Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

can anyone tell me the offset that would fit flush with the 33 guards

front 18x8.5

rear 18x9.5

been reading this topic but just cant find it, always slightly in or out

+30

Hi, I need some advice on fitment.

Would it take a lot of work to fit something like F: 18x9.5 + 30 R:18x10 +30 to a 33 GTST?

Have Tein superstreets fitted.

Thanks for any help/advice you can give

will require guards rolled and slightly flared if the car is low. front liners will have to be removed.

the fronts will sit out 5mm less than this: (bearing in mind that i pulled the guards to exactly where i wanted them)

med_gallery_36777_3194_311819.jpg

the rears will sit out 1mm more than this: (bearing in mind that i pulled the guards to exactly where i wanted them)

med_gallery_36777_3194_2166627.jpg

Hi, I need some advice on fitment.

Would it take a lot of work to fit something like F: 18x9.5 + 30 R:18x10 +30 to a 33 GTST?

Have Tein superstreets fitted.

Thanks for any help/advice you can give

yes should be fairly ok, front might be slightly mexican but a good roll should fix that. back will be fairly easy with a roll only needed and maybe a 235 or 245 tyre depending how low your car is.

yes should be fairly ok, front might be slightly mexican but a good roll should fix that. back will be fairly easy with a roll only needed and maybe a 235 or 245 tyre depending how low your car is.

-

all gonna come down to car height on this one... i run fairly low, (320mm rear and 325) front so flaring was req'd with 235's and this is pretty much exactly the same

-

all gonna come down to car height on this one... i run fairly low, (320mm rear and 325) front so flaring was req'd with 235's and this is pretty much exactly the same

im sorry i dont follow 320mm what? off the ground?

30three- dont forget camber..

i've gone the less width way and more offset for the set i'm getting for my 33

they are 17x8 +5 on front and 17x9 +11 on rears.

currently they have 205/45r17s on front and 225/45r17 on rears. will see how they sit on stock guards with slightly lowered suspension but i'm thinking 215's atleast for front.

will update with picture i nthe next week ro so.

should be fine, maybe a little conservative if your going for flush look i think a few people are running 10" +22 but im not up with r34 fitment.

Think he means centre of wheel to guard. forgive my n00bness i dont know what that means still haha..

Hi guys,

I'm looking at some Tri spoke rims for my r33 gts-t. They're being sold without tyres. Basically, these are the specs:

17x9 20+ fronts

17x9 35+ rears

I know little about offset etc, but will these wheels suit my 33? Please bear in mind that the car is lowered slightly, but I do with to go lower down the track with coilovers etc.

well u'd want the higher offset rims on the fronts if anything and +35 9" wheels might scrubs on the inside if your low so test fit them first. 17x9 +20 should fit on the rears fine if you run a thin 235 or a 225 tyre.

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'm going to slap an old nismo logo sticker on my spare one and sell it to the land of the free for a thousand bucks
    • lol, probably should have read further!
    • Well - they have arrived.  And they are easy on the eye to put it mildly... These only have three bolts - but for a start there is a key that fits with vacuum like precision..  And as you can see by my ruler, the interface is large..   I listened to a podcast on HP Academy about Dan (KiwiCNC) and I'm more than comfortable he knows what he is doing. R35 Bearing assembly should arrive later today so can mock that up for a look. Can't wait to get these on and get some brake pressure logging too. IMG_3860.MP4
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
×
×
  • Create New...