Some might think this is an stupid question, but oh well. I'm certainly no body mod expert at any rate.

I'm interested in getting more rubber under my ITR. I currently have Te-37's, 16x7 and they are quite to my liking. However, to improve corning and the amount of rubber on the ground in general for a high horsepower application, I am wondering what modification to the fenderwells would have to be made to fit 17x8.5, or even 17x9.5 wheels.

The car sits about an inch lower than stock on a Tein suspension.

I looked around the net and found all kinds of references about wide body kits but nothing that really intructs me.

I'm wondering what offset would be required to clear the suspension on 17x8.5, or 17x9.5 wheels and if I'm just crazy over all for looking into this modifcation.

If anyone has information on how this can be achieved I would appreciate it.

-Jimbo

 

That won't ever work at all no matter what you do.

The only way to get it to fit is to cut your body panels and have the rims sit IN the cabin.

 

too much rubber will cost you HP's!!

 

I am not concerned about horsepower. I have so much power now it spins all the way through 3rd gear. As I mentioned I am looking at this party because of the high horse power application.

So I'm more interested in if it's possible, at least 17x8.5's.

Cutting the fendor well is not a problem. Cost is not an issue.

I'm assuming someone somewhere has done this, even if just for drag purposes at the track, although I wouldn't mind finding something prefabbed to replace the fendor wells, front and back.

-Jimbo

 

Spinning through 3rd? I have a HARD time believing that unless you have some sucky azz kmart tires.

 

.....you may want to look for tire sizes that are readily available in your desired compound - before selecting a wheel.

FD wheels are a good compromise on width, lightness, and readily available tire sizes - not to mention they look pretty good.

Otherwise, you can get wheels made in any size you could possibly desire...

You'll need a pretty low offset though. In the low ~+30's methinks.....

 

Well I guess you will have a hard time beleving it then.

I suppose I'll have to follow up with some photos and dynojet figures.

I updated my signature to contain some of the main modifications I have had done.

Thanks to the other fellow for the informative response.

 

dragging?

with all that money why not just get a mustang, a wrx or a lancer?

 

drag radials, you'll probably have better traction with 205/50-15 bf goodrich.. just have to limit to dry type weather.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by vtec.dc2 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">drag radials, you'll probably have better traction with 205/50-15 bf goodrich.. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I have a set for sale that are brand new in my Garage

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmacdonald801 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">to improve corning and the amount of rubber on the ground in general for a high horsepower application</TD></TR></TABLE>

Using wider wheels and tires doesn't change the amount of rubber on the ground - in tire terms, the size of the "contact patch" - at all; it only changes the shape of the contact patch, not its size. As long as the tires are inflated so that they are supporting the weight of the car, the size of the contact patch depends only on the weight of the car and the air pressure in the tires. For example, if the tires are inflated to 33 psi on an ITR weighing 2640 pounds, the size of the four contact patches will total 80 square inches - regardless of whether the tread width of the tires is a skinny 185 mm series, or 235 mm steamrollers.

Reference: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/a...6&P=1

Are you already using the highest performance tires you can find, such as R compound (track) tires? If not, I would think that you would get more benefit from using a better tire, than from using a wider tire...

 

Dragging was just an example of where I had seen modified modified wheel wells.

I guess you are not familiar with the popularily that has been building of drag racing imported cars (sarcasm). Although it's not necessarily my primary goal, I do with to do it for fun.

And as for the money I've sunk. The car is paid for, another car payment is just going to limit the amount of money I can spend on my R. That being said however the WRX, anc Lancer have been weighing heavily on my mind for an eventual supplement.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Using wider wheels and tires doesn't change the amount of rubber on the ground - in tire terms, the size of the "contact patch" - at all; it only changes the shape of the contact patch, not its size. As long as the tires are inflated so that they are supporting the weight of the car, the size of the contact patch depends only on the weight of the car and the air pressure in the tires. For example, if the tires are inflated to 33 psi on an ITR weighing 2640 pounds, the size of the four contact patches will total 80 square inches - regardless of whether the tread width of the tires is a skinny 185 mm series, or 235 mm steamrollers.

Reference: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/a...6&P=1

Are you already using the highest performance tires you can find, such as R compound (track) tires? If not, I would think that you would get more benefit from using a better tire, than from using a wider tire...</TD></TR></TABLE>

I've been told this before but I didn't really understand why this was.

Understand one thing, I don't wrench on my car so I ask a lot of stupid questions.

What I gather from this article is that the reason a wider tire makes no difference is because, the wider you go, the less weight is desributes per square inch so you're really not gaining anything by it.

However, the article also says this "the exceptions being so-called run-flat tyres, or tyres with extremely stiff sidewalls)". So I'm wondering that at 17x8.5 or more, wouldn't the sidewalls be really stiff simple because of their short height? Are there tires designed to achieve this effect?

Someone mentioned Goodyear tires. If I'm not going to increase wheel width, than what are the stickiest tires money can buy that are street legal?

I am aware the Nittos are ****, at least in my option I liked the Bridgestones better, so I have no qualms about trying new tires.

Thanks again, for edumacating me.

 

Although, I'm still a newb at the track
Sounds like you just want improved cornering. With the methods of better cornering you have in question doesn't seem like a viable option.

Here's what you can do IMO (other members: correct me if I'm wrong)...

-Try a different suspension system with different spring rates. Play around with the damper settings on the shock. This will adjust your understeer/oversteer preference.

-Upgrade the front/rear sway bar and/or upper tower bars. It will give you less bodyroll. This will adjust your understeer/oversteer preference.

-Increase negative camber in the front wheels. This will help in front traction during cornering.

-Stickier tires. Self explanatory.

-Add wheel spacers. Gives a wider tire track "foot print".

Thats all I can think of for now. Feel free to add or correct me.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by type r 01-1063 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">-Add wheel spacers. Gives a wider tire track "foot print". </TD></TR></TABLE>

 

Diamond wheels are pretty cheap and they can make any size you want. 15x10 good enough for you? You'll need to flare the bodywork at all 4 corners, but other than that..... Try a +10 to +20 offset...

 

I recall one integra on ebay that had 18x9 HRE wheels on it. The guy had made huge flares for the fenders to clear the wheels.

Rather than bastardizing your car you'd be better off selling it and getting something else though.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Spoon Spec EK &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Spinning through 3rd? I have a HARD time believing that unless you have some sucky azz kmart tires. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I spin through 3rd too...not entirely hard thing to do in a 300whp fwd car dude

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Spoon Spec EK &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">unless you have some sucky azz kmart tires. </TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmacdonald801 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">16x7 on 205/50R16 Nitto 555R</TD></TR></TABLE>

I suggest a 16x8 and a better tire.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BrewCityR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I suggest a 16x8 and a better tire. </TD></TR></TABLE>

What he said

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmacdonald801 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What I gather from this article is that the reason a wider tire makes no difference is because, the wider you go, the less weight is desributes per square inch so you're really not gaining anything by it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, that's not correct.

The weight per square inch is your tire pressure. If you fill your tires with 33 psi (pounds per square inch), then the weight per square inch is always 33 pounds per square inch.

Again - with wider tires, what changes is the shape of the contact patch, not its size. Here is an illustration from the Tire Rack website:



<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmacdonald801 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">However, the article also says this "the exceptions being so-called run-flat tyres, or tyres with extremely stiff sidewalls)". So I'm wondering that at 17x8.5 or more, wouldn't the sidewalls be really stiff simple because of their short height? Are there tires designed to achieve this effect?</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, not when they're fully inflated. Tires with stiff sidewalls have the sidewalls contributing to the support of the weight of the car, but not very much when they're fully inflated. These tires, such as the run flat tires, will really start to support the weight when air is let out of them.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Are you already using the highest performance tires you can find, such as R compound (track) tires? If not, I would think that you would get more benefit from using a better tire, than from using a wider tire...</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is still true...

 

This is strange to me..

Basically you've mod'd your car until its *too powerful*-(did I say that)

Now you're going to accomodate by buying huge wheels to make your car less powerful.

Why not just sell some mods, or tune it down a bit.

I know Im going to get the lecture that "well after 3rd it pulls great!".

IMO 15" and maybe 16" is the biggest I would want to go.. Unless the 17" is extremely lightweight.

as others have said, your best bet is to try different compound types or learn how to drive @partial throttle...

&lt;-D, who believes in a balanced car.

 

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

The weight per square inch is your tire pressure. If you fill your tires with 33 psi (pounds per square inch), then the weight per square inch is always 33 pounds per square inch.

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

wtf are you talking about?! the weight per square inch? are you seriously trying to say every square inch weighs 33psi? square inch of what exactly? weight per square inch is meaningless, a square inch has no volume. if you mean the density of the air in the tire is 33psi then you're wrong again....33psi means 33 pounds of pressure per square inch is exerted by the air molecules on its container..


also myth 2 on http://www.autospeed.com/cms/a...6&P=1 imo is bullshit, the coeffcient of friction will be impart determined by the area of tire in contact with the ground..if you run larger and wider diameter tires then reduce the tire pressure to increase the surface area in contact with the road, but be aware that unless the sidelwalls are stiff it could heat up and increase the pressure


Modified by goodbyegti at 5:25 PM 2/28/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by goodbyegti &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">wtf are you talking about?! the weight per square inch?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Sorry - I was using macdonald's terminology. The correct terminology is force per square inch (or, even more technically, force per area - which is how pressure is measured - or pounds per square inch, in the relevant units of measurement).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by goodbyegti &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">blah blah blah blah blah continues ranting about weight per square inch</TD></TR></TABLE>

You're really a nitpicker who like to rant, huh?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by goodbyegti &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">if you run larger and wider diameter tires then reduce the tire pressure to increase the surface area in contact with the road</TD></TR></TABLE>

Huh? Talk about WTF (to use your profanity - you really should do something about your inability to articulate your opinions without such terms, which only debases the opinion - however wrong - that you are trying so lamely to explain) - no one reduces the tire pressure just to increase the surface area, except at the drag strip, where it is indeed a well-known technique for that precise purpose.

The article is correct as written. (AutoSpeed is a well respected publication Down Under.) You may not like its analysis, but you can't argue with physics. Sorry.