Tootie Pang

iTrader: (2)

Really leaning towards going with the new hawks OE replica for my 89.

I'd like to rotate them front to back but I also like the staggered look- fatter in rear (but not taller).

I'm thinking 275-40-17 all around but I don't know if that will fit in the front

and what is the max size I could go front and back?

I will be lowering the car with UMI springs (1.25") and going with the proper extended ball joints and bumpsteer kit.

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

275-40-17 all around is the unofficial "right" size. Maybe the right term would be intended size. If you buy the "kit" from them, with lugs and everything, it'll come with small spacers for the front wheels to push 'em out just a few mm's, and it'll fit just fine. I think more up front would have fitment issues, and is certainly overkill for anything but the most extreme driving. ....out back you can fit more, but you start to look pushed out too far, although that's certainly just opinion. ...and I can't speak to what is pushing the limits of the wheel width, regardless of whether or not it'll fit under the car.

Tootie Pang

iTrader: (2)

Thanks. Great advice. Getting the look just right is the key. It's a funny thing. For me, once it's right I just know it and I'm done. If it isn't it keeps bugging at me.

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

Some of the best advice I've ever heard with regard to stance is that if someone can tell what you did....you went to far. Now of course there are guys who love the extreme, and that's fine, but in general, make changes in small steps. A little goes a long way. All three of my most recent vehicles, -the Camaro, my Trailblazer and my Sierra are all not quite sitting stock. ...and all three will have people staring at them trying to figure out if it's stock stance, and if not, what did I do? The Camaro is obviously low, but it's stock track width and stock wheels (until gold Hawk's Irocs come out). We all love the crazy build and all out show cars, but next time you sit and stare at a car that looks just right.....my guess is that it's NOT extreme....and you won't know exactly what's different about it. ....but there's something...

...or.....it's all a bunch of crap, and that's just one man's opinion!!!!!

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

255 tire will win more races but you'll probably prefer the look of the 275.

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

Not gonna argue this point, but....that majority of us don't race, and most who do, probably aren't running cast repop wheels. ....and while we are each our own man, let's be honest, Hawk's made 'em for 275-40-17 tires.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

You got that right !!

IROCThe5.7L

275-40-17 is the norm. I have seen a few guys run 315-35-17 Nitto 555R's in the back with the Hawks 17" rims and they fit. The 555R's run thin. Any other 315 is going to be wider than a 555R 315 and probably won't fit. There's a lot of controversy about putting a 315 on a 9" rim. All I can say is A LOT of mustang guys run the nitto 315's on there 9" rims and haven't had issues.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Some of you guys are like women that won't wear a good fitting bra because they're upset the number is smaller.

Totally irrelevant... seriously. A wheel can be fitted with more than one tire size, and the choice of tire is situational. There is no "right and wrong" answer here. It's just a scale of good, better, best for a given purpose. And even that answer changes over time as new tires are released or old designs are discontinued. (Mostly the scenario of discontinued in our case).

9" width is nearing the minimum recommended wheel width for a 275 tire. Ideally, you'd rather have a wider rim. It's just information - not good or bad, it just is what it is. It may or may not be relevant to your situation.

9" width is honing in on optimal width for a 255 tire. But more importantly, there is more selection of rubber in 255 tires sizes and this is where the fantastic performance tires are being offered today. It just is what it is. Rubber compound is more important factor than the extra 20 mm section width.

Just speculation, but I am guessing the reason Hawks landed on 9" width is because it was a good business decision: It was the widest they could go while still fitting on a large number of GM vehicles. They could have gone wider for a 3rd Gen F-body but the market would have been smaller.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

Your talking like a tree fell on your head

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

This is a tech forum where knowledge is shared and ideas are presented and discussed. Ignorance and petty arguments belong in the History and Appearance forums where you came from. Go back to your stanky hole.

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

Let me rephrase. Hawk's didn't make them FOR 275-40-17 tires. ...they made them knowing the majority of the people who would buy them would WANT 275-40-17 tires. I agree with all your facts, but I think you sometimes miss the forest through the trees.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)