yet another wheel question
- Thread starter tweak666
- Start date
In order to run a 18x9.5" wheel on front without rubbing the lower control arm on hard turns, youll need a +33 or lower.
Keros said:
I think you should put your wheels back the way they are supposed to be arranged. Your car isn't FWD. I had my car like that once on accident(9.5F/8R). I had a brake job done and they rotated my wheels since the wear front to back was uneven(obviously. they should have known you don't rotate staggered tires). It was painfully obvious something was wrong the moment I turned the wheel and gave it a small amount of throttle. The back end came out so fast because there was so much less grip with the front tires in the rear. And when I made a u-turn, the wheel locked at least 30 degrees earlier than it should. The decrease of grip in the rear was much greater than increase in the front(which was not very noticeable at all). The rears gripped so much better and allowed me to use much more throttle in a turn and the tires on the rears were worn much lower than the fronts at the time.
I can't think of one situation driving on the street that would constitute a reason to run your wheels backwards like that. Sure you may have a bit more meat in the front for turn-in but your grip on exit will be shit. You may only have 225hp but it doesn't take much power at all to bring the back end around coming out of a turn with a skinny tire in the rear.
Running 4 9.5 MKIVs isn't going to be ideal either. Those wheels are a +50. Your turning radius will suck. It would be best to invest in a set of wheels with a proper offset to run that wide in the front or put your wheels back the way they are supposed to be.
This is an interesting line of thought Joe... would I be wrong to imagine that having the wheels reversed like that would cause such a handling difference because the front wheels only spend traction percentage on changing the direction of the car's inertia, as opposed to the back, which spends its traction percentage on both pushing the car's weight forward and changing its direction? Which would explain why coming out of corners, you noticed such a difference in rear-end stability, because in giving her the beans upon exit too much traction was spent on accellerating the car, and not enough on menuvering the wieght?
I was under the impression that MkIV wheels were +45. I've seen numbers like +37, +45, +50. I've seen more +45, so that's the numbers I've quoted here.
I've never come into a situation where my turning radius has been a serious or detrimental issue... but there have been times where life is full of 3 point turns.
I'd like further advice on whether to keep with the plan of 9.5x17 all around, or flip my rims around and run with the pack... I need to get new rubber very, very soon. I'm going to try flipping them around to have the 9.5s on the back and go for a spin. Can't hurt anyway. My fetish for rediculously wide wheels will be my own undoing.
I was under the impression that MkIV wheels were +45. I've seen numbers like +37, +45, +50. I've seen more +45, so that's the numbers I've quoted here.
I've never come into a situation where my turning radius has been a serious or detrimental issue... but there have been times where life is full of 3 point turns.
I'd like further advice on whether to keep with the plan of 9.5x17 all around, or flip my rims around and run with the pack... I need to get new rubber very, very soon. I'm going to try flipping them around to have the 9.5s on the back and go for a spin. Can't hurt anyway. My fetish for rediculously wide wheels will be my own undoing.
MKIVs are indeed +50 all around.
No doubt running meaty wheels and tires up front like that would be beneficial but not at the sacrifice of the traction/grip in the rear. The car was so squirly, I took it back immediately to have the wheels put back correctly.
9.5s all around is fine. I just wouldn't do it with MKIVs and that offset.
With your wheels the way they are and 225hp, you're not really going to notice a difference in straight line traction but go around a turn and try to give it some throttle. Or see how much you can give it until you begin to lose grip. Do it again with the 9.5s in the rear like they should be and try again. You'll see the difference.
No doubt running meaty wheels and tires up front like that would be beneficial but not at the sacrifice of the traction/grip in the rear. The car was so squirly, I took it back immediately to have the wheels put back correctly.
9.5s all around is fine. I just wouldn't do it with MKIVs and that offset.
With your wheels the way they are and 225hp, you're not really going to notice a difference in straight line traction but go around a turn and try to give it some throttle. Or see how much you can give it until you begin to lose grip. Do it again with the 9.5s in the rear like they should be and try again. You'll see the difference.
ok, i think i've come closer to a decision. i've decided to compromise between cost ant fitment. 17x9 with a +43 offset all around. just looking for a final opinion. oh, another question. if you had to choose between a $600 set of used wheels and a ~$1000 set of new wheels, what would it be? additional factors being: used=money up front, new=pay in installments; used=not preferred color, new=exactly what i want; neither are local, shipping costs could get ugly; funds are drying up quick.
here are a few pics that i said id take after i washed the car. these are to illustrate the fitment in reference to the stock body and the offset/size of these wheels and tires. they are 18x9 +37 front and 18x10 +44 rear, Volk GT-U, spark silver centers for MKIV fitment. 255/35 Bridgestone S-03 up front, 295/30 Bridgestone S-02 rear. the fronts rub nothing, the rears will only rub on the fender lip during hard lateral G' loading when encountering a rolling bump/elevation change up-hill. rolling the fender lip will fix this.
Last edited:
Wow, that looks really nice. Is that a side exhaust pipe on the drivers side?
Also, any issues with clearance against the shock with tires that big?
Also, any issues with clearance against the shock with tires that big?
hey thanks Bowser... that is an exhaust pipe, yes. theres another one on the other. single-sided = ghetto. dual-sided= sophisticated.... er than single. i just defend it as a "roush-style" exhaust.
and yes, the 295's will rub sometimes because my fenders are not rolled.
and yes, the 295's will rub sometimes because my fenders are not rolled.
ok, another question. just trying to wrap my head around the offset concept. say you have a rim that is +35 and add a +5 spacer. would the resulting offset be +40? or +30? i'm a little confused by something i read in another forum
it moves the wheel out. so, its like lowering the offset because it makes the rim mount more inside compared to the center of the wheel.