Official "Official" Forum All your "Official" threads!

Official Enkei RPF1 Thread PT 2.

Thread Tools
 
Old 07-08-2010, 12:48 AM
  #171  
Registered User

 
tntrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: los angeles
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Rubn1out4GudLuk,Jul 7 2010, 02:27 PM
Do they have rpf1's offered in that size???

My rears are close with the 17x9 1/2 +38...just a little more aggressive than the 17x9 +35(if they offer that).



Is your car lowered and fender rolled?


car looks nice.

tnt
Old 07-08-2010, 04:20 AM
  #172  

 
//steve\\'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ATL
Posts: 10,465
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

A 17x9 +35 is more aggressive than 17x9.5 +38 in terms of fitting the wheels. Yes the 9.5 is wider but the offset determines where the center of the tire sits so on the 9.5s it's 3mm more inward than the 9 +35. The very outside of the rim is going to be out farther on the 9.5 but you'd have to be super slammed for it to become a problem.
Old 07-08-2010, 04:32 AM
  #173  
Registered User
 
BanzaiS2K2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,841
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

i say just go 17x9 +45 thats the most ideal fitment less of a pain
Old 07-08-2010, 04:45 AM
  #174  

 
Dreaming_S2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 3,194
Received 28 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by //steve\\,Jul 8 2010, 07:20 AM
A 17x9 +35 is more aggressive than 17x9.5 +38 in terms of fitting the wheels. Yes the 9.5 is wider but the offset determines where the center of the tire sits so on the 9.5s it's 3mm more inward than the 9 +35. The very outside of the rim is going to be out farther on the 9.5 but you'd have to be super slammed for it to become a problem.
A little confused by your post. If my calculations are correct, the 9.5 +38 is 3mm more aggressive on the front spacing, and 9mm more aggressive on the back spacing (which doesn't matter anyway, there is still plenty of space)

Either way, it's going to be very very similar fit if you stick to 255's mostly because on the 9.5 it'll stretch a tad more (just a hair), where it'll be pretty square on the 9.

I see what you're saying by where the center of the tire sits, but in this case it's so close I doubt either way would be much difference.

Old 07-08-2010, 05:35 AM
  #175  
Registered User
 
Leo Gets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Driver's seat
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

here's my contribution for thread2

Old 07-08-2010, 08:11 AM
  #176  
 
ugadogs_11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

^^^ that's nice man! Can't wait to actually get mine on....
Old 07-08-2010, 10:11 AM
  #177  

 
//steve\\'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ATL
Posts: 10,465
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dreaming_S2k,Jul 8 2010, 07:45 AM
A little confused by your post. If my calculations are correct, the 9.5 +38 is 3mm more aggressive on the front spacing, and 9mm more aggressive on the back spacing (which doesn't matter anyway, there is still plenty of space)

Either way, it's going to be very very similar fit if you stick to 255's mostly because on the 9.5 it'll stretch a tad more (just a hair), where it'll be pretty square on the 9.

I see what you're saying by where the center of the tire sits, but in this case it's so close I doubt either way would be much difference.

You've got the right idea or I don't understand offset the way I thought I did. The way you need to look at it is if you take a 17x9 and a 17x10 both the exact same offset the center of where the wheel sits is exactly the same now you just have an extra .5" of rim on the inside and outside. Usually we run into problems when do something that moves the tire farther out such as running a +35 vs +38. On my setup now I can tell you for sure that if I ran a 17x9 +35 out back I'd rub even though I have no rubbing with the 9.5 +38. It's tight enough for me as is that I don't even think I've got 3mm to spare.

You are right though that the extra .5" of the rim will just barely stretch the tire some which always does help make them fit.
Old 07-08-2010, 10:13 AM
  #178  
Registered User
 
Mintifresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Leo Gets,Jul 8 2010, 05:35 AM
here's my contribution for thread2

What are the specs again? Tire size included.

They look really like a really skinny tire. All around actually.
Old 07-08-2010, 11:22 AM
  #179  
Registered User
 
Leo Gets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Driver's seat
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Mintifresh,Jul 8 2010, 01:13 PM
What are the specs again? Tire size included.

They look really like a really skinny tire. All around actually.
f 17x9 +45 225/35
r 17x9.5 +38 245/35

tires ended up being shorter than I wanted. Next set will be 40 series
Old 07-08-2010, 12:03 PM
  #180  
Registered User
 
Rubn1out4GudLuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,268
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tntrac,Jul 8 2010, 01:48 AM
Is your car lowered and fender rolled?


car looks nice.

tnt


No it's at stock height!!!!



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:15 PM.