CE28N 17x9.5 et35 or 17x10 et45?
08-12-2013, 07:43 PM
#11
10 +45 with 255 will fit perfectly fine with no pulling and -3 camber. Its less aggressive then that ^^^
Just the typical fender roll/tab relocate. Totally reasonable for DD or track, or parking lot if that's the fancy.
Just the typical fender roll/tab relocate. Totally reasonable for DD or track, or parking lot if that's the fancy.
08-13-2013, 10:00 AM
#12
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ that doesn't fit in my book. Try actually driving the car hard and the tire will hit. That's with my 17x10 +44. Buddy on here who tracks a lot had to do same (more than just roll) with 17x9.5 +35.
So no, not reasonable for track in my book. But reasonable for street posing.
So no, not reasonable for track in my book. But reasonable for street posing.
09-04-2013, 09:33 PM
#14
^ that doesn't fit in my book. Try actually driving the car hard and the tire will hit. That's with my 17x10 +44. Buddy on here who tracks a lot had to do same (more than just roll) with 17x9.5 +35.
So no, not reasonable for track in my book. But reasonable for street posing.
So no, not reasonable for track in my book. But reasonable for street posing.
-3 camber is always the base I use when considering fitment because its the maximum functional alignment for the rear and removes one variable of potential confusion.
09-16-2013, 05:16 PM
#19
Moderator
Pretty sure the old Amuse specs were 17x9 +40. As far as I know Volk doesn't make a 17x9.5 +40, the closest they have is the 9.5 +47.
