ok so im all new to this s2000 and stancing a car. im looking for this type of set up. i want to run 17x9 all around with a 35 offset. the car will be dropped on coilovers, and rolled fenders. not pulled. i dont want to do any camber. prefer that the tires dont get eaten up. as for the tires, they will have a stretch, nothing crazy. so now my question is, how would that look? or what would i need to do to make it work. please direct me in the right direction. want to be low and flush, no camber

back r 17*10 and the front r 17*9 35 offset

 

Not possible without camber. Even with stretching tires the fronts will not work and the rears may also b an issue. You would be better off running something in the mid 40's all around if you want stock camber.

 

so what would sit flush? with a stretch

 

There's NO way that's 17x9 +35. I was able to fit a 17x9+30 with a meaty tire just fine with just rolled rears. That looks more along the lines of a 17x10 +35 in the rear. You're right on the money with those sizes if you want a bit of a stretch and a slight poke though. I've beet from one end of the spectrum to the other with wheels. It depends on how crazy you want to go, but I can definitely tell you what you'll need to do to make pretty much any setup work.
I had:
MB Battles 17x9 +30 all around. 215/45 and 245/40 tires
Varstoen ES1.1.1 18x9 +15, 18x10.5 +22. 215/35 and 235/35 tires
Fifteen52 Tarmacs 17x9 +45. 245/40 tires all around. (current)

 

Your issue is the no camber. I am not the person to ask about stretch because I think it looks like crap and ruins the performance of the car so ask one of the hella fail guys. 17x9 +35 is perfectly doable I. The rear with a 255 tire. Front is a different story. A 17x8 +35 would sit nicely and you could run a tire that actually fits the wheel.

Why do you think the wheels in that picture look good? You can see more of the lip of the wheel than the tire. It just looks messed up. Also I am pretty sure that car is lowered it just looks wierd becuase of the huge gap between the tire and fender due to the stretched tires.

 

actually yes i believe that those rears are 17x10. what im trying to do is be low with a stretch and not having to change tires so fast. if i do camber, will my tires be eaten faster? or how fast?

 

so i reread and the rear are 17x10 and the front are 17x9 with 35 offset all around.

 

how much camber would i need to make these 17x10 and 17x9 fit? 35 offset. and how long might the tires last?

 

Toe eats tires more then camber. Too much camber can cause not only poor strait line traction and acc/braking, but corky handling. A good all around aggressive set up for fitment and driving is -2 to -3 camber range, front and rear. No toe up front is needed and will obviously save tires, stock alignment does otherwise have some positive toe dialed din. The rear has positive toe form factory and needs it, but should be the min spec or less. 0.10-0.2 range per side.

 

Your pushing the bounds of functionally reasonable. Its not easy trying to balance function with a non functional look. 9/10 +35 really is too aggressive if your not going to pull front and rear fenders. You have to make room somewhere either through pulling with camber or overly stretched tires and camber with no pull.