EvasiveMotorsports

Fender rolling is required for the 17x8/9 +49 or more camber. Depending on how much you are lowered.

RedCelica

haha, yeah I meant 255

Well I'm not willing to roll the fenders...so what's the MAX contact patch I could put on these without rolling? I'm stock height right now...but planning on dropping it an inch if that much.

Ouhei

I was running the 17x8/9 +49 setup with 215/45 245/40 on my old s2000 without rolled fenders and dropped to a finger gap between tire and fender. I used the euro-spec alignment and never had issues rubbing.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouhei/2522159483/http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouhei/2522159483/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/ouhei/, on Flickr

RedCelica

Yeah, I was just hoping to justify the cost of the wheels and tires by adding some rubber to the road...do you think you could have gone with 225s in the front if you wanted to? That's the alignment spec I'd like as well

Ouhei

I think I could have done 225 in the front (and/or 255 in the rear) without too much worry. I seemed to have a decent amount of room from what I remember.

EOE

I want to see some serious concave in the rear!

s4play

Anyone have ACTUAL pics of these in the stagger fitment on their ride?

How strong is the paint finish in terms of resistance to chips? My last set of $3k+ Advan RS-D chipped so easily I was extremely disappointed in their quality.

PM me a price for a set shipped to 95035


thanks
rick

EOE

S4Play, push it to the limit! Be the first to rock some nice concave in the rear , maybe? haha

clarkster009

These things dont concave much...they do to a point and then the hole where the lugs go just gets deeper. The one guy with the APR widebody is running 17x9 +12 and they dont look much more impressive.

Dreaming_S2k

Many people fail to realize the whole point is for them to NOT be concave. They're designed with fitting large brakes in mind.