Car sticks a bit better now and looks a little bit better too.

 

what et?

 

looks good...saw this on FB

 

wheels specs?

 

56mm offset with 2 inch spacers.

 

those wheels go good with the car!

 

56mm et with 2 inch spacers.. so basically an et of around 5mm. Does it clear the steering box brace in the fender?

 

Total clearance in the front besides at full lock it rubs the inner fender well plastic which I expected. The rear I have KYB Excel Gs and they are just too soft so on the highway when you have a drop off I get a little rub as the car compresses. Going to put a stiffer shock in the rear hoping I don't have to roll the rear fender lips. Just got back in from a night drive, the car really sticks well though.

 

Instead of just a stiffer shock use some u bolts to bolt a pad to the axle where the bumpstops contact. You cab easily adjust it so that the bunpstop contacts right before the wheel rubs.

 

Thanks for the tip and I might do that on top of some other stuff to as opposed to rolling the rear fender lip. I have KYB GR2s all the way around. They are too soft in the rear regardless for my taste so ordered some Gas-a-Just for the rears a few minutes ago. Seems to be the ideal combo if you are doing KYBs. I have Moog 5664 in front and 5665 in the rear. Going to remove the subwoofer and some other items from my trunk also as the 5665 is a linear spring rate. Going to get the rear right. Thanks again.

 

So I just got back from a drive...after removing the 12 inch sub in the trunk and amp along with the spare tire and jack. Went over some bumps and no rub but waiting to get out on some of the highway ramps that have some of the dip drops that are more severe before saying it worked. Either way rear shocks are ordered and it will be a stiffer shock then the GR2. I knew I should have went with Konis as many advised. haha

 

That's a nice looking car.

 

That's a sharp looking car!!!!!!!!!

Question about the clearance on the back. Could you have moved them in a little? Maybe used a 1.75" or 1.5" spacer instead of 2"?? I'm considering a similar set up and wouldn't mind tuckin' them in there just a smidge more.

 

I believe I could have went with a 1.75 spacer in the back but doubt I could have went 1.5 without doing something to the inner fender wells.

 

hmm..I have 18's on my 'new' 89 convertible....makes me wonder what the stock size was.

 

If they were 16" Irocs, front and backs are both 16" x 8". "0" offset up front, 16mm offset in back. ...not sure about the 15" wheels. ....I would imagine the 16" GTA and TA wheels were also 0mm and 16mm, but I've never checked.

 

The rears can move in a half inch and still clear. Just a little hammering of the front lower part as usual. I ran 18x10.5 with 17mm offset rear for some time on my 92.

 

interesting...

 

How fat a tire looks has a lot to do with where it tucks under the car. My 275 rear tire looks kind of skinny but it would look pretty fat if it was placed a little further inboard. And the cost of a 275/40-17 is way less than the 18s ( like half). I consume a set of rear tires in about 4 months driving on the street so the recurring cost adds up over time. In my case if I wanted a fatter look I would get a wheel with a different backspacing and stay with the more affordable 17-inch tire.

 

What about the interference with the tie rods on the front with the 17's?
At what size / back spacing do they hit? This is one of the reasons I myself am looking at the 18's. This square setup looks like a great combination.

 

LOTS of different variable...LOTS....but rule of thumb is max 5" backspacing up front and max 5.85" backspacing out back. ....but again....research and measure. No two cars are exactly the same, plus mods and aftermarket suspension and brakes, etc. etc.

Lots of good info here:
http://www.skulte.com/adapterfaq.html

 

I understand about each car is different and require different backspacing per setup. I guess I should have stated comparing 17x10.5 to 18x10.5 in the front.
Using a 18" wheel in front would remove the issue of hitting the tie rod end compared to the 17" wheels. One less obstacle to overcome. On the 18, the tie rod would be inside the wheel.

Is a 10.5 wide wheel in front beneficial for a daily/occasional driver? I can understand for autocross, but for everyday driving?
Dont get me wrong, I love the look, just trying to understand better.
Wider wheels would seem to put more stress on steering parts over time, but I could be wrong.

 

You can run a 17" x 9.5" wheel with 5.25" BS and not hit the tie rods - I make them, so they work. There are other wheels in 17" that fit - but not all of them are 9.5" wide.

Yes, a square setup is best for all around performance - going staggered on a front heavy car will give the car mechanical understeer and hurt braking too.

 

I don't rotate tires front to back so I don't care if wheels have same offset front and rear. My street trim is drag radials on back.

 

Penny for your thoughts.

I'm doing some research here and seen this post. I'm thinking about refreshing the look on a bone stock 91 RS that has 15" wheels/tires. I love the square look and used to have a 90 RS but never had the chance to get wheels.

From what I understand 18x9.5 might fit nice without much interference. My intention is to put 275/35/18s at all 4 corners. I have no idea yet on backspacing but do you think this is a viable solution?

 

18x9.5 would work well and you should have no issues with that that tire size either.

 

Fast lenny: Is that using the standard backspacing? I am doing the same to my TA. Thanks.

 

Stock brakes and axle, I would run 5.5" Bs with an 18x9?5, front and back

 

Thank you all for the information!

 

do you rub at all? I just bought a set for weld ventures 18x10 with the same size tire curious if the car with need some adjustment thanks!

 

I you have 18x10.5 front and they rub at full lock do you think that an 18x10 25mm backspacing would ive been looking this whole week cant find anyone running 18x10s in the front