Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I am looking at rims and tyres for my R33, but the guys at Bob Jame tyres suggest that the tyre setup I want (which they recommend as well) of 235/45/17 on the front and 255/40/17 on the back requires 9 inch rims on the rears... this cuts down the rim choices HEAPS.

They say the 255 will fit on an 8 inch rim, but is 'pinched' and does not sit well so reduces my traction.

The problem is 17 * 8 rims are everywhere and cheap (relatively), 17 * 9 are impossible to get and choice is limited... the only rim I can find is the Enkei RP01 which is fairly basic (I want deepdish dammit!!! :rolleyes: )

Any suggestions or comments? What have you guys gone for with rims?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/3637-rim-size-17-8-or-17-9/
Share on other sites

Well, if you want 9" wide on the back you're going to have to spend alot of money dude, from what i've seen only expensive jap wheels are wider than 8" (well, stylish wheels anyway).

Perhaps look at some Advans, Rays Engineering wheels, or some Volks. All very very pricey wheels though. I think you should just go 8" wide rims, it's easier and cheaper.

Na , go the Jap drift look:cool:

I've got 235 's stretched onto the 10'' rears of my 300 zx TTDD ( thats Twin Turbo Drift Dog :( ) Cuts out any sidewall flex but no rim protection from kerbs.

Ken

Thanks for the info guys, I ended finding some cheap 9 inchers, so I have got my 17 * 8s on rht front and 17 * 9s on the rear, and a set of 235/45 and 255/40 P Zero Neros on order :(

I chose the Neros as apparently they give good ride quality and nose levels but still grip like crazy.. the rosso is even more refined, but it just looks boring in my opinion :)

HI Steve, i got the rims through Bob Jane Morley in Perth (Brett).

They are a Giemax import, and they have a few speccy looking rims that are in 17 * 9.

I would put a picture up, but I dont have any... only seen them in the showroom and ordered them (they were decent looking at cheap, and 9 inches wide so it was an easy choice :D )

I will have them end October (they have to ship them from Japan on the next container from Giemax) if you are still looking and would like to see them on the car.

Conrad

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...