Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, sorry if this have been covered for so many time. i just wanna know what width and offset i should get if i want the wheels to slightly stick out of my guards, like the 350z in the photo. Cheers!

PS. I am thinking of getting 18X9.5 all around with 263/35 tyres and i don't want to use spacers to fit the wheels on my car.

post-85265-0-28210500-1336188373_thumb.jpg

  On 05/05/2012 at 4:10 AM, DarkRyda said:

18x9.5+20 will stick out nicely

5748249445_95fd49eb0c_b.jpg

They're not 265's though surely!

You are going to struggle to put a 265/35R18 on the front of a RWD GTS-T I would have thought :wacko:

18x9.5's all around will go no dramas but I am an advocate of 225/40R18 all round or 225/40 255/35 staggered set-up.

  On 07/05/2012 at 11:13 AM, Husky33 said:

I have 18x9.5 +22's with 265/35's all round on my r33 gtst.

Need a guard roll and modify the splash guards up front.

Actually got 7mm spacers on the back aswell, just clear.

Shit pic but yeah:

So do you mean that i need 7mm spacers on the back to clear the breaks? Plus, will your ride height be legal in SA? Cheers!

Sorry for asking so many questions! :(

Don't need spacers, just put them on because i had the space to push them out a bit further. In other words i could have gone +15 offset on the rear.

Unless the wheels have ALOT of dish, they should clear the brakes no dramas in a +22 offset.

My ride height is around 100mm give or take at the exhaust under the car

whats the camber set up. surely around the -3 for that. My 9 +22 with -.2 camber is about 5mm out the guards. however when camber was at -1.5 i was able to slide a 8mm to make it almost sit the same

  On 07/05/2012 at 11:13 AM, Husky33 said:

I have 18x9.5 +22's with 265/35's all round on my r33 gtst.

Need a guard roll and modify the splash guards up front.

Actually got 7mm spacers on the back aswell, just clear.

Shit pic but yeah:

Are those TE37's?

The red spoke makes me think so :worship:

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

    • Great interview on damper settings and coil selection by HPA https://www.facebook.com/HPAcademy/videos/30284693841175196/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e
    • Yeah, it was a pretty deep dig.
    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...