says 255's won't run (they tested them supposedly) on a 9" +45 wheel in the rear.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by gurgenpb on 11/30/03 02:11 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Tirerack says 255's won't run (they tested them supposedly) on a 9" +45 wheel in the rear.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by gurgenpb on 11/30/03 02:11 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
In the rear, because of negative camber, you would expect a little more room (compared to the calculated value) available for the top of the weehl away from the fender, right?
<hr></blockquote>
Yes, you would expect some additional clearance at the back due to *negative* camber. In fact, I did a rough calculation and it comes out to roughly 8mm @ -1.5 degree and 11mm @ -2.0 degree. But keep in mind, my previous diagram is with respect to the 'wheel' rather than the 'tire'. So, you'll want to take in consideration of the part where the tire extrude outward.
Yes, I'm also planning on running 275s at the back on 9.0" wide wheels at +45 offset. That's very intresting what Tire Rack has told you. According to my calculations it should be ok with +45. I also know Jays_G's got the same setup but with +38 offset with just the slightest rubs on Eibachs. His rubbing was resolved by a minor fender roll, so +45 should be ok.
I wonder what aspect ratio Tire Rack were using for that test? I don't see how 255s should have any issues. Do you mean 275s?
Check out my attached tire selection chart. I'm going with F: 245/35 and R: 275/30 for the widest tire selections and only a 1.0% F/R ratio difference (VDC friendly). The only thing that I'm some what concerned with is 275 is technically just out of the manufacturer's spec. for 9.0" wide wheels, but all tire and wheel shops' told me it's perfectly fine!
THX723<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by THX723 on 11/30/03 02:46 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
146683-Tire Chart.JPG
In the rear, because of negative camber, you would expect a little more room (compared to the calculated value) available for the top of the weehl away from the fender, right?
<hr></blockquote>
Yes, you would expect some additional clearance at the back due to *negative* camber. In fact, I did a rough calculation and it comes out to roughly 8mm @ -1.5 degree and 11mm @ -2.0 degree. But keep in mind, my previous diagram is with respect to the 'wheel' rather than the 'tire'. So, you'll want to take in consideration of the part where the tire extrude outward.
Yes, I'm also planning on running 275s at the back on 9.0" wide wheels at +45 offset. That's very intresting what Tire Rack has told you. According to my calculations it should be ok with +45. I also know Jays_G's got the same setup but with +38 offset with just the slightest rubs on Eibachs. His rubbing was resolved by a minor fender roll, so +45 should be ok.
I wonder what aspect ratio Tire Rack were using for that test? I don't see how 255s should have any issues. Do you mean 275s?
Check out my attached tire selection chart. I'm going with F: 245/35 and R: 275/30 for the widest tire selections and only a 1.0% F/R ratio difference (VDC friendly). The only thing that I'm some what concerned with is 275 is technically just out of the manufacturer's spec. for 9.0" wide wheels, but all tire and wheel shops' told me it's perfectly fine!
THX723<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by THX723 on 11/30/03 02:46 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
146683-Tire Chart.JPG
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
THX
What a difference one letter can make (I am a terrible typist).
I meant to say taht TireRack said that 255's will not rub! That's good news if 275 will run IYO. I am just curious about the aspect ratios. That's the "bulb" of the tire over the rim right? So how does one read those? I guess I would want a tire with no bulge, a flat side wall.
I am curious how you calculated the distance by assuming a 0 degree camber? That's pretty neat. If ths is in fact true, than we can definitely go with 275's on a 9" rim (I was told by a tire shop that it's ok too, but it is a tad wide - which may contribute to the "bulb"). Are you sure your calculations are with a 0degree camber assumption. If so, we are home free.
I am going with the SSR GT1 18" wheels, 9" rear and 8" front. I am looking for a light wheel that will not diminish performance. Otherwise, it would have been 19".
Gurgen
What a difference one letter can make (I am a terrible typist).
I meant to say taht TireRack said that 255's will not rub! That's good news if 275 will run IYO. I am just curious about the aspect ratios. That's the "bulb" of the tire over the rim right? So how does one read those? I guess I would want a tire with no bulge, a flat side wall.
I am curious how you calculated the distance by assuming a 0 degree camber? That's pretty neat. If ths is in fact true, than we can definitely go with 275's on a 9" rim (I was told by a tire shop that it's ok too, but it is a tad wide - which may contribute to the "bulb"). Are you sure your calculations are with a 0degree camber assumption. If so, we are home free.
I am going with the SSR GT1 18" wheels, 9" rear and 8" front. I am looking for a light wheel that will not diminish performance. Otherwise, it would have been 19".
Gurgen
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
Ahhh ... 'not rub' ... that makes more sense now! Hehe. Yes, 255 will work beautifully at the back, but that's just sooo 'conservative' ??? hehe 
The aspect ratio is the side-wall height and expressed in % of the tire width (i.e. 275/35R19, aka 35-series, tire has a side-wall height of 35% of 275mm). Different series tire mounted on various width wheels will result in different overall side-wall width as well. It's not very cut and dry. A pain in the **** actually. haha.
The x mm @ 0-degree value I came up with is the offset you need to apply to my previous diagram. Check attchment in how I've arrived at the numbers (r = the radius of the wheel+tire).
For example, 9.0" (+45) lines up with the outside wheel fender, which would surely rub. But at -2.5 degree camber (my guess for the Eibach drop) it would push it nearly 14mm inside of the fender. But again, you still gotta take in consideration of the tire side-wall extrusion which you once again bring you back close to the fender
Try not to get too caught up w. my diagrams and calcutation too. It's there as a tool and are in no way EXACT w.o. using more sophisticated tools. I'm still waiting for Jays_G to supply some detailed shots of his setup so I can finally put thig whole thing to rest!
The SSR GT1s are pretty nice! Good choice. I'm on the similar 'light weight' route as well. I'm current hot on these 'one piece' Advan (now Yokohama) Kreuzer Vs. But, I still opted for the 19" appearance for the street (figuring the 275s will be weighing us down anyways). I'll go with some super light 17" set for track use, which I'm not even sure what to get at this point.
THX723
The aspect ratio is the side-wall height and expressed in % of the tire width (i.e. 275/35R19, aka 35-series, tire has a side-wall height of 35% of 275mm). Different series tire mounted on various width wheels will result in different overall side-wall width as well. It's not very cut and dry. A pain in the **** actually. haha.
The x mm @ 0-degree value I came up with is the offset you need to apply to my previous diagram. Check attchment in how I've arrived at the numbers (r = the radius of the wheel+tire).
For example, 9.0" (+45) lines up with the outside wheel fender, which would surely rub. But at -2.5 degree camber (my guess for the Eibach drop) it would push it nearly 14mm inside of the fender. But again, you still gotta take in consideration of the tire side-wall extrusion which you once again bring you back close to the fender
Try not to get too caught up w. my diagrams and calcutation too. It's there as a tool and are in no way EXACT w.o. using more sophisticated tools. I'm still waiting for Jays_G to supply some detailed shots of his setup so I can finally put thig whole thing to rest!
The SSR GT1s are pretty nice! Good choice. I'm on the similar 'light weight' route as well. I'm current hot on these 'one piece' Advan (now Yokohama) Kreuzer Vs. But, I still opted for the 19" appearance for the street (figuring the 275s will be weighing us down anyways). I'll go with some super light 17" set for track use, which I'm not even sure what to get at this point.
THX723
Trending Topics
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
Makes perfect sense.
I do have eibachs, but the alignment was correctedto the factory specs. I am not sure what they are, but i think they are 2degrees (correct me if I am wrong).
I have been researching the section width vs. tread width. The two tires that I am considering are the Yokohama ES100 275/35-18 and 245-40-18 and the Goodyear GS1-D3. If you look at the detailed specs of the Yokohama and the Goodyear tires (on TireRack), they tell you that there is no "industry standard" for calulating tread width (as some tires are somewhat rounded at the tread edge more than others), so you can't compare interbrand section widths. Nonetheless, the Yokohamas have a 10.7 section width mounted on a 9.5" rim. On the 9" rim, they will have a section width of 10.5 (looked at the examples of calculations). The Goodyear has a 10.9" section width on a 9.5" rim, and will have a 10.7" section width on a 9" rim. You get a "flatter" sidewall with the Yokohamas than the Goodyears.... So that maybe my choice... but I realy like the good year better. Here is their comparison .
The yokohamas are also about 200 bucks less for the set....
Gurgen
I do have eibachs, but the alignment was correctedto the factory specs. I am not sure what they are, but i think they are 2degrees (correct me if I am wrong).
I have been researching the section width vs. tread width. The two tires that I am considering are the Yokohama ES100 275/35-18 and 245-40-18 and the Goodyear GS1-D3. If you look at the detailed specs of the Yokohama and the Goodyear tires (on TireRack), they tell you that there is no "industry standard" for calulating tread width (as some tires are somewhat rounded at the tread edge more than others), so you can't compare interbrand section widths. Nonetheless, the Yokohamas have a 10.7 section width mounted on a 9.5" rim. On the 9" rim, they will have a section width of 10.5 (looked at the examples of calculations). The Goodyear has a 10.9" section width on a 9.5" rim, and will have a 10.7" section width on a 9" rim. You get a "flatter" sidewall with the Yokohamas than the Goodyears.... So that maybe my choice... but I realy like the good year better. Here is their comparison .
The yokohamas are also about 200 bucks less for the set....
Gurgen
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
-2.0 degrees on Eibach sounds about right. I remember reading it somewhere in the past (may be from u? haha).
And yes, I agree tread width is as vague as tread wear rating between manufacturers and is of little use for us here anyhow. Section width is what we'll be concerned with.
Can you link me to a section width calcualtor or formula with respect to the wheel width? I've been guesstimating that cricitcal value.
Those Eagle F1 GS-D3 are nice tires. They compete directly with the Bridgestone S02/03s and the Yokohama AVS Sports. The ES100 is one step below the AVS Sports and will last you much longer, however, but still a fine choice.
I'm gonna go with either Yokohama AVS Sports or Dunlop SP 9000 (comparable to the ES100).
THX723<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by THX723 on 11/30/03 07:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
And yes, I agree tread width is as vague as tread wear rating between manufacturers and is of little use for us here anyhow. Section width is what we'll be concerned with.
Can you link me to a section width calcualtor or formula with respect to the wheel width? I've been guesstimating that cricitcal value.
Those Eagle F1 GS-D3 are nice tires. They compete directly with the Bridgestone S02/03s and the Yokohama AVS Sports. The ES100 is one step below the AVS Sports and will last you much longer, however, but still a fine choice.
I'm gonna go with either Yokohama AVS Sports or Dunlop SP 9000 (comparable to the ES100).
THX723<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by THX723 on 11/30/03 07:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
I haven't seen any calculators... I just looked up the links a in my previous thread for each tire. If you click on the column title for section width it will take you to the explanatory page for th terms - and there is an example.
gurgen
gurgen
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
Ahhh ... thanks. Two of your links didn't work and of course it's the 3rd (Goodyear) that works and I was too lazy by then to click on it 
THX723
THX723
Re: Sedan Wheel Fitment Chart
I don't have it on my G yet, but I have it on my E320 with a staggered set of 18" wheels. I should say they are kinda flat-walled since they don't have as high of side wall as the SO3. But in my opinion, it rides better than SO3 that I previously had on the car. SO3 is too harsh, often creates uneven tread wear no matter how careful you drive. AVS sport is a nice choice but the ride is a little firmer less dampening compared to the ES100, not to mention about 50 dollars more.