20 in wheels on 95 Z28?
03-26-2014, 10:53 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Ontario, California
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
please don't put 20's on a fourth gen.. those guys are ruining the craft.. The best look on the fourth gens IMO is 17 or 18s maybe 19 IF it maintains the muscle car look. If it's some ghetto **** just no.. I drive a 95 Z28 with 17x9.5 wheels and 275/40/17 nitto n555 tires all around. just saying.. performance is the operative word here.
03-27-2014, 09:08 AM
#23
TECH Resident
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: pa
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my opinion is that i would only go 19's at the biggest and that is in the rear, for a staggered 19/18 set front just so cts v brakes could be ran up front. However it is your car, do what you want, but bling does look quite stupid on these things.
03-30-2014, 05:50 AM
#27
People don't understand. Late model Camaros and Mustangs are simply bigger and require the larger wheels for aesthetics. The much lower profile or otherwise smaller 4th gen relative to a 5th, just looks like **** with anything over 18". This pic makes a 4th gen look like a Miata next to the 5th gen:
Also any wheel tire combo that raises the chassis higher than OE is just mind-boggling and screams WTF!!! Yeah its great to change the oil.
Sorry slax6, do not like for the reasons stated above.
Also any wheel tire combo that raises the chassis higher than OE is just mind-boggling and screams WTF!!! Yeah its great to change the oil.
Sorry slax6, do not like for the reasons stated above.
03-30-2014, 02:14 PM
#28
20's are not great for performance even on cars designed with big wheel wells and suspension built them....Perfect example of this is the 2014 Z28; it runs 305mm width tires on 19" wheels on all four corners, NOT 20's that the regular SS has; the Z28 package was specifically built around those wheels/tires. In doing so, it out performs MUCH more expensive sports cars on a track such as the $117K 545hp GT-R track edition and the $182K 560hp Porsche 911 Turbo S; don't get me started on how bad it beats the 662hp Shelby GT500 like a rented mule on a track that involves actual turning; it's in a whole different league, not even close! 
It does so running 19" wheels and "just" 
505hp while all the rest are on 20's and have MUCH more HP and traction* (GT500 doesn't have **** for traction and gets smoked by mentioned AWD cars on launch). If a modern car engineered to run 20's can't perform as good as it can with a smaller wheel, what makes anyone think an over 20 year old platform could ever do so? 
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._r_comparison/
^I'll bet that 4x4 stance LS1 SS Camaro above will barely pull .75 G's on a skidpad now with that ridiculously high center of gravity; not to mention the suspension was never designed for the HUGE increase in unsprung weight those heavy 20's add.
It does so running 19" wheels and "just" 505hp while all the rest are on 20's and have MUCH more HP and traction* (GT500 doesn't have **** for traction and gets smoked by mentioned AWD cars on launch). If a modern car engineered to run 20's can't perform as good as it can with a smaller wheel, what makes anyone think an over 20 year old platform could ever do so? http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._r_comparison/
^I'll bet that 4x4 stance LS1 SS Camaro above will barely pull .75 G's on a skidpad now with that ridiculously high center of gravity; not to mention the suspension was never designed for the HUGE increase in unsprung weight those heavy 20's add.
