Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all, i'm wondering if an offset of +35 will work on a GTR32. I dont really care how they look, im just concerned about how they perform on the track. And wot rim width is the best fit for 235/45/17 and 255/40/17 tyres? Will the performance of a GTR will affected in a negative way on the track with mismatched tyres front n rear, say 235/45/17 front and 255/40/17 rear? Any input will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Jyo.

Hi all, i'm wondering if an offset of +35 will work on a GTR32. I dont really care how they look, im just concerned about how they perform on the track. And wot rim width is the best fit for 235/45/17 and 255/40/17 tyres? Will the performance of a GTR will affected in a negative way on the track with mismatched tyres front n rear, say 235/45/17 front and 255/40/17 rear? Any input will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Jyo.

ATTESA doesn't like different diameter tyres, wears out the clutch pack something fierce.

GTR's tend to understeer, so using smaller tyres on the front is not a good idea

Over 60% of the weight of a GTR is on the front wheels, so using smaller tyres on the front is not a good idea.

Over 75% of the initial braking effort of a GTR comes from the front brakes, so using smaller tyres on the front is not a good idea.

:no: cheers :down:

why you would go to rims narrower than the ones the car was made with standard is beyond me. plenty of people are giving you advice, but you don't seem to want it?

I'll say it loud:

just buy the right/suitable wheels for your car!! do not stuff around with the wrong size/offset and spacers etc. it's a waste of time when you have the opportunity to save that hassle and just buy the correct fkn wheels straight up

standard wheels are 16X8 +30 so going to 17X7.5 is a dumb idea. no doubt about it. going to 17X9 +20 is a good idea. even 17X9+30 is a good idea. 17X8 +35 is NOT a good idea. yes it will work. your call will still roll along but you are going backwards from what your car had from the factory.

but the rims are narrower than stock. and 1.5 inches narrower than the most common 32 size (17X9). so yeah they will give more track than a stock rim but I don't understand why you'd want a narrower rim? yes a 0 offset will give more track than say a +20 offset (comparing rims of the same width) but putting a 235 on a 7.5 is not what I'd reccomend. I'd use a 235 on a 9 inch rim. sorry if I seem a little blunt but it seems to me like you are trying to re-invent the wheel for no good reason? (pun intended).

Yeah i get it, i was just thinking that +0 offset would give a wider track width? Think i got it wrong the other way..

what!! lol. vip stylzzzz. if you can find somwhere that pumpes guards to fit them let me know kaythanx :P

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...