I want somewhat lower offset wheels for my 2000 civic sedan so I can also use them on my BMW e30.

How well would 17x7.5 +35 wheels fit on a civic?
I have Function and Form Type 1 coilovers btw and don't plan on driving the car slammed.

 

No one even has an opinion they wish to share?

(I read the rules. I dont want an opinion on the looks. I just want to know if they will fit without rubbing anything and how far they would stick out. I dont like the poke look, but flush would be fine with me.)

 

I wouldn't put 17's on a civic. If you want to go low offset i recommend something 15's or 16's.

Enkei 92's +20 offset 15x7
Enkei 92's 15x7 or 16X8 +0 offset
SSR Reverse Mesh
Work Equip 03
Volk TE38

and if you can't afford real deal get some dr20 +10 offset!

17's look riced out.

 

17x7.5 +35 will work fine, the tire size and ride height will determine if you rub or not, if you want a sure thing get some 195 40 17 and you will able o go pretty decently low

 

205/40-17 but then you might rub slightly so either rolled fenders and/or some negative camber will help you out.

 

Those wheels would fit fine on your sedan.They would look kinda big IMO.

 

205/40-17 is the correct tire size for your car. I don't know whether that combination of width and offset would require you to roll fenders though.

 

i had 205/40/17's on 17x7 with a +40 offset on my civic sedan rode like crap rubbed like hell and id say if your planning on riding low either roll your fenders and gut your wheel wells or go with a smaller rim 17's suck im trying to drop to 15's now and yes they do look huge DrZFiNeSt lol

 

Thanks for the responses.

I've been thinking I'll want more tire, so I probably wont be going with 17's.

What do you guys think about 15x8 +20?
The wheels I'm looking at also come in 15x7 +25.

 

If this is for street use, you'll want 195/55-15 or 205/50-15 tires, which should only be mounted on 15x7 rims (or narrower). 15x8 is too wide for anything other than 225/45-15, which are primarily tires for the track.

 

I Agree with nsxtasy but I think ideally for a 00 sedan the best fit would be 16's.

 

16" wheels will work too. If you get 16x7 wheels, you can use either 205/45-16 (lots of tires available) or 215/45-16 (only a few available).

 

195 40 17???

You will feel EVERY pebble you drive over

 

Stick with 205/40-17. Although if you're concerned with ride quality (feeling pebbles) or with susceptibility to damage from potholes, you're better off not going larger than 16" diameter.

 

I have a 96 ek hatch and running 17x7 wheels with 215/40 tires, with KW var1 suspension and have a great ride, awesome grip, and haven't noticed any rubbing. I would prefer to run 16s but my front SSBC caliper's wouldn't clear that..

 

Your '96 Hatchback came with smaller tires than his 2000 Civic, and 215/40-17 is way too big for your car; it's almost a full inch (almost 4 percent) larger in diameter than your stock size of 175/70-13. On your car, you would be better off with 195/40-17 tires.

 

Yes, the speedometer difference is 4.994% and the diameter difference is 4.76%, but the car is my track car, my main concern was to fit as much rubber per corner as possible without rubbing or rolling fenders.

 

A track car is a different story; you didn't mention that previously. On a track car, the big concern is finding tires in sizes to fit your car (and that may be the closest 17" R compound track tire you can get).

You do know that a wider tire doesn't put any more rubber on the ground than a narrower tire, right? And that tire width doesn't matter very much to grip?

 

When I said "rubber" I meant contact patch. I don't agree with your last two sentences at all it doesn't make sense. If your last last statement about tire width was true, why does a corvette Zr1 have a 335 width, when GM could save a lot of money by using a 185 width?

Does anyone else think he is right??

 

As long as the tires are inflated normally to support the weight of the car, the size of the contact patches depends only on the pressure in the tires and the weight of the car. (The shape of the contact patch is different - with wider tires it's wider side to side and narrower front to back - but the size is the same.) If you have a 2640-pound Integra with all the tires inflated to 33 pounds per square inch, the size of the four contact patches is going to total 80 square inches, and that will be true regardless of whether you have 255-treadwidth steamrollers or 175-treadwidth skinnies. If you can figure out a way to get a number other than 80 when dividing 2640 by 33, let us know.

You can read this article to learn more about it.

 

Something that I didn't see in the article nsxtasy linked, is that a wider tire made of the same compound as a skinnier one will last longer. There is more total rubber to wear down, and each portion of the tire is in contact with the ground for less time.

The real answer to why GM uses such huge tires on the ZR1 is because they look really cool and people expect the higher performance variant to have wider tires. Or, in short, because they can.

Besides, GM doesn't waste money on the huge tires (or rather, they wouldn't save any money on skinnier ones), as they simply pass that cost on to the consumer.

 

Well, there is also a performance advantage (primarily in cornering) to the wider tires, as explained in the article. But (a) it does not arise from any difference in contact patch, and (b) it's a lot less than some people think. You'd be amazed at how many people think that tire width is really important, and they go out and buy crappy tires in a superwide size and mistakenly think they're getting the best performance as a result.