Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

anyone have pics or have fitted 18 x 9 +30 with a 235/40 on the front of a 32 gtst?

i got mine on atm, adn its mm's from touching the uca, but i just would like to see how low people have gona with at the front

i am running coilovers so i can adjust, but cant drive car as engine pieces getting powdercoated

Nick

i'm looking at getting some meisters for my r33

looking at

19x8.5 or 9 at the front

19x9.5 or 10 at the back

what kind of offset is required? it wont be slammed i want to roll the lip on the guard

heres how it rides atm wit 18s 265s on the rear and 235s on the front no idea on offset of rims

n822125108_1809247_8221.jpg

okok thanks for that if those offsets are for sitting flush with the guards i mite go a bit lower in offset so its sticks out like 5mm

so something like 19x8.5 +25 and 19x9.5+30 and hopefulli i wont hit the guards when i put the dampers on the hardest setting

okok thanks for that if those offsets are for sitting flush with the guards i mite go a bit lower in offset so its sticks out like 5mm

so something like 19x8.5 +25 and 19x9.5+30 and hopefulli i wont hit the guards when i put the dampers on the hardest setting

the issue is 19's arent great for fitment because u cant gain as much clearance by stretching tyres

from another thread in this section:

fitting a 9.5 +22 with a 225/45 tyre would actually be pretty easy, my main concern is being a 19" wheel, even though it will be the same amount of stretch, the angle will be sharper, like so:

fitment.jpg

the blue is a smaller wheel with a larger profile, and the red is a larger wheel with smaller profile but same size tread. the green is at sitting height, the yellow is on compression, the angle change in the 2 guards is due to dynamic camber, obviously in real life its the wheel/tyres angle that changes, but its easier to just show the guard changing angle.

as u can see the lesser angle of the sidewall on the tyre on the smaller wheel allows the guard to come down further, even though the offset, rims width and tread width are all the same. hence why its really hard to get agressive fitment on higher diametre wheels.

so its hard to really get the fitment right with them. with the specs i gave u, depending on the camber they will probably just stick out of the guard a few mm at the rear.

Hey everyone. First time posting here I believe. PM'd a few guys about things, but that's it.

Anyway, I have a set of TE37's I was planning on putting on my widebody Sileighty (S13.5), but since decided to go another route.

I currently have a '93 R33 GTS-T Type M coming across the Pacific and was wondering how well my wheels would fit.

In the front I have 17x9 +0 and in the rear, 17x9.5 +12.

I have no clue about Skyline offsets and to be honest, did not want to take the time to go through so many pages.

If someone could help me out, that would be super!

Hey everyone. First time posting here I believe. PM'd a few guys about things, but that's it.

Anyway, I have a set of TE37's I was planning on putting on my widebody Sileighty (S13.5), but since decided to go another route.

I currently have a '93 R33 GTS-T Type M coming across the Pacific and was wondering how well my wheels would fit.

In the front I have 17x9 +0 and in the rear, 17x9.5 +12.

I have no clue about Skyline offsets and to be honest, did not want to take the time to go through so many pages.

If someone could help me out, that would be super!

They will stick out the guards by heaps. About +25 to +40 is ok for a 33 GTSt.

Are you from the states?

Hey everyone. First time posting here I believe. PM'd a few guys about things, but that's it.

Anyway, I have a set of TE37's I was planning on putting on my widebody Sileighty (S13.5), but since decided to go another route.

I currently have a '93 R33 GTS-T Type M coming across the Pacific and was wondering how well my wheels would fit.

In the front I have 17x9 +0 and in the rear, 17x9.5 +12.

I have no clue about Skyline offsets and to be honest, did not want to take the time to go through so many pages.

If someone could help me out, that would be super!

u can make them fit, but u will need guard work, silvias usually have more clearance in the rear guards, the fronts are similar how ever.

heres a few pics, R33's have a bit more clearance than the R32's.

17x9.5 +13, 235/45 30-40mm flare (mock up with unfinished guard)

DSCN0153.jpg

17x9 -1, 215/45, 30-40mm flare

DSCN1952.jpg

17x9 +16, 225/45, rolled guards

DSCN9843.jpg

Ive been reading through but just getting mixed answers

I have a 96 r33 gtst series 2. Currently has 17" work's not sure of the offset.

However i dont want to do any gaurd rolling or flaring (dont want to damage the paint) so im assuming i couldnt get anything over an 18"

What size, width and offset would you recomend for stock gaurds?

THANKS :D

Ive been reading through but just getting mixed answers

I have a 96 r33 gtst series 2. Currently has 17" work's not sure of the offset.

However i dont want to do any gaurd rolling or flaring (dont want to damage the paint) so im assuming i couldnt get anything over an 18"

What size, width and offset would you recomend for stock gaurds?

THANKS :(

width and offset play just as big if not bigger roles in clearance than diametre. u can make a 20" fit if u want, u just cant go as wide or have as low offset as a 17".

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...