When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Wheels and TiresNeed help with wheels or tires? Got fitment issues? Have questions about tire performance and handling? Ask all of those questions here!
I am pretty sure I am ready to pull the trigger on some new Weld RTS wheels and have measured everything but just want confirmation from some wheel gurus that my sizing is correct and I should not see any issues. The sizes are nothing crazy but I want everything to fit and tuck pretty much the same as factory without any modifications to the bump stops or inner fender wells.
Car is lowered about 1.5"-2" and has stock width S60 in the back on stock style suspension and LS1 rear brakes; the front has spohn coil-overs with hybrid C5 Z06 brakes (both brake kits from flynbye - plug).
This is what I am thinking:
Rear = 18" x 9", medium pad height, 5.7"bs (please confirm this fits without having to cut out bump stops - minor, minor BFH would be acceptable)
Front = 18" x 8", high pad height, 5.1"bs (please confirm this fits with coil over setup and 14"C6 rotor)
The front would typically be 18x8 with 4.5" of bs and the rear 18x9 with 5" or 5.25" of bs. Not sure where your numbers are from unless there is something odd about you all or brake setups.
Why not go wider? Or at least the same size front and back so you can rotate them and use all the same tires?
Thank you for your feedback 86TA, I was hoping you would chime in...
The C6 rotors add .3" to the hub so I am trying to compensate for this. Depending on the pad height, the Weld RTS wheels only come in certain BS. The 18" x 8" with a high pad only comes in 4.6"bs or 5.1"bs. I figure because of the added .3" due to rotor thickness, I would be better with the 5.1". I would like to go with 9" in the front as well but am worried about hitting the coil over hence the 8" as I am trying to keep the outside tire to fender dimension relatively the same as stock because I really want to remain with a tucked setup.
The reason for the rear 9" wide is pretty much the same for the front; only comes in certain BS with med pad height (5.2", 5.7", 6.2"), and I want to stay pretty close to stock outside dimension.
After looking at hundreds of pictures, the inspiration for the tire fitment comes from jbenge (https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/whee...-new-rims.html). Only thing is I picked the 9" wide in the back because I read that the Welds are actually a bit wider than the advertised width, ie: 9" = 9.3" or so bead-to-bead.
Understanding my aim of keeping the tires completely tucked (close to stock outside dimension), do you still thick I should go wider or pretty much stick with my original setup?
Why not go wider? Or at least the same size front and back so you can rotate them and use all the same tires?
18x9.5 with 5.5" or bs. All 4?
Phil,
You read my mind - in terms of my opinion...
Having a 9.5" wheel on all 4 corners will give you several advantages:
1) Ability to rotate wheels
2) Shorter stopping distances - a 275 in the front will outstop a 245 all day, every day
3) Better handling balance with a 275 all around vs. the 245/275 setup. This is a mechanical function of a front heavy car with a "square" setup vs. the old school "staggered" setup.
4) 275 up front is a very agressive look - if you like that sort of thing.
I definitely agree with you guys with regards to the square setup. Rotating the wheels really is not a huge issue for me since I only drive the car a few thousand miles a year, but I do agree with your points 2-4.
I would for sure go with 9" in the front too assuming that they would fit with the coilovers. Perhaps a 5.6"BS would work as this would put them at 5.3"BS to the hub taking the rotor into consideration and I saw the CHP article where they put your CTW wheels on the front of a coil over car.
On a side note, I know your wheels are 9.5" with 5.25"BS all around, however I was unable to find a picture showing how tucked they are. Do you have a picture of 275s installed on all 4 corners at an angle similar to this:
Keep in mind that with 17", you can't go much above 5.25" BS without hitting the tie rids. 18" does not have that issue.
OK Paul, assuming Baby is wearing your wheels, with 275/40/17 tires, are the front brakes stock, or upgraded? If they're upgraded, do you know which upgrade, and how far it pushed the front track out?
It would take about 6 months to make the tooling, engineer the wheels in 18", and test the wheels and get everything marketable. However, the ordering process is a PITA - there is a minimum number of wheels I must order at a time, which I don't have room to warehouse at this time.
Originally Posted by kairles
Not to thread jack, but is this something thats in the works? I would love a set of bolt on 18" wheels that didnt cost a small fortune.
It would take about 6 months to make the tooling, engineer the wheels in 18", and test the wheels and get everything marketable. However, the ordering process is a PITA - there is a minimum number of wheels I must order at a time, which I don't have room to warehouse at this time.
Paul, with a proven wheel like yours, from a reputable company like yours, with your track record, I'd bet you could take pre-orders requiring at least 50% up front, and I'd bet you'd sell the first order out before you ordered them, requiring no warehousing.
Paul, with a proven wheel like yours, from a reputable company like yours, with your track record, I'd bet you could take pre-orders requiring at least 50% up front, and I'd bet you'd sell the first order out before you ordered them, requiring no warehousing.
I'd be interested in that. My only input would be to make the CTW 18" look different than the current CTW 17". The 17 is not a bad looking wheel, it just doesn't do anything for me. Maybe something with wider spokes.
We have received interest in the 18" version of our wheels, but I'm talking the absolute minimum we can order is 100 wheels (25 sets), which is about 3 full pallets worth. Total order needs to be 300 wheels total!
Originally Posted by seanof30306
Paul, with a proven wheel like yours, from a reputable company like yours, with your track record, I'd bet you could take pre-orders requiring at least 50% up front, and I'd bet you'd sell the first order out before you ordered them, requiring no warehousing.
Unfortunately the design is going to be similar due to the machinery being used to make the wheels has limitations.
Keep in mind that the premise behind the wheels was to maximize what is possible in a 1pc wheel that is affordable and durable. Least amount of weight, most brake clearance, best brake cooling, max strength, and an elegant - yet simple design were the goals.
Originally Posted by greenyone
I'd be interested in that. My only input would be to make the CTW 18" look different than the current CTW 17". The 17 is not a bad looking wheel, it just doesn't do anything for me. Maybe something with wider spokes.
Unfortunately the design is going to be similar due to the machinery being used to make the wheels has limitations.
Keep in mind that the premise behind the wheels was to maximize what is possible in a 1pc wheel that is affordable and durable. Least amount of weight, most brake clearance, best brake cooling, max strength, and an elegant - yet simple design were the goals.
Unfortunately the design is going to be similar due to the machinery being used to make the wheels has limitations.
Keep in mind that the premise behind the wheels was to maximize what is possible in a 1pc wheel that is affordable and durable. Least amount of weight, most brake clearance, best brake cooling, max strength, and an elegant - yet simple design were the goals.
So, when deciding on backspacing, I'm assuming you had to strike a balance between the wheels being pushed out on the front, and being pushed in on the rear? Is the backspacing on your wheels the same as the Ronal R15?
OK, I just answered my own question. According to Jegs, the R-15 has 5 3/8" backspacing. Close to yours, but not the same. What drove your decision to have different backspacing than the R-15?
We decided to make the BS work for all brake packages, hence the 5.25" BS. SLP asked Ronal to make wheels to fit the Firehawk with the Brembo optional front kit (which pushes out the wheels 3/8") up front, so they went with slightly more BS. Problem is you need to run a spacer to clear up front - unless you are using aftermarket brakes that increase the front wheel track like the Brembos.
GM did something with 3rd gen 16" wheels that today seems silly - different wheel BS on the front and rear axles, even though the fenders and clearance is identical. The rear track is noticeably narrower (to the naked eye) than the front - hurting performance, giving it a weird look, and the inability to rotate tires.
3rd gen road racers use 4 front 16" wheels on their cars - to make it easier to rotate and also to increase the rear wheel track to match the front; we decided to follow suit. We also wanted to maximize the amount of wheel (and tire) you could fit on a 3rd gen in 17", so that is how we came up with the wheel specs. After talking to many manufacturers, we came up with the wheel we now sell - super light, strong, market dominating brake clearance, and raceability - all for a bit more than $1,100 a set of 4.
I personally like the look of the Ronal design - after all it is an iconic wheel based on the 3rd gen SLP Firehawk. But between the weight, the brake clearance, and the strength (its a cast wheel), it is old tech (late 80's) that does have its place on 3rd gen cars.
Originally Posted by seanof30306
So, when deciding on backspacing, I'm assuming you had to strike a balance between the wheels being pushed out on the front, and being pushed in on the rear? Is the backspacing on your wheels the same as the Ronal R15?
OK, I just answered my own question. According to Jegs, the R-15 has 5 3/8" backspacing. Close to yours, but not the same. What drove your decision to have different backspacing than the R-15?
Earlier in this thread, you said the manufacturing process limited the 17" wheel width to 9.5". Had that not been a factor, and setting tire availability for the moment, could you have gone wider?
Originally Posted by paul_huryk
We decided to make the BS work for all brake packages, hence the 5.25" BS. SLP asked Ronal to make wheels to fit the Firehawk with the Brembo optional front kit (which pushes out the wheels 3/8") up front, so they went with slightly more BS. Problem is you need to run a spacer to clear up front - unless you are using aftermarket brakes that increase the front wheel track like the Brembos.
GM did something with 3rd gen 16" wheels that today seems silly - different wheel BS on the front and rear axles, even though the fenders and clearance is identical. The rear track is noticeably narrower (to the naked eye) than the front - hurting performance, giving it a weird look, and the inability to rotate tires.
3rd gen road racers use 4 front 16" wheels on their cars - to make it easier to rotate and also to increase the rear wheel track to match the front; we decided to follow suit. We also wanted to maximize the amount of wheel (and tire) you could fit on a 3rd gen in 17", so that is how we came up with the wheel specs. After talking to many manufacturers, we came up with the wheel we now sell - super light, strong, market dominating brake clearance, and raceability - all for a bit more than $1,100 a set of 4.
I personally like the look of the Ronal design - after all it is an iconic wheel based on the 3rd gen SLP Firehawk. But between the weight, the brake clearance, and the strength (its a cast wheel), it is old tech (late 80's) that does have its place on 3rd gen cars.
Correct - the 9.5" width is the most the machinery can handle. The BMW and Subaru versions are both 9". I would have preferred 10" to mount a 275 tire super stable. In theory, if an 11" width was available, we may have done that - but 315 tires in 17" are becoming hard to find, making a very limited market.
I like to point out that even though our wheels are 9.5", you can add 1.5" to the hoop using a reputable wheel widening company. The alloy we use and the manufacturing process (flow forming) work perfectly with adding a section for additional width.
Originally Posted by seanof30306
Earlier in this thread, you said the manufacturing process limited the 17" wheel width to 9.5". Had that not been a factor, and setting tire availability for the moment, could you have gone wider?
Maybe. The difference between back and front is pretty much the same as every other 3rd gen I've seen with the same wheels back and front, though.
I've never been crazy about the centers on those wheels, but that deep, deep lip is amazing! I suppose a stepped lip is stronger though, is it not?
And for me, that's one of the most important angles, as where the wheel and tire fit in the wheelwell is one of the most important aesthetic elements for me, and that angle showcases it.
Originally Posted by paul_huryk
That is a really bad angle to get any sort of wheel placement with 100% accuracy, honestly.
Could be a function of using an OEM panhard rod, pulling the rear to one side for all we know.
So, taking what you know now into consideration, and removing any manufacturing, or tire availability limitations, if you were starting over with a clean sheet of paper, what width, backspacing, and tire size would you do in a 17", and an 18" wheel that would fit both the rear and the front?
What if you were designing one wheel for the front, and another for the rear, with the mission for the rear wheel to stuff as much tire as possible in there, but requiring no more modification than rolling the lips and a little whacking with a BFH, and having the front and rear fit in their wheelwells like the front on that pic of the Ronal R15s we were discussing?
Originally Posted by paul_huryk
Correct - the 9.5" width is the most the machinery can handle. The BMW and Subaru versions are both 9". I would have preferred 10" to mount a 275 tire super stable. In theory, if an 11" width was available, we may have done that - but 315 tires in 17" are becoming hard to find, making a very limited market.
I like to point out that even though our wheels are 9.5", you can add 1.5" to the hoop using a reputable wheel widening company. The alloy we use and the manufacturing process (flow forming) work perfectly with adding a section for additional width.
Stepped lip may be stronger, but maybe not... Depends on the materials, design, and manufacturing process.
Originally Posted by seanof30306
Maybe. The difference between back and front is pretty much the same as every other 3rd gen I've seen with the same wheels back and front, though.
I've never been crazy about the centers on those wheels, but that deep, deep lip is amazing! I suppose a stepped lip is stronger though, is it not?
And for me, that's one of the most important angles, as where the wheel and tire fit in the wheelwell is one of the most important aesthetic elements for me, and that angle showcases it.
I would love to have 17" wheels in 8", 9.5" and 11" widths to fit not only the 3rd gens, but also 2nd gens and other, older GM cars (G-bodies as an example). We are going to have some 8" wheels made for our next order (a less narrow version of the 9.5"). We have received interest from a specific race class that 3rd gens run that the max wheel width is 8", but are allowed a 17" wheel (CMC and AI can run 9.5" wheels).
In 18", I would have 8.5", 10", and 11". Again for 3rd gens and other GM cars. With the 18", you can stick a 10" wide wheel up front to mount a 275 or 285 tire. The 11" would fit a 295 to 315 tire, may even work up front with a 295, assuming the wheel doesn't hit the struts up top.
Originally Posted by seanof30306
So, taking what you know now into consideration, and removing any manufacturing, or tire availability limitations, if you were starting over with a clean sheet of paper, what width, backspacing, and tire size would you do in a 17", and an 18" wheel that would fit both the rear and the front?
What if you were designing one wheel for the front, and another for the rear, with the mission for the rear wheel to stuff as much tire as possible in there, but requiring no more modification than rolling the lips and a little whacking with a BFH, and having the front and rear fit in their wheelwells like the front on that pic of the Ronal R15s we were discussing?
Yes, those are our wheels. Wanted to show a narrow angle pic of how the wheels place in the wheel wells/arches.
Stock front brakes - car is an 88.
At least from that angle, those wheels and tires fit the wheelwells perfectly, in my opinion.
I've been vacillating for some time on what wheels I want on my car.
I've always LOVED the GTA wheel, and was so excited when Bruce Hawkins told me he was going to produce one, but I was disheartened to learn he was only making them in 17", they were only 9" wide, you still have to use slip-on spacers, and the front tires still stick out noticeably more than the rears. He had to know how well the R-15s, and your wheels fit at 9.5" wide, I guess he was trying to come up with one wheel that would fit the GNXs too?
I've only grown more disheartened as more and more members buy the wheels, put them on their cars, and post pics. I'll never criticize anyone else for the mods they choose to make, we're all out to personalize our cars to our own tastes, but I just can't see myself spending that kind of money for wheels and still have the wheelwells looking that empty.
So, I'm going in a different direction. There's another wheel I love, and no one else is running them, as far as I know. I can get them in 18", and in a pretty broad range of backspacing, so I'll be able to get the fit I want .... if I do my research.
I'm currently torn between trying to run the same wheel and tire on the back and front, and being able to rotate the tires, and running a 9" wide rim on the front, and running an 11", or even a 12" on the rear and stuffing as much tire under there as possible.
Before I do anything with the wheels, tough, I think need to get my front brakes upgraded, and see exactly what that does to the track. Would you agree?
I think Hawks did 9" to fit 2nd gens, G-bodies, and 3rd gens from the start - and any other GM they fit is just gravy. One shoe that fits many feet...
You have to decide between looks and handling.
Some people want ultra wide rear tires with a narrow front one to give that "staggered look", but that makes handling go into the toilet. A 245 up front and a 315 out back is a recipe for major understeer (like many 1st gen folks do).
Others want to maximize their handling (and braking) and go either the same size in all 4 corners (square) or the max size in a stagger (maximized stagger). I don't see anything wrong with running a 275/285/295 on all 4 corners, nor if you go, say 295 up front and 315 in the rear. More tire on the ground equals more grip that in the end helps handling and braking.
Design (other than weight), really has a minor role as a $300/each 18" x 9.5" wheel should perform the same as a $1000/each equivalent of the same size. I laugh when I hear of some exotic car owner that changed their OEM wheels for high priced aftermarket ones in the same size and weight and expect their car to perform better, not going to happen!
Originally Posted by seanof30306
At least from that angle, those wheels and tires fit the wheelwells perfectly, in my opinion.
I've been vacillating for some time on what wheels I want on my car.
I've always LOVED the GTA wheel, and was so excited when Bruce Hawkins told me he was going to produce one, but I was disheartened to learn he was only making them in 17", they were only 9" wide, you still have to use slip-on spacers, and the front tires still stick out noticeably more than the rears. He had to know how well the R-15s, and your wheels fit at 9.5" wide, I guess he was trying to come up with one wheel that would fit the GNXs too?
I've only grown more disheartened as more and more members buy the wheels, put them on their cars, and post pics. I'll never criticize anyone else for the mods they choose to make, we're all out to personalize our cars to our own tastes, but I just can't see myself spending that kind of money for wheels and still have the wheelwells looking that empty.
So, I'm going in a different direction. There's another wheel I love, and no one else is running them, as far as I know. I can get them in 18", and in a pretty broad range of backspacing, so I'll be able to get the fit I want .... if I do my research.
I'm currently torn between trying to run the same wheel and tire on the back and front, and being able to rotate the tires, and running a 9" wide rim on the front, and running an 11", or even a 12" on the rear and stuffing as much tire under there as possible.
Before I do anything with the wheels, tough, I think need to get my front brakes upgraded, and see exactly what that does to the track. Would you agree?
OK, Paul, let's say I want to run the same wheel/tire all around.
18" Wheels,
295 tire.
For the moment, assume stock brakes on the front. Whatever brakes I end up going with, before and after front track measurements would let me adjust the backspacing you recommend here proportionally.
What backspace, what specific tire size, and what body mods (rolling fender lips, whacking with BFH, etc.) would you say would work?
Originally Posted by paul_huryk
I think Hawks did 9" to fit 2nd gens, G-bodies, and 3rd gens from the start - and any other GM they fit is just gravy. One shoe that fits many feet...
You have to decide between looks and handling.
Some people want ultra wide rear tires with a narrow front one to give that "staggered look", but that makes handling go into the toilet. A 245 up front and a 315 out back is a recipe for major understeer (like many 1st gen folks do).
Others want to maximize their handling (and braking) and go either the same size in all 4 corners (square) or the max size in a stagger (maximized stagger). I don't see anything wrong with running a 275/285/295 on all 4 corners, nor if you go, say 295 up front and 315 in the rear. More tire on the ground equals more grip that in the end helps handling and braking.
Design (other than weight), really has a minor role as a $300/each 18" x 9.5" wheel should perform the same as a $1000/each equivalent of the same size. I laugh when I hear of some exotic car owner that changed their OEM wheels for high priced aftermarket ones in the same size and weight and expect their car to perform better, not going to happen!
I'm not sure about Fender lips or BFH mods - somebody esle can chime in on that.
You would want a 10.5" wheel to run a 295-35-18 tire. BS would be in the 6.25" to 6.5" range. Would bring the tires flush with the fenders, yet tuck the tie rods in. Several members have this size wheel and tire combo...
Originally Posted by seanof30306
OK, Paul, let's say I want to run the same wheel/tire all around.
18" Wheels,
295 tire.
For the moment, assume stock brakes on the front. Whatever brakes I end up going with, before and after front track measurements would let me adjust the backspacing you recommend here proportionally.
What backspace, what specific tire size, and what body mods (rolling fender lips, whacking with BFH, etc.) would you say would work?
We are going to have some 8" wheels made for our next order (a less narrow version of the 9.5"). We have received interest from a specific race class that 3rd gens run that the max wheel width is 8", but are allowed a 17" wheel (CMC and AI can run 9.5" wheels).
Any ETA on these?
specs? - weight?, all four even?, same style?, finishes?
Where's the waiting list? I'd like to add my name.
I want on the list too. Paul, if taking deposits on an 18" version would help speed up the decision, I'd be game for that. Of course I'd expect that to be refundable if the 18"s don't happen for any reason.
It is a matter of space - right now we have plenty to hold another 300 wheels (minimum order), but we are moving August 1st and will probably have a smaller place with limited warehousing. As we do have quite a few wheels left, we are hoping to get inventory down more before we order additional.
So the 8" wheels would be in the next order, ETA sometime early next year? Can't even guess at this point. Help me sell more 9.5" wheels and your 8" ones will be in sooner!
Originally Posted by TEDSgrad
Excellent! Was hoping for a #18 target.
Any ETA, so I can plan my funds?
It is a matter of space - right now we have plenty to hold another 300 wheels (minimum order), but we are moving August 1st and will probably have a smaller place with limited warehousing. As we do have quite a few wheels left, we are hoping to get inventory down more before we order additional.
So the 8" wheels would be in the next order, ETA sometime early next year? Can't even guess at this point. Help me sell more 9.5" wheels and your 8" ones will be in sooner!
So here we are - 17x8's a reality? How did the move go?
They will become a reality for our next order - winter is a slow time and we still need to move more 9.5" wheels to make room for new stock. Our new location has less storage space than our old one...
Move went well - everything is safe and accounted for. We are back up running at 100%...
Originally Posted by TEDSgrad
So here we are - 17x8's a reality? How did the move go?
They will become a reality for our next order - winter is a slow time and we still need to move more 9.5" wheels to make room for new stock. Our new location has less storage space than our old one...
Move went well - everything is safe and accounted for. We are back up running at 100%...
You guys should run a sale like you did in the end of 2014, I'll buy a silver set right now!
01-03-2015, 12:01 AM
