Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok, i figured other forums i frequent have them as well

please post as many specs of your wheels as possible

width and offsets being the MOST important

Picture from the side straight on, and one from the front straight on (to see if they stick out, or sink in for fitment wise)

ill start

Stock M35 wheels.

15mm spacers front and rear to clear GTR brakes

225/50/17 tires

17x7 id imagine is waht it looks like

383528502_13d43d07ff.jpg

383528569_5856cb5a76.jpg

Work euroline

18x9 -5

18x0 +20

235/40/18

400501903_42836c68bd.jpg

400501941_265dd452bc.jpg

400501811_a1f0a65d3f.jpg

above is with stock fenders

below is with midified fenders

406702878_99e1df16bd.jpg

406702791_5d46ba756f.jpg

Work Emotion XD9

18x9 +20 all around +20mm spacer on the front

225/40/18

453749229_cabaf516a7.jpg

453749179_9735cbd03b.jpg

please contribute

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164936-post-your-wheelstire-size-and-specs/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

17 x 9 - Standard R33GTR wheels with 245/40/17's

Pictures are at 340 mm front and 330 mm rear, which was too low. It's now at 355 mm front and 350 mm rear, much better ride and handling.

R33GTR_Wheels_340mm_Side.jpg

R33GTR_Wheels_340mm_along.jpg

:D cheers :(

  • 4 weeks later...

18x10 +20

dont get a 10 in the rear unless you get at LEAST a +10

but hten you will haev to do an agressive roll and pull in the rear.

anything less will hit your coilover.

18x10 +20

dont get a 10 in the rear unless you get at LEAST a +10

but hten you will haev to do an agressive roll and pull in the rear.

anything less will hit your coilover.

Your using 235's on 10 inch rims as per per your first post?

They would look mega stretched?

A "normal" person would use a smaller width rim and run the correct width tyre for comfort, looks, handling and safety

am i normal?

I use a 225/40 on a 9 inch wide and a 235/40 on a 10 inch wide

its about clearance, the stretch in the sidewall allows you to run a wider/lower offset without fear of rubbing so when the camber changes in a turn, it acts like a circle and not a square like a normal tire

am i normal?

NO :thumbsup:

That's why you should explain or clairfy when posting esp when people are asking a question about a topic they do not know anything about. Otherwise someone is going go and buy a set of wheels too wide or the wrong offset and have to beat the shit out of the rear guards and run a way too narrow a tyre for the rim size.

18x10 +20

dont get a 10 in the rear unless you get at LEAST a +10

but hten you will haev to do an agressive roll and pull in the rear.

anything less will hit your coilover.

cool...thanks grant.

mate has a set of eurolines ..18*9 and 18*10 ..both with +35 offset...i'll try them for fit this weekend....oh and tyres are 235 at the rear too...really stretchhhhhed

Running Advanti Racing 'Karla" wheels:

Wheels: 19x8 +35

Tyres: 245/35 R19 Hankook K104

They are being replaced (due to a fault) with Enkei RP03 model which should fill the guards a little more, I think.

post-17581-1179964171_thumb.jpg

post-17581-1179964287_thumb.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
×
×
  • Create New...