Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Did a search, didn't turn up anything solid…

For you guys running 18's on an R32GTR, can you please post:

1. wheel size (inc offset and width)

2. tyre size (inc brand)

I want to know what options I have for a set of Volk TE37s 18 x 9.5s +12 in terms of tyres.

I was thinking 245/40/18's or 265/35/18.

*The stock 225/50/16's have a rolling diameter of 631mm

*245/40/18's have a rolling diameter of 653mm

*265/35/18's have a rolling diameter of 643mm

I don’t really want to roll guards (but will if I have to), nor do I want to have *much* rubbing...

Which will be a better fit?

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/70119-r32gtr-18-wheels-what-tire-size/
Share on other sites

643 mm versus 631 mm = 2% conservative speedo readings. That would just about offset the factory optimistic (high) readings.

I have no problems with fitting 255's, so 265's would be fine.

I run 8" with 35 mm offset, so that's 137 mm out and 66 mm in.

A 9.5" with 12 mm offset is 133 mm out and 108 mm in.

Rolling the guards would not be required, the rims are 4 mm further in than the 8's but the tyres are 10 mm wider. So thats 5mm, further out, making the 265 tyres pretty much in the same spot outwards as the 255's.

Inwards clearance is therefore your only issue.:)

Something doesn't sound right there SK, a +12 9.5" should stick out a lot more than a +35 8".According to my offset calculator:

"The clearance from stut housing to the inside of the wheel will be 4mm MORE

The outside edge of the wheel will EXTEND an extra 42mm"

Unsure about offset. 18x9.5, 245/40's. The car is lowered a bit, and the rubber *just* clears the inside of the front guards. A greater profile wouldn't fit. And if you care, 245 on 9.5 leaves LOTS of room - if I did a gutter park, I'd prob scrape the rim first. That said, 245's tramline enough that I find it annoying - 265's may be worse.

Tyres: Yoko A539's + Federals (that hold better that you'd expect, unsure of model)

Mark

Something doesn't sound right there SK, a +12 9.5" should stick out a lot more than a +35 8".According to my offset calculator:

"The clearance from stut housing to the inside of the wheel will be 4mm MORE

The outside edge of the wheel will EXTEND an extra 42mm"

Let's do the numbers;

8" = 203 mm

Centre is 203 / 2 = 101.5mm

+ 35 = 136.5 mm out

Subtract 136.5 from 203 = 66.6 mm in

9.5" = 241.3 mm

Centre is 241.3 / 2 = 120.7mm

+12 = 132.7 mm out

Subtract 132.7 from 241.3 = 108.6 mm in

I think that comparison you are doing is maybe -35 to -12.:P

ferni....yeah i know what you mean. i turned right into a street when there was light rain, not speeding, not accelertaing, and the thing understeered and i almostdrove into the gutter! not looking forward to winter!

Marcus, im guessing you want 18s for a brake upgrade and also looks etc.

Id suggest sticking with 17s, you can fit just a wide a tyre on them , are always going to be lighter, cheaper to buy, and most importantly that cheater rubber you use on that cheater car is a damn site cheaper in 17s then 18s:)

With the right caliper and the right rim you will even be able to fit a 343 x 32mm rotor in there. Worst case scenario a 330 x 32mm rotor...combined with a nice alloy hat, larger diam and good curved vane design you should find the car stopping more consistantly with lower brake temps.

If you go 18s and want to run 355mm rotors etc, remember that a caliper that can saddle such a large rotor can also be a bit more expensive...but imagine how nice the car would stop with 355-365mm rotors and 18" semis:whackit:

LOL...move over and let me drive:)

Let's do the numbers;

8" = 203 mm

Centre is 203 / 2 = 101.5mm

+ 35 = 136.5 mm out

Subtract 136.5 from 203 = 66.6 mm in

9.5" = 241.3 mm

Centre is 241.3 / 2 = 120.7mm

+12 = 132.7 mm out

Subtract 132.7 from 241.3 = 108.6 mm in

I think that comparison you are doing is maybe -35 to -12.:)

S.K. you got it the wrong way around .

+ 35 means 35 mm offset to the inside , so + 12 will stick out more than + 35 .

In the example above +12 will be 132.7 mm in and 108.6 mm out . +35 will be 136.5 mm in and 66.5 mm out .

Marcus, im guessing you want 18s for a brake upgrade and also looks etc.  

Id suggest sticking with 17s, you can fit just a wide a tyre on them ,  are always going to be lighter, cheaper to buy, and most importantly that cheater rubber you use on that cheater car is a damn site cheaper in 17s then 18s:)

With the right caliper and the right rim you will even be able to fit a 343 x 32mm rotor in there. Worst case scenario a 330 x 32mm rotor...combined with a nice alloy hat, larger diam and good curved vane design you should find the car stopping more consistantly with lower brake temps.  

If you go 18s and want to run 355mm rotors etc, remember that a caliper that can saddle such a large rotor can also be a bit more expensive...but imagine how nice the car would stop with 355-365mm rotors and 18" semis

LOL...move over and let me drive:)

If you're going to cheat, do it properly! I was actually considering grabbing the GTR 17's from 2.06L Stacey...

But damn i love volks...

S.K. you got it the wrong way around .

+ 35 means 35 mm offset to the inside , so + 12 will stick out more than + 35 .

In the example above +12 will be 132.7 mm in and 108.6 mm out  . +35 will be 136.5 mm in and 66.5 mm out .

In my terminology + = positive

Hence +12 = positive 12 mm offset

I want to know what options I have for a set of Volk TE37s 18 x 9.5s +12 in terms of tyres.

:)

  • 2 weeks later...
hey do u know if i could fit these on my r32gtr

18x10.5 Offset -10

18X12 Offset -20  

thanks

Without flares, no chance. AFAIK 18x9.5 +12 is about as far out from the hub as you will be able to get away without the wheels protruding the guards.

That will be some FAT dish

  • 1 month later...
after some really quick help!!!!

R32 GTR with R34 GTR rims.... what tyre DOES fit.... who has them on there car?

Im looking at running the 265 35 18 RE55.....

if anyone knows for sure please reply :)

I am 99% sure they will fit fine. The stock 245.40.18's fit with plenty of space, so should be A-OK with the 265's

I will be running 265.35.18 RE55s' on my 18's when I can pay them off too :P

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...