Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i'm sick of paying $600 for good tyres that are 275 wide, i run gmax enigma rims, and the rears are a killer. so i've decided to stick with something smaller and get even better tyres..... still less than half price of pirellis! so i have my eye on the standard r32 gtst wheels (wheel pic attached) and i was wondering if they can clear the 33 gtst brakes... ANY help would be excellent, cheers!!!!

Slav

post-50733-1227514814_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246213-will-32gtst-rims-fit-a-33gtst/
Share on other sites

what size/wide are ur enigmas's? and yes they will fit

enigmas are a 18 x 9.5 rear, wearing 275/35's and fronts are 18 x 8.5's wearing 235/40 if i remember correctly. looking for trade on smaller rims also, as per for sale thread :P thanks for the info dude, helps heaps

slav

u don't need to have 275 35 mate...9.5 can wear a 245 40 tyre pretty happily and wil lcost less ebcause its a common sized tyre...think ur spending too much on tyres that u don't need...or else stop dropping skids lolz

haha, no skids here, just handbrake turns, well that makes me feel better, i dont know how the 245 will sit, the 275's sit pretty flush on the rear. the car does get quite a workout. i track it regularly and semi slick 275's cost me a kidney last time i bought them. anyways, youve opened up a whole new world of tyre choice for me... thanks :wub: all i can do is ---> :P:):wub:

^^ exactly....i mean u could even do 235/40 and it will have just slight stretch...some people on here run 10" wide wheels with 215!! crazy stretch but of course illegal lolz. ur fronts could use 225/40's aswel.

if someone told u to get 275s on ur rears they should be shot. 255 at max. 275s should be fitted on 10"-11"

Edited by jakez88
275's on a 9.5" rim is the correct size.

How do you figure that?

A 9.5" wide rim is roughly 240mm wide in mm, a 275 tyre is 275mm wide..

You'de run something like a 235 or 245 tyre which would fit nicely on the rim, anything bigger than that and it will be baggy

275 is just over kill, what a waste of money

For the price difference from a 235 to a 245 tyre is quiet a jump when your buying a full set, I'd save the extra cash and go with the 235 tyre as your only losing 10mm/5mm on each side which is nothing

245 is probably still a bit over kill, save some more cash and go with 235. That will save you heaps of money as there is a bit of a price jump from 235 to 245

Factory those rims come out with 205 so your not losing anything

How do you figure that?

A 9.5" wide rim is roughly 240mm wide in mm, a 275 tyre is 275mm wide..

You'de run something like a 235 or 245 tyre which would fit nicely on the rim, anything bigger than that and it will be baggy

275 is just over kill, what a waste of money

For the price difference from a 235 to a 245 tyre is quiet a jump when your buying a full set, I'd save the extra cash and go with the 235 tyre as your only losing 10mm/5mm on each side which is nothing

You obviously don't know where wheels get measured from :sick:

A 9.5" rim isn't measured from edge to edge, it's measured from where the bead of the tyre sits. for instance a stock R32 gtst rim is 6" wide but the total width of the rim is 7.5". The same goes for diametre. the total diametre of the same rim is just under 17.5" but where the bead of the tyre sits is 16".

So according to your 'figuering' these rims should have a 153 tyre on them................ :)

245 is probably still a bit over kill, save some more cash and go with 235. That will save you heaps of money as there is a bit of a price jump from 235 to 245

Factory those rims come out with 205 so your not losing anything

Nuh man the 245's on my rim sit perfectly, not overkill at all. No stretch and it dosnt hang over the side of the rim. perfect fit. I heard that you probably shouldnt go over 255 on a 9.5 inch rim or it will start to look gay.

Im running 235's on my fronts that are only 8.5 inches wide, also sit perfectly.

i dunno but to me i just wouldn't wanna buy a tyre more than 255 for a 9.5" wheel unless i need to for some reason...doesn't seem right having 265's or 275's hanging over the wheel?

i have 8 up front a 9 in rears...i have 215 45 bridgestones which give slight stretch and 235 45 advan neovas on rear and are perfect if not the slightest stretch.

now if a 235 tyre is hardly stretched on my 9s...on 9.5s i think they'd have a good stretch. 245 should correct the stretch..so anyway in the OP case having a 235 or 245 tyre would be best as it would be cheaper then running anything bigger obviously especially running 275

P1010234__Large_.jpg

thats a 275 on a 9", doesnt look "gay" to me.

it also depends on the tyre brand, as those same rims had 235's on them when i got rid of them, and the 8" front looks fine, the 9" rear is stretched a little.

245 on 9.5 " is the legal minimum size. that's what i run and i am definately fan of the look... slight stretch, and legal... just :P

235's are cheaper as they are more common, but it depends on the tyre... bridgestone adrenalins are around 380 a corner in 245/40/18

You obviously don't know where wheels get measured from :blink:

A 9.5" rim isn't measured from edge to edge, it's measured from where the bead of the tyre sits. for instance a stock R32 gtst rim is 6" wide but the total width of the rim is 7.5". The same goes for diametre. the total diametre of the same rim is just under 17.5" but where the bead of the tyre sits is 16".

So according to your 'figuering' these rims should have a 153 tyre on them................ :D

lol I know how rims are measured man

but hey if you want to run a 275 tyre on a 9.5" rim go nuts, certainly looks gay to me. Pictures above compliments of Mitch to show how gay

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.
×
×
  • Create New...