38 replies to this topic

[pc85]

D_Venable, on 18 March 2010 - 04:14 PM, said:

those Rotas can only be had in the 4 lug though (4x114.3)

pc85, is your car 4 or 5 lug?

4 x 114.3 is my lug pattern

[redzone]

in my opinion the thrusters look gayer than aids, they look like they belong on an F100 or something... but the mojave's would look awesome!


Rota RB's in a 17X8.5 +4 fit PERFECT on a flatty, i just sold a set to a customer..

Attached Files

•  26102009(001).jpg   118.94K   43 downloads

[MikeMeyerhoff]

redzone, on 29 March 2010 - 09:04 AM, said:

Rota RB's in a 17X8.5 +4 fit PERFECT on a flatty, i just sold a set to a customer..

you KNOW that a better picture than that is a required !

[redzone]

MikeMeyerhoff, on 29 March 2010 - 08:07 PM, said:

you KNOW that a better picture than that is a required !

yeah i've only got 2 pics, that was when we test fitted one on my two tone car, the fellow who owns them has tyres on them now but his car is stripped apart at the panel beaters now getting a full spray job done. rest assured i'll post some pics omn this thread then..

anyways here's the other pic i've got:

Attached Files

•  26102009.jpg   123.99K   51 downloads

[D_Venable]

NICE!

[MikeMeyerhoff]

redzone, on 30 March 2010 - 03:45 AM, said:

rest assured i'll post some pics omn this thread then..

anyways here's the other pic i've got:

[pc85]

redzone, on 29 March 2010 - 09:04 AM, said:

in my opinion the thrusters look gayer than aids, they look like they belong on an F100 or something... but the mojave's would look awesome!

I always dug the Mojaves, they exude power and performance; was surprised to see the Thrusters getting picked? But always open to different points of view. Thanks for the support!

[redzone]

no worries!


hey has anyone put a set of 16x8 zero offset xxr's on a flatty yet?

[pc85]

Well I'm not a real fan of the Rota's, a little too bulbous and round for my taste, so I'm going with my gut and first instinct; not the most popular choice but a strong contender:

"Mojave"

Edited by pc85, 14 April 2010 - 08:45 AM.

[redzone]

nice! go for plenty of dish, it really suits these cars.we've always said that, even before dish became flavour of the month..

[pc85]

Bringing this thread back to life. Started this almost two years ago and am just now ready to order the rims. Problem, the rears are not 9" but 91/2" and I'm not sure the 225-45-17 with a T/D of 25" for the front will even fit? The SQC Wheel thread is great for seeing monster tires on Fattys but not much help for Flattys. So without rolling fenders or cuting the spring perch, what are the biggest tires I can get?

[D_Venable]

I've got the 18x9.5s from my 88 here with 265/35's on them, I'll try and see if I can't help you out a bit sometime this week

[SFBMX88]

They all look like they belong on a truck IMO, but to each is own.  You will have to get your fenders rolled for sure though!  I have SHP 9s(16x9, 0 offset) with 245 45r16 in the back of my flatty, and I had to roll my fenders after I sliced a piece of tire off.  I think I could have done 9s all around if I kept the flatty front suspension parts...

Old pic

Edited by SFBMX88, 13 February 2012 - 12:23 PM.

[Threedoor]

I have my front 5 lug conversion done (hubs and rotors only) and I have been test fitting different wheels and tires.

SHP 16 X 8 fronts (bare rim) clears the front suspension by just about 3 mm, and even though it sticks out further than stock it looks like it will clear the fender without needing the lip rolled.

Regular 16 X 7 front with flat (won't hold air) 225/50/16 tire.  Rim clearance is 16mm and the tire is close to, but not hitting spring perch... keep in mind this is an un-inflated tire and car is on jack stands.

Regular 16 x 8 rear (bare rim) clears the front suspension by a full 25mm, and eyeballing it says the face of the rim is flush with the outer edge of the fender.  Just eyeballing it without tires on, I would say it probably would require rolling the front fenders.

SFBMX88, on 13 February 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I have SHP 9s(16x9, 0 offset) with 245 45r16 in the back of my flatty, and I had to roll my fenders after I sliced a piece of tire off.  I think I could have done 9s all around if I kept the flatty front suspension parts...

I don't have a set of SHP rears, but doing the math the SHP 9's would be 25.4mm wider, with 10 mm less offset ( zero vs -10 ) so they would be 22.7mm closer to the suspension (12.7mm width increase plus 10mm offset change) and would stick out 2.7mm more than regular rears on the front of a flatty with just a hub and rotor swap rather than a full suspension swap.  You would be even closer to the suspension than with the SHP front 16 X 8 rims, right around 2mm of clearance.  You definitely couldn't run wide tires up front without slip on spacers.

My question pertaining to all this is simple.... do I need spacers with the front SHP's that have 3mm of clearance?  Or, if the new tires I have ready to mount up (225/50/16's) don't rub the spring perch can I get away without spacers?

Later,

Keith

Edited by Threedoor, 13 February 2012 - 04:16 PM.

[pc85]

SFBMX88, on 13 February 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

They all look like they belong on a truck IMO, but to each is own.  You will have to get your fenders rolled for sure though!  I have SHP 9s(16x9, 0 offset) with 245 45r16 in the back of my flatty, and I had to roll my fenders after I sliced a piece of tire off.  I think I could have done 9s all around if I kept the flatty front suspension parts...

Old pic

"Belong on a truck..." ouch, lol. I have 245-45-16's on 16x8 rims R, 7 mm offset, no rubbing issues but flush with the fender. I know I can't go any further towards the fender but I have 1.5" of clearance towards the strut. I can go with 9.5 x 17 R with 19 mm offset. This will keep the 255s with the same clearance on the outside of the fender, I may have to trim back the spring perch. Back tires are not the issue, I want to go with 225-45-17 F and I know I'll have some rubbing issues. I think I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and cut back the spring perch up front.

[pc85]

Just ordered the rims and learned something new. The advertised rim width is actually 1" narrower than the total width lip to lip. So I'm actually getting 8" rims with a total edge width of 9" for the rear which will give me plenty of clearance with a 13mm offset. Front rims will be 7" rims with a total edge width of 8" with the same net offset as my current 16s of 7mm. Next month Bridgestone Potenza S Poles.

[Threedoor]

pc85, on 13 February 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Just ordered the rims and learned something new. The advertised rim width is actually 1" narrower than the total width lip to lip. So I'm actually getting 8" rims with a total edge width of 9" for the rear which will give me plenty of clearance with a 13mm offset. Front rims will be 7" rims with a total edge width of 8" with the same net offset as my current 16s of 7mm. Next month Bridgestone Potenza S Poles.

Ummm, you may have that backwards.   If the advertisement says you are purchasing 9 inch rims then the measured rim width is 10 inches.... not 8 inches.  The stock 16 x 8's are substantially wider than 8" from edge to edge.... not narrower.

Keith

[pc85]

Threedoor, on 14 February 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Ummm, you may have that backwards.   If the advertisement says you are purchasing 9 inch rims then the measured rim width is 10 inches.... not 8 inches.  The stock 16 x 8's are substantially wider than 8" from edge to edge.... not narrower.

Keith

I have it right, your not understanding what I wrote. We're saying the same  thing. The advertised "rim width" is the inside measurement between the edges were  the tires sit, the total edge to edge width is an inch wider because of the 1/2" lip on either side. What I was saying was when I found that out, I couldn't order 9.5" rims with a total width of 10.5" for the rear, I just don't have the clearance for that width so I had to change rim size and ordered 8" rims with a total 9" width for the rears and 7" rims with a total 8" width for the front.

[Threedoor]

pc85, on 15 February 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

What I was saying was when I found that out, I couldn't order 9.5" rims with a total width of 10.5" for the rear, I just don't have the clearance for that width so I had to change rim size and ordered 8" rims with a total 9" width for the rears and 7" rims with a total 8" width for the front.

Got it!  Now I understand what you were saying.  

It is always harder to get stuff when you can't directly test fit it, especially when it seems like some companies do things one way and others a different way.  Tires are a pain in the butt due to variations from one company to the next, for example NT 555R drag radials.  Their 245/50/16 drag radial has a wider tread width than most 255 tires, and it is wider than some companies 265 tires!  If you don't know that ahead of time you can end up with clearance issues.

Later,

Keith