Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys...I know there are a number of similar topics like this on the forums, but I am interested in getting a set of wheels... I just wanted to know if gts4's or gtrs can have rims with staggered widths.... i.e 17*9 in the front and 17*10 in the back and not wear out the 4wd system?

I have seen pics with gtrs having some skinny rims on the front and massive 

deep dish rims on the rear... I thought the 4wd computer would constantly bring torque to the front wheels because of different widths and weights and eventually your 4wd system will wear out.

Something I am curious about just due to the amount of rims that come through th

se 

forum but they are mostly thinner in the front then the rear....

And just for the record I don't want to make mine a 2wd to use different width rims...

Thanks,

Adam

P.S sorry admins if this is the wrong section... didn't think it counted as a tyre or suspension problem...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/218622-quick-question-about-gtrs-and-gts4s/
Share on other sites

I've got 9's on the rear, 8.5's on the front, no probs with the attessa system, but my front and rear tyres are the same profile 235/45's. I think the important thing is getting the rolling diameters of both basically the same.

Depends on profile. Easiest way to get an approx value is:

235/45R17

(235 x .45)x 2) + (25.4 x 17) = 643 mm Overall diameter. Pi x D = circumference. 643 x 3.14 = 2019 mm

Please note these are approx and will vary between Brand & pattern.

Edited by Potenza
...

Please note these are approx and will vary between Brand & pattern.

Believe this as well. I had 235/45/17's all round on the same size rims, fronts were new, backs were old, different brands. Still made the 4wd freak.

crap.... so when you say freak... like the steering wheel was constantly really tight?... i.e lots of torque being moved to the front?

I heard some people make their tires a tiny bit bigger or smaller on either the front or the back to give a good constant amount of awd traction..because it is tricking the system....

I have no problem if the 4wd system is always on... but ONLY if it wont wear it out faster then normal... because some people say there is always a little bit of torque going to the front... in which case im sure i'd be ok if i get staggered wheels because the 4wd system is on permanently anyway...

but I have also heard a lot of comments that it will only kick in "when neccessary" in which case i believe the system would wear out quicker if it is not permanently meant to be on...

someone must have the dead set answer?

Adam

I've got 9's on the rear, 8.5's on the front, no probs with the attessa system, but my front and rear tyres are the same profile 235/45's. I think the important thing is getting the rolling diameters of both basically the same.
Doesn't matter that the tyres are the same size. Being on different width rims, they will have slightly different rolling diameters.

The rolling diameter for a given tyre (manufacture / width / profile) is based on a particular sized rim. And different manufacturers use different sized rims as the "standard" for the same size tyre. when you move away from the "standard" rim ie widr / narrower), triangulation changes the effective sidewall height, so the "effective" profile changes, and the rolling diameter changes.

As has been said too many times - SAME SIZE TYRE ON SAME SIZE RIM ON EVERY CORNER.

Doesn't matter that the tyres are the same size. Being on different width rims, they will have slightly different rolling diameters.

The rolling diameter for a given tyre (manufacture / width / profile) is based on a particular sized rim. And different manufacturers use different sized rims as the "standard" for the same size tyre. when you move away from the "standard" rim ie widr / narrower), triangulation changes the effective sidewall height, so the "effective" profile changes, and the rolling diameter changes.

As has been said too many times - SAME SIZE TYRE ON SAME SIZE RIM ON EVERY CORNER.

Meh you have a link to calculate the difference? As I would be interested. it makes sense, but it's the first i've heard of it. Even the tyre place down here steered me wrong with these rims I was running. specifically asked if the higher profile tyres on my rear rims would affect the attessa the rolling diameters difference was about 5mm they said no. and of course as soon as I left my attessa played up. After switching to my old tyres, with the same profile it settled down back to normal.

Although on the 32 the 4wd system is only part time, it doesn't constantly deliver a portion of torque to the front, which I think the 33 does. Incidently found out on checking again, my front rims are 8 inches and my backs are 9's, and the attessa system works as before when I had 9 inch rims all round.

crap.... so when you say freak... like the steering wheel was constantly really tight?... i.e lots of torque being moved to the front?

I heard some people make their tires a tiny bit bigger or smaller on either the front or the back to give a good constant amount of awd traction..because it is tricking the system....

I have no problem if the 4wd system is always on... but ONLY if it wont wear it out faster then normal... because some people say there is always a little bit of torque going to the front... in which case im sure i'd be ok if i get staggered wheels because the 4wd system is on permanently anyway...

but I have also heard a lot of comments that it will only kick in "when neccessary" in which case i believe the system would wear out quicker if it is not permanently meant to be on...

someone must have the dead set answer?

Adam

Freak = a very pronounced surgeing, both on the gauge, and through the backside. I can't imagine it being that much fun for the transfer case either.

I thought it might have been a fuel prob, but pulled the 4wd fuse and it went away. Swapped rims front to back and put fuse back in and it was all good.

Thats wot I was afraid of hearing... so GTRs that have staggered width rims... wots the go with that?

its ok to have staggered widths as long as the tyres rolling diameter is the same or have slightly larger at the rears (dont know if reaction times of attessa is affected)can be used.

Ideal is to have same widths of rims with same tyres all 4 round. if u need to rotate rims front to back wont be a problem as with staggered rims doing the same thing, in cases of rears tyres wearing out faster than fronts.

When i got my gtr it had staggered widths and the altessa worked fine , but when u were full into it the front wheels lost grip before the rear which annoyed me , now i got the same size rubber on all 4 corners and now when u lose grip the car slide nice and even , i think having staggered rim threw the balance of the car out

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

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...