17x9 +38 mm offset on a 2g gsx???

[thisdsm]

My car is sitting on H&R OE sport springs and Tokico Illuminas. I ran a search and came up with another guy running almost the same setup but with a +35 mm offset. Here's the thread:

http://dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238895&highlight=17x9

It seems like he didnt really have any rubbing issues except for when at 100+mph while road racing. But it also looks like his car isnt really dropped that low either. My car is mainly used for the weekends and occasional track days. I have another car I beat on daily. The picture in the thread above doest really show how far the wheel sticks out from the fenders. My main concern is just how far the wheel is going to stick out from the fenders and rubbing/clearance issues. I'd love to run 255s, but I can settle for 245s or even 235s to prevent any rubbing/clearance issues. Anyways, I'd like to hear what you guys have to say about this. And if anybody have pictures of 2g's sitting on 17x9 wheels, mainly focusing on how far the wheel sticks out from the fenders, that'll be sweet. Thanks!

And these are the wheels Im planning to get.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[asian312]

Stumbled onto this thread and thought I'd share a little.

I use the same springs, but I use Koni's instead of Tokico. The tires extend out about an inch. As an update on the rubbing, the fronts will still touch on that high speed transition, but with some elbow grease and my jack handle the rears clear with no problem.

For daily driving I will mention that you will throw rocks and road debris against your body with the tires extending beyond the fender.

I would not recommend going with a 38. I'm almost positive that a 255 would rub as I have roughly 5mm of space on the backside. That's just enough room for the tire to flex in the corners. Check out eclipsegsx1736 gallery for a few more pics of 17x9 wheels. He's running 245/40 on a 38mm offset. He'll have a better vantage point if he can squeeze a 255 in there.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[thisdsm]

Thanks! I'll check his car out. You have a very clean ride man! Thanks for the feedback. I may have to go with 17x8.

 

[Flash]

Scrymerr on here runs a 17x9 with a 255/40/17 with a +35 offset. It will rub in the rear on 95-96 DSM's as he found out, but 97-99 have a different revised control arms that will clear.

 

[jtmcinder]

Please say more about the supposed differences between 2Ga and 2Gb rear suspensions. This is news to me.

- Jtoby

 

[wret]

I think the fit would come down to:

-amount of camber correction
-fender rolling
-tire selection

As a comparison, I currently have 255/35-18's which are about the same diameter. On +40mm offset wheels, I have about 2mm clearance when the tires tuck. This is with a suspension lowered about 1.5 inches and 1.5° negative camber. What you propose is very close to this but you give up 2mm with the +38mm offset. For a much safer fit, go with 245 width tires.

 

[eclipsegsx1736]

I've got a little over 6mm of clearance in the rear and plenty in the front. 255's will be a tight fit, and I'll probably end up getting some 3mm spacers just in case. thisdsm, where in socal are you? I'm going to Willow Springs again on May 12th if everything works out as it should, and I'll finally get to test the new setup out there (gonna keep the 245/40 KD's on).

I love the way 17x9 looks and now my old 17x8 +40 setup looks skinny to me. I haven't rolled any of my fenders and don't have any rubbing problems, only very rarely on a 9/10ths+ turn and hitting a dip/bump at the same time. The car isn't that low though, Maybe a 1" drop from stock in front and barely 1/2" in rear. Spring rates are 14kg/8kg (~800/450) so that helps. I have around -2* front camber and around -1* rear camber, I did a good amount of rear camber correction.

 

[Flash]

Jtoby, he had a donor '95 or '96 2g AWD and he threw his 17x9 +35offset with 255/40 tires and they rubbed in the rear. He tried them on his friend '97 or '98 GSX and they fit. It's magic!

Actually when he told me I sent him this:
"When you are processing these numbers, note that late 2g's have been said to have a different suspension design that provides more clearance. I haven't personally confirmed this, but make sure to send the year of your car with your datapoints. The mitsubishi does list two different part numbers for early and late 2g's, FWD with the June 1996 build date (new body style?) should have the revised control arms, although the change seems to have happened on AWD cars a little earlier."
Source: http://www.martincheck.com/wheel_tire_fitment_FAQ.html

 

[thisdsm]

I've got a little over 6mm of clearance in the rear and plenty in the front. 255's will be a tight fit, and I'll probably end up getting some 3mm spacers just in case. thisdsm, where in socal are you? I'm going to Willow Springs again on May 12th if everything works out as it should, and I'll finally get to test the new setup out there (gonna keep the 245/40 KD's on).

I love the way 17x9 looks and now my old 17x8 +40 setup looks skinny to me. I haven't rolled any of my fenders and don't have any rubbing problems, only very rarely on a 9/10ths+ turn and hitting a dip/bump at the same time. The car isn't that low though, Maybe a 1" drop from stock in front and barely 1/2" in rear. Spring rates are 14kg/8kg (~800/450) so that helps. I have around -2* front camber and around -1* rear camber, I did a good amount of rear camber correction.

Im located in the IE. Im probably going to go with 17x8, seeing as how my car is lower than yours. Im afraid Im going to rub no matter what.

 

[GSX]

Jtoby, he had a donor '95 or '96 2g AWD and he threw his 17x9 +35offset with 255/40 tires and they rubbed in the rear. He tried them on his friend '97 or '98 GSX and they fit. It's magic!

Actually when he told me I sent him this:
"When you are processing these numbers, note that late 2g's have been said to have a different suspension design that provides more clearance. I haven't personally confirmed this, but make sure to send the year of your car with your datapoints. The mitsubishi does list two different part numbers for early and late 2g's, FWD with the June 1996 build date (new body style?) should have the revised control arms, although the change seems to have happened on AWD cars a little earlier."
Source: http://www.martincheck.com/wheel_tire_fitment_FAQ.html

I know it's not hard numbers, like what jtmcinder is after. but I can confirm the above. When I moved my wheel/tire combo from my 97 to my 95 I wound up having to swap the the control arms from the rears to keep from rubbing. FYI.

 

[Flash]

I know it's not hard numbers, like what jtmcinder is after. but I can confirm the above. When I moved my wheel/tire combo from my 97 to my 95 I wound up having to swap the the control arms from the rears to keep from rubbing. FYI.

And that's exactly what he had to do too.

 

[Turbo Monk3y]

Bringing this back from the dead, I wanted to know about the REVISED rear suspension compents allowing a larger wheel without rubbing. Both parties talking about this mentioned it was a control arm? But when I plug in the Part numbers from wheel_tire_fitment_FAQ Into the JNZ catalog It bring ups the KNUCKLE and not the control arm.. Also THe W/ABS and W/O ABS numbers seemed switched around on that website? I have a 95 and was looking to get some 17X9s and 255s on there and was trying to make sure I have everything to make this work the right way.. Anyone know????