Largest Tire on stock 17x9's
07-31-2014, 02:38 PM
#1
08-01-2014, 10:58 PM
#6
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,040
Likes: 0
Received 1,492 Likes
on
1,074 Posts
285/40 will fit just fine without issues if you wanted something a bit wider and taller. As for smallest, 245/45 will fit but IMO doesn't look very good. 275/40 is basically a perfect fit.
Trending Topics
08-02-2014, 07:00 AM
#8
In 2008 I started using/running Nitto 315/35/17 drag radials on the rear(17x9 rim). Even ran them on a trip from Cleveland Ohio to Daytona Florida for the Daytona Beach Dream Cruise. Even though they're larger than recommended for that rim size,never had a problem.
They come off in the cold weather and I use BFG G-Force Super Sports 275/40/17 then.
They come off in the cold weather and I use BFG G-Force Super Sports 275/40/17 then.
08-05-2014, 11:05 AM
#10
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am also running 275/40 and they look ok but I am looking at DRs and kind of thinking I would like to run 315s if they will fit. And by fit, I'm curious about fitment of the tire to the 17x9 wheel as well as fitting them on to a '99 f-body.
08-05-2014, 03:13 PM
#13
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I'm looking at MT ETs right now (specifically the 295) and wondering if a BFH would be needed.
Pics really would help if anyone has any examples.
Last edited by mak23; 08-05-2014 at 03:21 PM.
08-05-2014, 10:39 PM
#14
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,040
Likes: 0
Received 1,492 Likes
on
1,074 Posts
The closest picture I could offer would be of 285/40/17 on a 17x9.5" wheel (AR TT2). The offest (46mm) is a bit more aggressive than the stock 17x9 (50mm) and the wheel is obviously 0.5" wider. The 285s in question were Goodyear GS D3, which run on the wide side - possibly the widest of the 285s still on the market today.
I can tell you that clearance was no issue at all in the rear; they fit perfectly and required no modifications of any kind to the body. The front was a different story though, they simply did not fit (would catch on the wheel well/bumper cover lip when turning), so I had to go down to a 275/40 for the front.
If you want pictures of this setup, I could post a couple.
I can tell you that clearance was no issue at all in the rear; they fit perfectly and required no modifications of any kind to the body. The front was a different story though, they simply did not fit (would catch on the wheel well/bumper cover lip when turning), so I had to go down to a 275/40 for the front.
If you want pictures of this setup, I could post a couple.
08-06-2014, 07:52 AM
#15
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minnesota Corn Fields
Posts: 2,451
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
8 Posts
Yeah I'm not interested in discussing the 315 on a 9" rim debate, don't think I plan on that.
Those with the 285/40 - do they come in a drag radial and do you have pics ?
I know the 275's fit fine but I'm looking for the some more meat for the strip.
Those with the 285/40 - do they come in a drag radial and do you have pics ?
I know the 275's fit fine but I'm looking for the some more meat for the strip.
08-06-2014, 12:43 PM
#16
But if the Nitto runs so much smaller I'd be better off just saving money and getting a different tire in like a 285/295, because it's going to look and perform the same, right?
Also, I'm looking at MT ETs right now (specifically the 295) and wondering if a BFH would be needed.
Pics really would help if anyone has any examples.
Also, I'm looking at MT ETs right now (specifically the 295) and wondering if a BFH would be needed.
Pics really would help if anyone has any examples.
08-07-2014, 12:12 AM
#17
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The closest picture I could offer would be of 285/40/17 on a 17x9.5" wheel (AR TT2). The offest (46mm) is a bit more aggressive than the stock 17x9 (50mm) and the wheel is obviously 0.5" wider. The 285s in question were Goodyear GS D3, which run on the wide side - possibly the widest of the 285s still on the market today.
I can tell you that clearance was no issue at all in the rear; they fit perfectly and required no modifications of any kind to the body. The front was a different story though, they simply did not fit (would catch on the wheel well/bumper cover lip when turning), so I had to go down to a 275/40 for the front.
If you want pictures of this setup, I could post a couple.
I can tell you that clearance was no issue at all in the rear; they fit perfectly and required no modifications of any kind to the body. The front was a different story though, they simply did not fit (would catch on the wheel well/bumper cover lip when turning), so I had to go down to a 275/40 for the front.
If you want pictures of this setup, I could post a couple.
08-07-2014, 02:54 AM
#18
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,040
Likes: 0
Received 1,492 Likes
on
1,074 Posts
Unfortunately I can't take any specific requests for new pictures at additional angles as I sold these wheels and tires several years ago (pictures are from '10, I got sick of the polished finish and went back to a chrome 17x9" wheel currently with 275/40 tires.) So here are the ones that best show the overall size of the 285s plus some comparison to the 275 fronts, and in the final picture if you look closely you can see the slight height difference between the 285 rears and the 275 fronts. In person, the size difference between the 285s and 275s was a bit more noticeable than is represented in these pictures:
Last edited by RPM WS6; 08-07-2014 at 03:00 AM.
08-07-2014, 11:35 AM
#19
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine a set of 295 DRs would look like more meat on the back. Doesn't really matter because as soon as I get traction my stock 10 bolt is going to parish anyway lol. But thanks for the info, glad I didn't just go buy 315s!
08-07-2014, 01:00 PM
#20
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,040
Likes: 0
Received 1,492 Likes
on
1,074 Posts
In terms of height I would agree, as the 275/285 combo is 25.66" vs 25.98" tall, and a 275/295 combo would be 25.66" vs 26.29", or almost double the height difference of the 275/285.
But in terms of width, 295s on a 9" wheel will probably look similar to 285s on a 9.5" wheel from a rear view. I say this because I've had 275s on 9.5" wheels that look the same as 285s on 9" wheels. The 10mm width difference is basically negated by the extra wheel stretch of the 1/2 wider wheel. But the wider tire on the narrower wheel will certainly have more sidewall bulge, if that's what you're after.
But in terms of width, 295s on a 9" wheel will probably look similar to 285s on a 9.5" wheel from a rear view. I say this because I've had 275s on 9.5" wheels that look the same as 285s on 9" wheels. The 10mm width difference is basically negated by the extra wheel stretch of the 1/2 wider wheel. But the wider tire on the narrower wheel will certainly have more sidewall bulge, if that's what you're after.