Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

8.5 in front and 9.5 at the back....

Calculator says

"The clearance from stut housing to the inside of the wheel will be 7mm MORE

The outside edge of the wheel will EXTEND an extra 33mm"

And

"The clearance from stut housing to the inside of the wheel will be 5mm LESS

The outside edge of the wheel will EXTEND an extra 45mm"

respectively i still dont understand..

does it mean it sticks out by 3.3 cm and 4.5 cm?

it means, fronts wheels stick out 3.3cm, and rears 4.5cm from whatever you punched in as "original" rims

Youll have to look on your car to see where the edge of the rim will sit in relation to the guards,

some guard rolling or light flaring may be required, but I really don't know with r34's.

will these fit or do you need to roll the guards?

i understand i need +38

i will be runnning nismo rims with +35 offset +10 to 15mm spacers on the rear of my r33 very soon (as soon as the rims come from japan)

i let you know how it goes.. alot of people talk about you cant run +20ish* offset on an r33 but seeing a s13 running r33 gtr wheels + 10mm spacers on the rear without flaring leans me to belived that i can do it on the r33

(ps i cant find a photo right now of the car im talking about but this is a similar style)

offset4ov.jpg

I did a trial fit of my 17x9" +20 BBS track rims I was using with my 33 GTR on my new 33 GTST. . . . . no chance. Needed more than rolling the guards to make them fit. Only tried the front, didn't get around to the rear. . . . Not sure what the offset is on standard 33 GTR rims but they fit, just.

on my r32 gts-t

this is what 18x10 +11 offset rims look like, so use the calculator to see how you'd go.

mine are stock rear guards with flaring.

also, the fronts in that picture are where r32 gtr rims will sit on stock front gts-t guards. 16x8 +30 offset

hope this helps!

kh2.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...