Opinions On My Aggressive Wheel Plan: Enkei RPF1 17x9 +45 Rear & 17x8 +45 Front

[Boostit]

A +45 offset is not aggressive.

Aggressive is at least 9" wide and +30 Offset or LOWER

Hate to say it but I agree here. Aggressive is a word that is over-used.

Although the 17x9 +45 with 255's looks clean. That's what I would go for if you aren't going for mexi-flush (aka aggressive).

 

[ViciousLord]

Hate to say it but I agree here. Aggressive is a word that is over-used.

Although the 17x9 +45 with 255's looks clean. That's what I would go for if you aren't going for mexi-flush (aka aggressive).

This is "Aggressive"

18x9.5 +15

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

18x9.5 +20

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

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

17x9 +25

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

And this is "Hella-flush" aka "Stance" aka Perfect way to ruin suspension geometry.

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

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

big difference!

 

[turbowop]

This is "Aggressive"

Pics of Evos

Fitting wheel/tire combos like that under an Evo are easy. My car is about aggressive as you can go on a GVR4 without extensive modification. We just don't have the same clearance in the suspension and fenderwells to clear the stuff an Evo can.

So I guess the term "aggressive" is relative, yanno?

 

[Oneslowgs-t]

And lastly here's how the +45 9" rear and 8" front look on an S2K...I know I know, just do your best to pretend you aren't looking at a Honda and put a VR4 in it's place. You get the idea though....

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

i would rather own a s2k then a vr4, especialy that one. it has a beauitful stance to it, just my opinion. and they are easy to get high hp with a decent turbo kit on around 15psi.

Sorry this isn't much help, I just wanted to say:

Is that a half-rusted hood on the 2G?

NEVER LET HONDA OWNERS MAKE THE DSM TRANSITION.

(I will tell you I think those wheels are great though. No idea on fitment.)

im sure many people have mad the transition and still own both a honda and dsm like me.
i say if you want a dsm while you own a honda thats fine with me.

 

[ViciousLord]

Fitting wheel/tire combos like that under an Evo are easy. My car is about aggressive as you can go on a GVR4 without extensive modification. We just don't have the same clearance in the suspension and fenderwells to clear the stuff an Evo can.

So I guess the term "aggressive" is relative, yanno?

I see your point. But "aggressive" wheels can not be properly mounted without extensive work on our cars.

My main propose on posting those pics were to show the difference between "aggressive" and "stace". Yes, I know Evo's have more clearance and different suspensions; I just hate when people mix them up.

 

[kidtsi]

so you are trying to run 245s on a 8 on front and 235s on a 9 on back? or 235 on 8 on front and 235 on 9 on back.

If the first then im out of this thread, if second and can hesitate a little and stay...

 

[GST with PSI]

Reasons have been stated. You're just disregarding them. VCE will not last 2 miles with different diameter tires. So it might not be a deterrent to you but your VCE might think differently. It's ok. You've made up your mind what you're going to do. Have at it. I will be I subscribing to this thread as its a waste of my time. Thankyouverymuch. Have a better day.

Unsubscribed.

Ya know... The more I think about it... I'm just bein a dick. I didn't realize this post was in appearance. You just want it to look good. So if it blows out the VCE and sits on the curb for an extended period of time it'll be ok because it'll look good as it does.

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

Thanks for your concern, but the VCE will be just fine. Since you have proven on every post you have made thus far that you've failed to read anything but what you have written, see post #22 and that will explain how the tire diameters will not be different, and how my VCE will be A-OK. Lol @ the dramatic unsubscription too! I am truly hurt by this, seeing as the input you have provided thus far has been so absolutely crucial. Why so serious???

 

[GST with PSI]

so you are trying to run 245s on a 8 on front and 235s on a 9 on back? or 235 on 8 on front and 235 on 9 on back.

If the first then im out of this thread, if second and can hesitate a little and stay...

Honestly I guess I could go either way man? The difference in overall tire and wheel height combined between a 245 rear and 235 front combo verses a 235 series tire all the way around the car is very little. The 245 series tire is about 9.65 inches wide, where as the 235 series tire is about 9.25. If I ran the 245 in the rear, I would have about .4 inches to compensate for any stretch that may occur. If I ran the 235 series tire all around the car, the only thing that would make a difference in overall combined wheel/tire height would be the tire stretch on the rear if there even is any. By using a tire 235 series tire that is almost 9.25 inches to begin with, I don't believe there will even be any tire stretch on a 9 inch rim, and if there is it will be minimal and definitely not enough of a difference to harm the drive train. I do have to keep in mind the tire width is measured from the outside of each sidewall, not at the bead where the tire will actually be seated. I feel like both tire combinations will work just fine, and because different manufacturers' tires are all slightly different, I'll probably just have to make a decision one way or another and give it a try to see which works best. The math says either way will work. You are pretty persistent about a 235 all the way around the car. I trust your judgment since you actually have some experience with this wheel, so I'll likely go with the 235 all around.

 

[95talongirl]

I have planned for this. Check out post #22 and let me know what you think...

I think you still may run into issues....

Tire Tech Information - Matching Tires on Four-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive Vehicles

Even an 1/8" difference is enough to cause drivetrain problems.

If you want the aggressive look, then why not just buy a RWD vehicle of some sort?

 

[kidtsi]

I have an s2k too, and let me tell you, that gray one is runing 265s on a 9.5 or 9 and 235 on a 8 on front. the rule is the thinner the wheel the tinner the tire is not its not gonna look staggered just ugly,
but is your car man so you rule.

 

[GST with PSI]

I think you still may run into issues....

Tire Tech Information - Matching Tires on Four-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive Vehicles

Even an 1/8" difference is enough to cause drivetrain problems.

If you want the aggressive look, then why not just buy a RWD vehicle of some sort?

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. This is definitely reason for caution. Although Mitsubishi does not seem to have a specification for matching tires to each other, it appears that the margin is definitely very small. I found this as well: Tire Tech Information - Tire Specs Explained: Section Width
This basically says that for every 1/2" change in rim width, the tire's section width will correspondingly change by approximately 2/10". So in my case, say I was running a Sumitomo HTRZ II 235/45 17 which has a section width of 9.4" when measured on an 8" rim. Now take the same tire and put it on a 9" rim. Using the rule above, add 2/10" of and inch for every 1/2" change in rim diameter, so 4/10" (or 2/5") total. On and 9" rim in the rear the section would come out to be 9.8" or so. So from front to rear using the same tire, I would have an overall difference of .4" give or take. I guess the better question: is this enough to hurt anything? Looks like I may have to ditch the offset rim widths after all

I have an s2k too, and let me tell you, that gray one is runing 265s on a 9.5 or 9 and 235 on a 8 on front. the rule is the thinner the wheel the tinner the tire is not its not gonna look staggered just ugly,
but is your car man so you rule.

The specs on the wheels and tires on the S2K I put a pic up of are as follows: Enkei RPF1 17x8 +45 245/40/17 front & 17x9 +45 265/40/17 rear. I'm confused why you keep referring to the tires when talking about staggering? The Rims are what give it the offset staggered look, not the tires? But I think I may just do as you suggested anyways and go with an 8" or possibly the 9" all the way around the car. And if I don't, I will go with a single tire size front and rear regardless of a difference in rim width (235/45 17 tire). How much clearance do you have on the inside of your rim and tire from all your suspension components with the 9" wheel? Thanks.

 

[LandoAWD]

1/2" is in fact greater than 1/8".

If you want "stance", follow Mark's advice. If you want stagger, buy a RWD.

 

[kidtsi]

Thats a good lesson if you are not sure its gonna be allright then dont say you are, use all the precautions if you wanna do this anyways.

 

[GST with PSI]

1/2" is in fact greater than 1/8".

If you want "stance", follow Mark's advice. If you want stagger, buy a RWD.

Wow you totally read my mind. I was just writing up my next thread: "Converting my Galant VR4 to RWD"...

 

[Cirus_93TSI]

The 0.4 inch mentioned earlier is a HUGE difference in tire rolling diameter, 1/8 an inch is also a very large difference, thats double the maximum difference in rolling diameter any manufacturer recommends for an awd. Think about how many times per minute your wheel spins, each spin being 1/8 an inch different from the other set of wheels, you would need a basket to collect your drivetrain off the road.

Take it from me as a former salesman for a major nation wide tire and service chain. A tires rolling diameter is measured in 32s or an inch, you come into any of my former companys stores anywhere in the country with an awd and need 1 tire replaced, they will make you replace all 4 if the difference between your other tires and a new one is more then 2/32 or an inch. Now im talking about small difference caused by tire wear, this thread is talking about giant differences in comparison.
Just do yourself and listen to the advice here, unless your math comes out to a difference in rolling diameter of 1/16 (which is 2/32) of an inch or less, your almost surely going to run into problems that could be as bad as destroying your transmission.

 

[jtmcinder]

Take it from me as a former salesman for a major nation wide tire and service chain. A tires rolling diameter is measured in 32s or an inch... blah blah blah

What? I have never seen anyone report tire diameter in 32nds of an inch. It is always in hundredths of an inch (or rounded back to tenths). It is tread depth that is measured in 32nds of an inch.

ps. even if eating there is a good way to acquire a "spare tire," McDonalds' does not qualify as a "major nationwide tire and service chain"

pps. the previous ps is complete off-topic and should not be taken personally

 

[kidtsi]

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. This is definitely reason for caution. Although Mitsubishi does not seem to have a specification for matching tires to each other, it appears that the margin is definitely very small. I found this as well: Tire Tech Information - Tire Specs Explained: Section Width
This basically says that for every 1/2" change in rim width, the tire's section width will correspondingly change by approximately 2/10". So in my case, say I was running a Sumitomo HTRZ II 235/45 17 which has a section width of 9.4" when measured on an 8" rim. Now take the same tire and put it on a 9" rim. Using the rule above, add 2/10" of and inch for every 1/2" change in rim diameter, so 4/10" (or 2/5") total. On and 9" rim in the rear the section would come out to be 9.8" or so. So from front to rear using the same tire, I would have an overall difference of .4" give or take. I guess the better question: is this enough to hurt anything? Looks like I may have to ditch the offset rim widths after all




The specs on the wheels and tires on the S2K I put a pic up of are as follows: Enkei RPF1 17x8 +45 245/40/17 front & 17x9 +45 265/40/17 rear. I'm confused why you keep referring to the tires when talking about staggering? The Rims are what give it the offset staggered look, not the tires? But I think I may just do as you suggested anyways and go with an 8" or possibly the 9" all the way around the car. And if I don't, I will go with a single tire size front and rear regardless of a difference in rim width (235/45 17 tire). How much clearance do you have on the inside of your rim and tire from all your suspension components with the 9" wheel? Thanks.

now you talking about concave?

 

[Cirus_93TSI]

iv got a whole drawer full of tire tread depth gauges that measure in 32 of an inch, and my company was tire kingdom/TBC corporation, which owns merchants tire, NTB, big o tires, and tire kingdom chains. However they are multi sided gauges, also measuring in millimeters and 2 other measurements, its a circular bar on the top end with the 4 different measurements around it for the depth reading

Not to say that other chains dont measure differently, but i know Mr Tire also used the same measurements. Keep in mind im talking about spot measurements, not specs from the manufacturing process. im talking about me walking out to a car, taking a depth reading right there with a depth gauge, that depth in 32s is what all the manufactures needed when i made a defective tire claim.(but again, they might take a completely different measurement from other chains, be it 100s of an inch, or millimeters.)

And really i was just trying to use an example to make the point that the diameter difference being talked about here is gigantic compared to the tolerances considered acceptable by service shops and vehicle manufactures. Iv also seen a center diff lock up before on a dsm from the rear wheels sinning at a different speed then the front, and its not something that you would want to risk happening at any speed.

 

[GST with PSI]

now you talking about concave?

^^^Not quite following you???

I want to just reiterate what I'm really trying to accomplish here, and that is get input on fitment issues. Some other very good issues concerning this have also been brought up and I appreciate those issues being pointed out.

The main issue being debated is damage that may possibly occur to the drivetrain by the different rolling diameters when using a staggered wheel setup (9" in the rear and 8" in the front for example). Bottom line with this, if my rolling diameters are not almost identical on all 4 corners for whatever reason, damage can or will occur. I have posted many times identifying the calculated differences in rolling diameters with different tire configurations I have thought of using, and those differences may or may not be enough to cause damage. There is no spec put out by Mitsubishi, and unless there is someone who has done this that isn't posting here, the real answer may never come out. But when and if it's actually done, someone either will or will not break something, thereby proving one theory or the other. I would like to point out however, given the difference in rolling diameter I calculated, everything says this difference (about .4") will likely causing damage. That's based on common knowledge and specifications other manufacturers (not Mitsubishi) have put out. That being said, there are lots of ways to make your rolling diameter the same, even with 2 different width rims. Shaving the tire, changing air pressure and mismatching aspect ratios are some to name a few. Although these seem extreme, they can all be done to combat this difference in rolling diameter. Once again, bottom line is that rolling diameters of all 4 wheels need to be the same to completely eliminate the chance of damage occurring to the drive train. The end. If you are still a skeptic, I believe what this person said is a good take on this issue:

"this staggered wheels on AWD topic has been beat to death on pretty much every lexus forum I can imagine. yet there always seems to be conflicting opinions as to if its doable or if will blow your AWD system and center differential to bits....so I decided to do some research on this matter and approach it from a more educated prospective. The general consensus on AWD seems to be that all 4 wheels like to spin at the same speed as much of the time as possible or else you will have an overworked center differential and increased wear. The easiest way to make this possible is obviously by making all for wheels the same size with the same size tires as well, in order to maintain specs between these wheels as identical as possible. Now we all know that on a microscopic level, this is impossible, that is, to be EXACTLY the same size..minor differences do to manufacturing and tread wear will always exist no matter what you so...therefore it is safe to conclude that there is a margin for error on AWD systems or else youd be in the shop every month and AWDs wouldnt sell for sh!t. The major reason manufacturers dont do staggered wheels on AWDs is to avoid any kind of potential liability towards them if some damage where to occur with the awd system, it couldnt be blamed on that. But yes it can be done, most supercars like Lamborghinis come factory with AWD and staggered wheels on a WAAAAAAY more expensive and sophisticated awd system. Y do that if it wasnt safe??
Another thing to consider is the only way you could keep all four wheels spinning at the same rate would be to drive in a straight line forward or backwards, never turning. this is pretty much impossible your since ## steering wheel is constantly turning corners, changing lanes etc. while driving around town. during any turn, ## inner wheels will always spin slower than your outer wheels as well as front to back...thats what a differential is for, to allow wheels to spin at different speeds while under power. It would be idiotic to say that you will damage your awd drive staggerring your wheels because it will make the differential do exactly what it was meant to do. So yes, as long as your rolling diameters from front to back are as close to identical as possible, the differences will be small enough for your differentials to compensate without any increased wear.
As far as the difference in traction due to a larger contact patch in the rear from a staggered wheel...well think of it like this...even if ## front wheels was 2 inches wide and the back were 50 inches wide, if the rolling diameter is the same front to back and all four wheels are contacting dry pavement, they will all turn at the same speed (again, in a straight line front to back) no matter how slow or fast you are going. Now on the other hand, if you are constantly trying to do burnouts or attempting to drift around corners (which given the cost of a Lexus and Lexus repairs, I dont think many owners do) meaning u are forcebly trying to get the wheels to slip, then yes you could eventually do some serious damage. Everyday driving will have no affect on this whatsoever.
So not to drag this out any further since I know half of you dont want to read all this, yes i do believe it is perfectly safe to stagger wheels on an AWD so long as you keep the rolling diameters on all four wheels as close to identical as possible, then go for it i say. Feel free to disagree, I wanna hear what yall have to say...educated of course please, not ### ## cousin heard from his friend whose dads a mechanic at yadda yadda bingbang..facts mannn FACTS!!" -cartistik

 

[jtmcinder]

iv got a whole drawer full of tire tread depth gauges that measure in 32 of an inch, and my company was tire kingdom/TBC corporation, which owns ... blah blah blah

Exactly. Everyone measures tread-depth in 32nds of an inch. I was correcting your statement that tire diameter is measured in those units.

It's one thing not to read other people's posts, but you have to at least read your own, OK?

 

[jtmcinder]

To the OP: if you're doing all this for looks, why not just yank the VC off the center diff and then run whatever ridiculous tire sizes you wish? It's not like your car is going to handle well when you're done molesting it and it's not like you need a center VC to avoid getting stuck on ice or snow living in Sandy A Go. As long as you stay off the beach, you won't need a center VC, so yank it and move on with your life, such as it is.

[Mods: you don't need to send me a warning. I'll stay out of this thread from now on.]

 

[tsidrift1]

I didnt even bother to read the thread. All I can say is, if I would have kept the galant vr4 I got a few years ago, you would have seen a set of 17x9 +45 rpf1s on that beast. I would have found a way to make them fit without looking hellaflush.

I made them fit on the 1g, I would have made them fit on the gvr4. Sadly, I parted it, it was a complete piece of sh!t.

Oh, and its probably been mentioned, and I am just too tired to read for it, but if you run the 9" wide in front, and the 8" in the back, you are going to be looking at two totally different rim designs. Same rim, but the 8" will have the spokes curving outward, where as 9" and wider, have flat spoke design.

 

[Ludachris]

Ahhh I got you. I misunderstood what you were saying. You mean overall wheel and tire diameter, not wheel diameter alone. That's a simple fix. The rule of thumb is that tire section width changes by 0.2" for every 0.5" change in rim width, being reduced if mounted on narrower then measuring wheel and increased when mounted on wider wheels. This is an easy fix, I just run 2 different aspect ratios. So lets say I run a 235/40 17 front...

235mm / 25.4 = 9.25 inches (conversion)
9.25" (width) x .40 (aspect ratio) = 3.7"
3.7 x 2 = 7.4 (total tire height combined)
7.4 + 17 (wheel diameter) = 24.4 inches total tire height in inches.

And say I run a 245/40 17 rear...

245mm / 25.4 = 9.65
9.65" (width) x .40 (aspect ratio ) = 3.9"
3.9 x 2 = 7.8 (total tire height combined)
7.8 + 17 (wheel diameter) = 24.8 inches total tire height in inches.

So if all my math checks out the end result is a total difference of about .4 inches...not enough to cause any drive train issues that I'm aware of? You can also skip all the math and use this to come up with about the same result Tire Height Calculator - Wallace Racing Someone much smarter than I please chime in and correct me here if I'm wrong on all this???




I see what you are saying, but the actual difference in tire height say between a 235 and 245 series tire is so little that you would hardly even be able to tell a difference by looking. I definitely don't think it would be as large of a difference as your are thinking even with a little stretch. But hey, I guess we will find out when I throw this stuff on the Galant, because nothing that's been said thus far is deterring me from proceeding with my original plans. Thanks again for all your input.

It's recommended that AWD cars not run different tire tread front to rear to ensure the drivetrain doesn't get damaged. I'm sure tire dimension differences are an even bigger no-no. However, I've never really done enough research on the subject to know how much damage it can potentially do, as I've never considered running different sizes.

And keep in mind that hardcore AWD autocrossers have been known to run staggered sizes for competition with Evos and WRXs. So even though it's not recommended, it's been done a lot lately. They typically run wider in the front though.

 

[Ludachris]

To the OP: if you're doing all this for looks, why not just yank the VC off the center diff and then run whatever ridiculous tire sizes you wish? It's not like your car is going to handle well when you're done molesting it and it's not like you need a center VC to avoid getting stuck on ice or snow living in Sandy A Go. As long as you stay off the beach, you won't need a center VC, so yank it and move on with your life, such as it is.

[Mods: you don't need to send me a warning. I'll stay out of this thread from now on.]

Actually, not a bad suggestion. It would totally eliminate the potential damage issue altogether.

 

[4g63tc]

I run AWD, and Staggered.
(F) 19" x 8.5" Volk Gt-7 with a 235/35/19 with an OD of 25.3" Hankook Ventus V12
(R) 19" x 10.5" Volk GT-7 with a 265/30/19 with an OD of 25.5" Hankook Ventus V12

Stock 215/55/16 OD 25.3