rim specs for 275/40's

Subscribe
Jun 28, 2004 | 11:09 PM
  #1  
Hey everyone,

I am thinking of buying 275/40's for all 4 corners. I know people fit those things under their fenders, but I want to try doing it without using spacers.

I assume common rim dimensions are 17x11, is that correct? What is the required backspace on those rims for the front? Would different brake setups affect backspace?

I guess the rear backspace depends on the rear end in the car. I know stock/LS1/early 4th gen all had different widths there. Would the same style rims come with different backspacing for front/back?

I am curious what some of you guys have done to make this work, or if I should stick with something smaller. Pictures are always welcome
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2004 | 11:28 PM
  #2  
4th gens that had 17x9 wheels had 275/40s stock. i think ive seen people running them on 8" wide, i think 11 might be stretching it a little
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2004 | 11:35 PM
  #3  
I have 17x9.5 rims with 275/40zr17 tires and they fit fine except on sharp turns the fronts do rub a little
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2004 | 11:54 PM
  #4  
My Snypers are 17x9 and I run a 275/40 in back.
Reply 0
Jun 29, 2004 | 01:31 AM
  #5  
17x11 up front and not have the car lifted like this? that would be a stretch without major work.

rim specs for 275/40's-rear-height.jpg  

Reply 0
Jun 29, 2004 | 12:30 PM
  #6  
17 x 9s or 17 x 9.5s should fit a 275/40 perfectly. I would say about 5-5.5" of backspacing should work. Always measure before you order custom wheels though, or go to a shop that can measure for you...
Reply 0
Jun 29, 2004 | 10:53 PM
  #7  
Thanks guys,

I guess 11 was a bit over the top. Not sure where I've seen that, but I thought it was somewhere on these boards.

I am planning to use 4th gen rear-end when everything is said and done, so 4th gen rims/tires should fit in the back nicely.

What about the front? Do people do some sort of conversions to fit 275's in there with 4th gen rims? If 4th gen rim has more backspace than 3rd gen, wouldn't the front wheel sit too deep in?
Reply 0
Jun 30, 2004 | 05:30 AM
  #8  
The 4th Gen wheels I believe have more positive offset (please correct me if I am wrong). To fit 4th Gen wheels on the front of a third gen you would need wheel adaptors in the range of 2" thick. If you search "wheel adaptors" you will find the company many people use skulte or something like that. And with a 4th Gen rear, you will have no problem fitting the wheels in the back. And some people do run 17 x 11ZR1 wheels. They would fit with adaptors or with a 4th Gen rear. They were made with two different offsets (again correct if wrong) I believe to be 35 and 50 mm positive. And then there is all the newer vette wheels which I don't know about their sizes. Good luck
Reply 0
Jun 30, 2004 | 01:01 PM
  #9  
I am running 17x9.5 with 285/40-17's in the rear. A 17x11 would be more suited for a 315/35-17, and can be run in the back with some "massaging" of the inner well and the right BS, but like kandied said up front you would need some work. However, I think I have seen 17x11's on the front of someones car on here but I can't remember who.
Reply 0
Jun 30, 2004 | 01:04 PM
  #10  
definately won't be able to lower the car at all....in the front. the rear can be made to do so though.
Reply 0
Jun 30, 2004 | 10:41 PM
  #11  
What if I were to go with 17x9 or 17x9.5, would it be possible to lower the car ~1.5"? Or 275's upfront wouldn't allow any lowering at all?

What's a "wheel adapter?" Is it the same things as a spacer that goes between the hub and the wheel to artificially decrease backspace?
Reply 0
Jun 30, 2004 | 11:13 PM
  #12  
You cannot have a 2 inch spacer because the studs are not that long. So you bolt on an adapter with more studs.



Chevy high performance put 17 x 9.5 inch wheels with 5.5 inch backspacing on the front and rear of a 92 Camaro. The tires were 275/40. No spacer or adapter was needed. They had to adjust the rear panhard bar and slightly roll the front inner fender lip so it didn't rub.

They had Edelbrock springs that lower the front 1.6 inches and the rear 1.3 inches.

Personally if I were going to use 275/40/17, I would use a 9 inch wheel due to less weight and the sidewall would stick out more. Less chance of curb rash.
Reply 0
Jun 30, 2004 | 11:34 PM
  #13  
Never mind on that adapter/spacer question. I found Skulte website (www.skulte.com/adapters.html) and it looks like very cool stuff.
Reply 0
Jul 1, 2004 | 12:10 AM
  #14  
if you had 17x9s to 17x9.5s you could def. put something like an eibach pro kit on it, without sacrificing to much.
Reply 0
Jul 1, 2004 | 12:33 AM
  #15  
and it would look like this........


rim specs for 275/40's-gm-hightech-angle-smaller.jpg  

Reply 0
Jul 1, 2004 | 12:35 AM
  #16  
here is a better example. it would be slightly lower but you can still see how the wheels sit.


rim specs for 275/40's-jeff-autorama-2.jpg  

Reply 0
Jul 1, 2004 | 12:11 PM
  #17  
Hey Kandied91z,

Those are pretty cool pics.

I still have a little concern that the wheels of that size would rub especially during cornering. Maybe live car is different, but from those pictures it looks like the front tire would rub the fender lip if that side of the car went <2" lower like under hard cornering.

Or would the car never go that low? I am planning to use stiffer springs and Spohn swaybar set, so maybe it would be fine.
Reply 0
Jul 1, 2004 | 11:32 PM
  #18  
too much 4x4 for me so i got rid of them....
Reply 0
Subscribe