17" Volk CE28N Question...
08-19-2002, 03:32 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17" Volk CE28N Question...
Guys..
Seems like everyone purchases 17x7.5 +50 and 17x9 +63 wheels. How come no one buys 17x8.5 +52 for the rears? Is it because you guys want to run bigger tires in the rear?
What if I plan on running 245/40/17 in the back, will the 17x9 be too wide?
Seems like everyone purchases 17x7.5 +50 and 17x9 +63 wheels. How come no one buys 17x8.5 +52 for the rears? Is it because you guys want to run bigger tires in the rear?
What if I plan on running 245/40/17 in the back, will the 17x9 be too wide?
08-19-2002, 04:41 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1.5" difference between front and rear makes it a lot easier to get close to the stock '25% more rubber to the road in the rear'.
What front width are you planning on using with a rear 245? I think even 205s would be too wide...
Ted
What front width are you planning on using with a rear 245? I think even 205s would be too wide...
Ted
08-19-2002, 06:42 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh... I meant for the rears, I was asking why people choose the 17x9 instead of the 17x8.5. Front I plan on going with the 17x7.5 with 215/45/17, and the rears I want 245/40/17, but contemplating on whether I should do the 17x8.5 +52 instead of the 17x9. Just wanted to understand why people choose the bigger width before I make my purchase.
08-19-2002, 07:59 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I understood what you were asking, sorry I wasn't clearer.
Yes, the reason to go with the 17x9" rear wheel is to run a wider tire in the back.
I'm running 255/40 on the rear.
Your 215 front 245 rear (with tires with similar tread patterns) would be about 14% more rubber on the rear.
205 front with 255 rear would be pretty close to the 25% more rubber on the rear that the OEM tires have (due to the wider voids on the front tires).
Does that make sense?
Yes, the reason to go with the 17x9" rear wheel is to run a wider tire in the back.
I'm running 255/40 on the rear.
Your 215 front 245 rear (with tires with similar tread patterns) would be about 14% more rubber on the rear.
205 front with 255 rear would be pretty close to the 25% more rubber on the rear that the OEM tires have (due to the wider voids on the front tires).
Does that make sense?
08-28-2002, 06:28 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rockville
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went with the 63 offset - 245's in rear - 215's in front. My only regret is that I did not go with 255's.. My take is that the extra rubber equates to a closer performance to the S02's... My 245's spin a bit on acceleration. When the S02's are replaced - you then have a real perspective on how great this tire is/was.
08-28-2002, 07:50 PM
#7
Registered User
I have the 17x7.5 and 17x9 setup. I'm running 225/45/17 front and 255/40/17 rear Kumho Victoracers. I've done a track weekend and an autocross on them and I'm very pleased with the balance. No need for aftermarket swaybars so far.
Trending Topics
08-29-2002, 08:51 AM
#8
Registered User
As far as I know, CE28N doesn't come in 8.5 width +52 that will fit S2000.
http://www.rayswheels.co.jp states that they have a 17x8.5 +52, but it's only for bolt pattern 5x100, not 5x114.3 which is s2000's.
http://www.rayswheels.co.jp states that they have a 17x8.5 +52, but it's only for bolt pattern 5x100, not 5x114.3 which is s2000's.
