Little history first: Not new to the site, but new to the Accord forum.
Well here recently I have been contemplating switching over to the foreign side from the domestic side. My wife has had a MDX but personally I have never owned a foreign car except my 81 280zx Turbo back when I was 17. I have always been a Mustang person, 84 SVO, 96 GT, 91 GT Vert and now a 99 GT Coupe. Many of my friends have Honda's and Acura's but I have always resisted. Well I am currently living 53 miles from work and with gas at $3/gallon, its time to convert to something with more than 18mpg.
SO I am gonna sell the GT and buy a 97-2000 Accord EX Coupe since it is one of the few Hondas I really think look tough(Not doggin' any other Honda's).
I actually have always liked how versitile the little 4 cyl hondas are, but just never really cared for the compact scene.

ANYWAYS, I know from searching around here that the Staggered, wider rear and skinnier front, wheels arent the popular option but I have always liked the wider look in the rear. Also, ALL my cars handle better from sliding out in the rear with wider tires but I want to know what the best offset would be on the Accords and what is the widest wheel and tire combo that has been successfully run on Accords? I also plan to lower slightly but not slammed because I have a gravel driveway and live in the country(Sort of).

Thanks for the help

Here are my previous and current stangs if anyone is interested.
91 GT Vert, my baby that I traded for the 99GT Coupe recently. It had 17x9's on the front and 17x10.5's on the rear. Handled like it was on rails after the upgrade

My 84' SVO 2a. My first Stang from Collage days. That was a great Turbo 4 cyl. there.

My current 99 GT Coupe. 18x8's in the front and 18x10's in the rear. Sweet car but only gets 18-20 mpg.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jwrape &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


ANYWAYS, I know from searching around here that the Staggered, wider rear and skinnier front, wheels arent the popular option
</TD></TR></TABLE>

There is a reason for this.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Also, ALL my cars handle better from sliding out in the rear with wider tires
</TD></TR></TABLE>

All of your cars have been rear wheel drive if I am not mistaken. Over-steer is not a big issue with front wheel drive hondas.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
but I want to know what the best offset would be on the Accords and what is the widest wheel and tire combo that has been successfully run on Accords?

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Getting a wider tire will not get you more traction or grip. Concentrate on getting a sticker better tire that matches your exact needs. Also, the advantage of running 4 equal tires is that you can rotate your tires to prevent uneven wear between the fronts and the rears. As for the offset you are probably best off sticking close to stock. Lastly, if you are concerned with fuel economy I think you will find that a wider tire will actually decrease fuel economy although I am not certain on that last point.

 

All valid points, but if I am going to change cars I want a certain look as well. Wider tires may not help my handling on a FWD but it's ok with me, I am not buying the car to race or even drive fast just to commute and look decent.
All show and some go is fine for me. I plan to get a manual to help with the go part of it. I have always enjoyed shifting, even in traffic. It helps me get around traffic faster when I need to down shift.
But as far as rotating tires, I have most of my cars with Staggered wheel sizes for the past 5-6 years and I am used to buying 2 tires at a time. It's actually easier on the checkbook to buy 2 at once rather than 4. I tend to burn up tires anyways due to my driving style. Thanks for the comments.

 

I am running a staggered set-up on my Accord. 18x8 et29 front, 18x9 et36 rear. Why? Cause it LOOKS good. As for rotating....I just bought tires designed to only go on one side (Nitto Neo-Gens). Performance wise, have not noticed anything in normal and marginal hard street driving that I feel is negavite compared to when I ran 215/45's all around. Oh, and mileage has remained the same. Its the wheel/tire weight that hurts economy, not the width (and, the lighter, skinnier tire is up front anyways). The wider rear tire only adds a small amount of drag (wider tire in back).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lamsv &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As for rotating....I just bought tires designed to only go on one side (Nitto Neo-Gens).</TD></TR></TABLE>

Nothing in that sentence makes any sense.

First of all, the Nitto NeoGen can go on either side of the car. It is asymmetric, but not directional. So you can swap tires from one side of the car to the other without dismounting them, and still have them oriented properly.

Second of all, the big concern with rotating tires is with rotating them front vs rear, not side vs side. In FWD cars like ours, the purpose of doing this is to get the tires to wear evenly, so you can wear out all four as a set. If you can't rotate the tires front to back, you'll get stuck with tires with mismatched tread depth (not such a big deal) and, any time you want to switch to a different make/model of tire, you'll get stuck with mismatched tires (a definite no-no) or stuck with having to buy four tires when only two need replacement.

 

I have always bought two tires at a time. Never had an issue, if the tires become discontinued and I have to change brands I just look for a tire that look similar. I have NEVER had someone come up to my car and say "Man that car looks good, BUT you have mismatched tires on the front and back." Especially when it's lowered and the tires are similar, no one notices. Only I notice and I can look past it.