15x7.5 with a 32 offset on a 2000 civic EX

front fenders are rolled. rears will definitely be rolled

car is lowered about 3 to 3.5 inches

will these fit without beating the **** out of my fenders

tire stretching isnt a concern, i want that flush look

 

front will probably rub like a *****,

i had 215/45/16's on 16x7 +42's in the rear with -1.5 camber on my 99 civic it didn't rub. and i was tucking quite a bit of tire..

the front was game over though

 

were you also running the 215's in the front though?

currently im running 205/45/16's and it rubs a good bit under sharp turns

if i went with the 15x7.5 i will run a 195 or maybe even a 185
would this help?

 

yes, i ran the same sized tires front and rear when i went autoxing, i had the bend the inside fender lip in.. use a hammer and a torch to smash in some of the frame/fender well.. whatever u want to call it

i ghetto fender rolled the front, both had big dings in them so i don't care about how they look now

 

yea the frame/fender well is a bitch....i rub like hell on it.

i have like -3.8 degrees camber in the back and like -2 in the front as of now. i can add more camber if needed. i wonder if the 195s will be small enough for them to fit underneath the fenders though

 

the rear camber sounds enough, what series tires do you have again?

 

 

right now im on 205/45's

 

guna look hot thou

 

I will not answer one of your posts ever

 

15"s on a ek coupe is too small imo. The wheel wells are too big, I wouldnt run anything under a 16" wheel. I have 16x7 fr and 16x8 r with a et24 I rub up front and am trying to figure out how to minimize if not eliminate that and my fender lips are non existent.

 

Rubbing is primarily a function of the tire size and its position, as well as the car it's going on, of course. If your car is a '97-00 Civic, you should not be rubbing as long as (a) your tire size is 205/45-16 or 215/45-16 (only the 215 should be used on a 16x8), (b) your car isn't totally slammed (lowering up to 1.5" shouldn't result in rubbing), and (c) you have wheels whose width and offset positions them for maximum clearance in the wheel wells.

 

its a offset issue

 

Of course it is. But since you know this, why are you boasting ET24 and still "trying to figure out how to minimize if not eliminate that"

Have you tried offset 45, should fit fine and it's the right ET for your car, will handle 100 times better

ET24, what were you thinking ...


According to Car Bible both sizes fit 16x7-8.5

 

its not that bad, you act that offset is crazy low and it hardly is its not even an inch difference.

 

Nope. You can (and should) look up the specs for the specific 205/45-16 tire in question. Most of them are approved only for rims 6.5-7.5 inches wide, not 16x8.

 

What do you mean by "specific 205/45-16 tire", the brand or model?

Filling in the numbers 205/45-16 and 215/45-16 on Car Bible 'An ideal rim-width calculator' gives same rim widths ...

You may be right, but this is what's to be found there ...

 

Tire manufacturers publish specifications for which rim widths are approved for their tires, based on the analysis of the engineers who design the tires and their experience with their usage. These specifications can be found on the websites of the tire manufacturers as well as on those of dealers such as the Tire Rack. For example, here are some of the more popular 205/45-16 tires and the manufacturers specs for approved rim widths:

Bridgestone Potenza RE-11 6.5-7.5"
BFGoodrich G-Force Sport 6.5-7.5"
Bridgestone Potenza RE760 Sport 6.5-7.5"
Fuzion ZRi 6.5-7.5"
Yokohama S.drive 6.0-7.5"
Kumho Ecsta ASX 6.5-7.5"

Feel free to look them up yourself if you like.

Needless to say, such specs for each tire, from the companies that designed and manufactured the tires, are far more definitive and specific than a "rule of thumb" from a "car bible". Furthermore, based on this example, I would say that whatever algorithm that so-called "car bible" is using is just plain wrong.

 

Could very well be.

I only searched for this kind of info since recently I learned that there was some US regulation on this, that rim specs should be given out by some institution. So it was these specs I looked for.

Such regulation does (not yet, I'm sure) exist in the EC. I do indeed find such specs on eg the S-Drive on the US site but not on the Belgium site and I wouldn't know where in Europe for that matter.

What exacty does 'measuring' mean in 'Measuring Rim Width', I suppose of course it means like 'recommended' but why use 'measuring'?

 

My understanding is slightly different from the Tire Rack's definition. I always thought "measuring rim width" referred to the rim width upon which other specs were based. For example, if you look at the specs for the Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec in 195/55-15, it shows approved rim widths of 5.5-7.0", and a measuring rim width of 6". I always thought that meant that other specs, such as their stated outer diameter of 23.5", were measured with the tire mounted on a 15x6 rim.

That's not exactly how the Tire Rack defines it, although their definition isn't necessarily inconsistent with that one, either. You can read the Tire Rack definition here.

One thing the Tire Rack definition states is that, because the measuring rim width is standardized for all tires labeled with a given size, "all of the tires produced around the world (to) meet the same dimensional standards and therefore, be equivalent with regards to their physical size". This is generally true but not precisely; some variation is permitted. It's well known that certain tires labeled as a certain size are wider or narrower than other tires labeled as the same size. (For example, such-and-such tire in 195/50-15 is as wide as or wider than most 205/50-15 tires.) I think the manufacturers are allowed a certain variation from the nominal tire size.

By either definition, though, the measuring rim width is not considered a "recommended rim width". I don't think there is such a spec (i.e. one particular rim width recommended over others), other than the use of any rim width within the range of approved rim widths.

 

Thanks for the explanation, cleared some things up