18x10.5 on all 4 offset help...new pics added!
#61
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#63
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Apple Maggot Quarantine Zone
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starting to get a little confused here. Thought a few guys were saying that square setups track better. I get that they would be ideal while cornering, but what about daily driving on **** roads?
I'm in Seattle, and the freeway ruts are always an issue...
I'm in Seattle, and the freeway ruts are always an issue...
#65
this, once you start getting up in tires size on the front (295, 305+) the car will track differently on the road than say a 255 or 265 and will tend to follow cracks and imperfections in the road. doesn't really have much to do with a square setup necessarily. I am on factory alignment specs and it doesn't really bother me, although this spring I will be having the car realigned a little bit more on the performance side
#66
10 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
I think width is one thing, tire sidewall stiffness is another.
Often going more performance oriented means a stiffer sidewall so less give and more following of ruts.
I have a Nitto INVO on my DD SRT in a 275 vs stocks 245. They track less since the side wall is softer than the stock F1 tires, even though they are wider. My 315 Toyo R888s on my Firebird are about the same as my 295 Yokohama AD08Rs are. Both have very stiff sidewalls.
Often going more performance oriented means a stiffer sidewall so less give and more following of ruts.
I have a Nitto INVO on my DD SRT in a 275 vs stocks 245. They track less since the side wall is softer than the stock F1 tires, even though they are wider. My 315 Toyo R888s on my Firebird are about the same as my 295 Yokohama AD08Rs are. Both have very stiff sidewalls.
#70
So you guys went 18x10.5 +58 offset. I got a deal on 18x9.5 +54 and 18x10.5 +56 offset made by OE wheels. Eventually I want to run all 10.5's. I shouldn't see too much of an issue.
I suppose I could run a 2mm spacer up front to get my 18x10.5 +56's to fit like your +58's??
I suppose I could run a 2mm spacer up front to get my 18x10.5 +56's to fit like your +58's??
#71
TECH Enthusiast
So you guys went 18x10.5 +58 offset. I got a deal on 18x9.5 +54 and 18x10.5 +56 offset made by OE wheels. Eventually I want to run all 10.5's. I shouldn't see too much of an issue.
I suppose I could run a 2mm spacer up front to get my 18x10.5 +56's to fit like your +58's??
I suppose I could run a 2mm spacer up front to get my 18x10.5 +56's to fit like your +58's??
http://rimsntires.com/specspro.jsp
Apples to apples... a 18x10.5 +58 wheel sits 2mm more inward on the car than a +56 offset 18x10.5 wheel. The less the offset, the more it sits toward the fender opening.
#76
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those DO look good on there, and even better yet without the center covers!
What is the main reason you went with a 285 instead of the 295s?? (Tire choice not in that size, front tracking/rut following, rubbing fears, steering response due to stiffer sidewalls from the tire being stretched a little more, etc.?)
What is the main reason you went with a 285 instead of the 295s?? (Tire choice not in that size, front tracking/rut following, rubbing fears, steering response due to stiffer sidewalls from the tire being stretched a little more, etc.?)
#77
TECH Enthusiast
Those DO look good on there, and even better yet without the center covers!
What is the main reason you went with a 285 instead of the 295s?? (Tire choice not in that size, front tracking/rut following, rubbing fears, steering response due to stiffer sidewalls from the tire being stretched a little more, etc.?)
What is the main reason you went with a 285 instead of the 295s?? (Tire choice not in that size, front tracking/rut following, rubbing fears, steering response due to stiffer sidewalls from the tire being stretched a little more, etc.?)
295/35's in general on these particular wheels are very tight on front spindles/upper balljoints and LCA's at full lock (the rim itself is like an 1/8th inch off the spindle). The rear is tight on inner wheel wells/bump stops too.
I definitely wanted Michelins in whatever size I got. Michelin's are the fattest tire, in any size made. So putting the 295/35 Michelin's on were even more risky. Not to mention about $30 more for ea.
285/35 in Michelins look like other brands' 295/35 with fitment. People who get Continentals or other brands in 295/35 on these wheels, report the tires look stretched or narrow. Here's a good read as well: http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/...ll-around.html
The 285/35's are also closer to the original 245/50/16's diameter, so speedometer and rearend ratio weren't effected as much (if at all).
Overall... My personal preference is what I got. Tire comes straight off wheels' lip, with a slight roll of the sidewall (I wouldn't call them stretched). Safe tolerances for sidewall flex and travel, no rubbing at all. 285's on a 300 rwhp fbody is plenty of tire for any task I'll throw at it.
#79
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
295/35's in general on these particular wheels are very tight on front spindles/upper balljoints and LCA's at full lock (the rim itself is like an 1/8th inch off the spindle). The rear is tight on inner wheel wells/bump stops too.
I definitely wanted Michelins in whatever size I got. Michelin's are the fattest tire, in any size made. So putting the 295/35 Michelin's on were even more risky. Not to mention about $30 more for ea.
285/35 in Michelins look like other brands' 295/35 with fitment. People who get Continentals or other brands in 295/35 on these wheels, report the tires look stretched or narrow. Here's a good read as well: http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/...ll-around.html
The 285/35's are also closer to the original 245/50/16's diameter, so speedometer and rearend ratio weren't effected as much (if at all).
Overall... My personal preference is what I got. Tire comes straight off wheels' lip, with a slight roll of the sidewall (I wouldn't call them stretched). Safe tolerances for sidewall flex and travel, no rubbing at all. 285's on a 300 rwhp fbody is plenty of tire for any task I'll throw at it.
295/35's in general on these particular wheels are very tight on front spindles/upper balljoints and LCA's at full lock (the rim itself is like an 1/8th inch off the spindle). The rear is tight on inner wheel wells/bump stops too.
I definitely wanted Michelins in whatever size I got. Michelin's are the fattest tire, in any size made. So putting the 295/35 Michelin's on were even more risky. Not to mention about $30 more for ea.
285/35 in Michelins look like other brands' 295/35 with fitment. People who get Continentals or other brands in 295/35 on these wheels, report the tires look stretched or narrow. Here's a good read as well: http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/...ll-around.html
The 285/35's are also closer to the original 245/50/16's diameter, so speedometer and rearend ratio weren't effected as much (if at all).
Overall... My personal preference is what I got. Tire comes straight off wheels' lip, with a slight roll of the sidewall (I wouldn't call them stretched). Safe tolerances for sidewall flex and travel, no rubbing at all. 285's on a 300 rwhp fbody is plenty of tire for any task I'll throw at it.
#80
TECH Enthusiast