Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

as title states

im looking at getting 18x10 +24offset. with R disk and O disk for rear (more dish) but heard i must get r disk for both? frown.png anyone know about this?

want it to sit flush and agressive but with no rubbing. (dnt want stupid camber spec either) Just inside the guard would be ideal for lowering purposes.

what are others running? pictures? did you need to do any modifications to fit?

thanks.

Edited by JesseJ
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/400841-best-widthoffset-combo-for-32-gtr/
Share on other sites

i think a R32 GTR could take a bit more offset then +24 i run +20 on my GTST and its flush and my mate also runs +18 on a 18x10 all round on a GTST, so i think you could sink in some +20 to +15's in there nicley and depending on how aggressive the look your going for is +12 i have seen looks mint ;)

dude use the search function there is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo many threads. like the R32 pics thread half have rims pics and rim sizes and offsets.

32 Gtr - 18x10+12 is do-able.

look at my content, posted a few of my car with rota grid R with the above offset. looks wickid tough agressive and then some.

only issue is my car was lowered a bit, had front rubbing on passenger guard. annoyed the crap out of me.

personally for sake of $$$ in wheels and tyres im looking at 17x9.5 +15,20 wheels next time. and spaced accordingly maybe 10/15mm bolt ons.

end of the day its your car.

Hope this helps!

Yeah with appropriate height on car i.e. not dumped on its ass.

You can do 18x10 +12 no dramas without rolling lips.

If you want a dropped car with camber etc you can do bolt on spacers, and then lip guards etc to suit.

thats running 265/35/18s btw with a tiny bit of stretch, could run 275's i think then on a stock gtr you start running in to problems.

for a road going car i wouldnt go any bigger personally. looks tuff, rides well enough not absolutely rough as guts and will def fill those pumpd guards!!

get em.

running 18x10+18 with 275 tires all round

issues = tires rubbing on rear gaurd so we rolled it problem gone,

also passenger side inner plastic gaurds rubs a bit on full lock.....doesnt really bother me though

Thats the thing, i want it faily low :)

18x10 + 18 seems to be a good combo (going from another forum) or maybe play it safe and go slighter higher so i can lower it how i want..hmmm

good to know rolling the guards = no rubbing issues (Was it rubbing on inner or outer or both?) - could you tyre tuck if you wanted to?? any piccies?

Edited by JesseJ

front wheel just rubbed on inner gaurd only, rear rubbed on outter. To tuck the tires in on a 18x10 i see guys running 265 tires which tend to just fit under gaurds without needing to roll them

hers some pics of how it sits

bully.jpg

japcarshow.jpg

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Old post but saves me starting a new one....when people say "roll the guards" does that mean the front aswell?

I got work xd9 in 18x10 + 18 with 265 KU36 rubber all around, scrubs a tiny bit at the height I've got it at (pretty low) so will prob get my rears rolled, what can be done for the fronts??

Remove upper guard liner and give them a roll too?

Set of Work VS-XX I've been working on. 18x10.5 et 23ish. Filled, drilled, and shaved mounting pads 8mm. R-disk front, O-disk rear. Natural weight camber curve will pull the wheel inside the wheel well as it is unloaded in the photo. Front looks the same. 4.5 inch lip on the rear, 3.5 on the front.

DSC04632.jpg

DSC04634.jpg

Car sitting on a set of Enkei RP01's. 17x9 et20 on Hancook Rs-3's. My gymkana set up.

DSC03769.jpg

Edited by warp speed

When u say shaving the mounting pads, do you mean the mounting surface on the back of the wheel?

I raised my car about 8mm all around today all seems fine now, not too keen on rolling my rear guards

When u say shaving the mounting pads, do you mean the mounting surface on the back of the wheel?

I raised my car about 8mm all around today all seems fine now, not too keen on rolling my rear guards

Correct.

I've been told ideal/largest size for 32 GTR is 18x10' +20ish offset

Depends how low your car is as well :D

i just got work xd9's in 18x10 +18 with 265 KU36 tyres (which have no stretch on the rim)

definetly no way of tucking them in the guard, but if you roll the guards you can wind the coilovers down another 10-15mm and it wouldnt scrub

mine have about a 2 finger gap between wheels and guards....

i just got work xd9's in 18x10 +18 with 265 KU36 tyres (which have no stretch on the rim)

definetly no way of tucking them in the guard, but if you roll the guards you can wind the coilovers down another 10-15mm and it wouldnt scrub

mine have about a 2 finger gap between wheels and guards....

Ah ok, well I have 18x 10.0 at around 15-20ish off set ( can't remember) though I do have my guards rolled..That's with 265/35 federals

If I wasn't interstate I'd walk outside and see if the fronts were rolled for you :)

Edited by GTR_JOEY

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...