Lets see Those Shoes!!!
06-20-2016, 05:14 PM
#81
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-20-2016, 06:53 PM
#82
On The Tree
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Top of 6th Gear
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got 285/35/18 Conti Extreme DW's on 9.75" wide stock rear.
For Me: Had to have CS lower control arms and had to have small spacers made. Wheel was hitting the CS arms...not the tire.
This was on a car that I removed 20" HRE's that were 10" wide in the rear. It had stock lower arms and no spacers (wild alignment) and everything fit.
For Me: Had to have CS lower control arms and had to have small spacers made. Wheel was hitting the CS arms...not the tire.
This was on a car that I removed 20" HRE's that were 10" wide in the rear. It had stock lower arms and no spacers (wild alignment) and everything fit.
06-29-2016, 10:30 PM
#91
TECH Enthusiast
I'm not sure you'll be able to get a 9.5" in there without some aggressive negative camber up front. My 275/35R18 is also 4.13% smaller than stock size tire, so it dropped the car 0.5" lower to the ground than when I was on the 245/45R18's.
I haven't put on the rear spacers yet to "square" everything up. I was going to wait for when I send out the other set of wheels to be widened to 10.5", but 295/35R18 PSS's are on backorder again and Weldcraft has a 9 week wait time to get new jobs in this go around
So I might move the rear spacer project up on the To-Do list. Functionally the car is fine as is for street driving. My camber is pretty "up there" at -2.0 Front /-2.3 Rear for a mostly street car and I'd like to make it a bit more positive for everyday driving (and launching) which will require me to raise the front slightly and notch the rear control arm location as I'm currently maxed out on the inboard at my current ride height. I think -1.5/-1.8 would be ideal for camber. As is, the turn in and front grip is pretty awesome though, oh and no rubs and pretty even wear all around! (I didn't modify/roll any bodywork either) 
FYI Here is both tire combo's back to back for visual comparison purposes
245/45R18 on 8.5"
275/35R18 on 9"
Last edited by barrok69; 06-29-2016 at 10:42 PM.
06-30-2016, 06:40 AM
#92
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those pics look exactly the same. At least I think they do. Do you have a comparo picture from the rear showing the stance. In my opinion no sense in getting a good side shot without a wider stance. GM really screwed up putting 245's on all 4 corners imo. My buddy has a 2002 M5 and BMW did it right!
06-30-2016, 08:52 AM
#93
TECH Enthusiast
Those pics look exactly the same. At least I think they do. Do you have a comparo picture from the rear showing the stance. In my opinion no sense in getting a good side shot without a wider stance. GM really screwed up putting 245's on all 4 corners imo. My buddy has a 2002 M5 and BMW did it right!
06-30-2016, 09:13 AM
#94
Oh yeah! 275's for the win. My 245/45R18's on non widened wheels tucked pretty good at the same ride height and didn't rub either. The wheel/tire package I have now fits really well and am very happy with the outcome. I'm using a 5mm spacer up front to clear the inside of the knuckle otherwise the widened wheel will not fit inboard. None of the wheels/tires stick past the fender, which was my goal, I hate that look.
I'm not sure you'll be able to get a 9.5" in there without some aggressive negative camber up front. My 275/35R18 is also 4.13% smaller than stock size tire, so it dropped the car 0.5" lower to the ground than when I was on the 245/45R18's.
I'm not sure you'll be able to get a 9.5" in there without some aggressive negative camber up front. My 275/35R18 is also 4.13% smaller than stock size tire, so it dropped the car 0.5" lower to the ground than when I was on the 245/45R18's.
