Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've done a search but can't find my answer...

- Is anyone running 17x9 all round? specifically on an R34 GTT

- Will 9" fit the front? seems most people go for 8"

- Can I go for the same width AND offset for front and rear? I was thinking 17x9 with offset in the range of +30 to +35.

specifically for a 34 GTT and only 17"

cheers

The offsets seem a bit too low.

if it's for a GTT

17x9 +20 is definitely not too low offset, IMO i wouldn't touch anything with a higher offset than that. Hell, i'm going to be running 17x9 +0 and 18x10 +12 on an S13 soon, will look tough as!

Hi guys just need some help while on this topic.

Ill looking at buying 18inch wheels with 18x8.5+43 Rears 235x40 & 18x8+41 Fronts 225x40.

Will these offset fit my R34 gtt?

Would it clear the brakes?

Thanks guys

Please don't, those offsets will look like complete AIDS on a R34

Edited by ~Hypnotik~

jesus this thread is a brothel!

you can run way better offsets than have been mentioned here...

i run 18.9.5 +30 (18x8.5+30 front) on an r33 gtst with no flare and near flat camber (just a roll) and its an easy fit... the 34 guards are bigger again, so 9.5 +20 will get you about the same fitment as me, and i still could go out a bit more... say another 10mm before i need to flare

DSC00011.jpg

Most people are way too conservative with offset. 33's can definitely fit +20 9.5" rims at the rear and +20 8.5-9 at the front with guard work and it will look a huge deal better than +35 and above offsets. Just don't run bulgy oversized tyres. 265-275 for 10", 255-265 for 9.5", 235-245 for 9", 235-225 for 8.5", 225-215 for 8". Any lower width and the rims are no good for a turbo skyline.

  • 2 months later...

R33 GTST easy but wide fit would be:

Front = 18 x 8.5 +30 235/40/18

Rear = 18 x 9 +30 245/40/18

A little roll at rear - with 1degree neg camber both front and rear.

Keep in mind that you don't want big changes in track widths front to rear.

R34 are a bit bigger so:

Front = 18 x 8.5 +24

Rear = 18 x 9 +24

Not that I can think of rims that are these exact sizes. I currently have 18 x 8 +30 and 18 x 8.5 +33 and they sit about 1cm too far in the guards on R33. Come tyre replacement time I will get 245/40/18 for the rear - up from 235/40/18.

Edited by simpletool

Hi,

I have not been sharing much since i came on the forum. I am from malaysia and here what i have for my setup.

18x9.5 +12 all around

F: 225/45/18 -1 camber

R:245/40/18 -2 camber

[ wheel was off a R34 GTR, got it cuz it was dirt cheap and thought the offset should be manageable]

I have not flared my guards so i been scrapping on hard bumps on all 4 wheels for a few weeks now. I am looking to get camber arm to help go negative even more. This is the part i need some guidance on. Now i have jacked up the suspension so the scrapping is to the minimum. There is a few people in here i have PM that helped me; it still work in progress.

post-51211-1248662237_thumb.jpg

Edited by k20aek

im running 18x8.0 on the front, unsure of offset i'd have to check with 235 rubber no guard work

and 18x9.0 +24 with 265 tyres no guard work.

back wheels sit flush, maybe stick out a mm or 2. looks good

thats on r34gtt

Edited by stenve
  • 1 month later...

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...