Rob
Posted a lot
You know, for kids!
Posts: 2,515
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 23:35:01 GMT
|
16's is gonna be teh winz0r. I bet I can flog them 10x17's for daft money to some c0ck-waver on 'that' bmw forum.... I bought some Appliance Torque Thrust lookie-likies, don't know if i even checked the size - i wanted 15x7 tops - they were 16x9 all round - crikey ! went all the way to bath to get em too... (and my gf was pregnant and travel sick) oh the joys of drunken ebay shennanigans...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 11:29:36 GMT
|
Well there's no going back now!!! Just yog'd 571 euro's on them inc. delivery
|
|
|
|
fluid
Part of things
opelman
Posts: 34
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 11:43:11 GMT
|
Here's another e30, 8.5x17 and 10x17:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 11:58:26 GMT
|
do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 13:52:47 GMT
|
that grey sloon looks a whole chunk better than the cabrio on 10x17's at the rear... and they're a very similar style to Borbet A'a aren't they? They look pretty freakin' hard..... i say bosh 'em on anyway, if you get rubbage or look too much like a pimp then get another two 9x16's and sell the 17's on. But i reckon you'll be keeping them on looking back at the grey car, i do see a little bit of arch rolling going off at the back
|
|
Never trust a man Who names himself Trevor. Or one day you might find He's not a real drug dealer.
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 13:54:23 GMT
|
Rolled arches and negative camber are your friends..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 14:21:26 GMT
|
do it if only to out pwn penski and his wheels without a car
|
|
2001 HONDA CT110 (NOT RCV)
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 15:11:22 GMT
|
Rolled arches and negative camber are your friends.. As are Strrreeeetched tyres These are Borbets?......... mmmmmm I wonder how wide those are?
|
|
|
|
Tarka
Part of things
Posts: 905
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 15:28:17 GMT
|
They're 9 x 16 on that Mk2. When it comes to dish Borbet A's are the lord. Praise be...
|
|
Sharks in the garage.🐬🇩🇪 I'll finish my projects when you've finished your's!😎😜
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 10:30:19 GMT
|
And the answer to the all important question..... No, she won't. Here's some fotografic evidence. Fitting the rears was a fugging nightmare as when the car is jacked up the wheel gets wedged against the suspension. It clears when you drop it down, but there's just no way in the world it's ever gonna get past the arch when suspension 'travel' occurrs. Furthermore, the 16x9's on the front, although fitting perfectly, look bloody wierd. Too much fresh air betwixt wheel & arch. And remember that this car has already been beaten hard with 'the stick'. Any lower and i'll not be able to get it off the drive. GAH! Back to 'Plan A' then (ps. anyone want some ridiculously proportioned wheelage?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 10:33:16 GMT
|
Lower with negative camber you goon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 10:33:34 GMT
|
shame - the rears look fantastic! suspension is for pussies anyway
|
|
Never trust a man Who names himself Trevor. Or one day you might find He's not a real drug dealer.
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 10:48:24 GMT
|
Yeah dial in a bit of negative camber on the rear and give the arches a bit of a tickle - them wheels look shaggin' cool on your e30! Are the fronts a smaller rolling radius than the rear? If so, maybe a slightly taller profile tyre might fill the arches more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 10:52:49 GMT
|
Too much! I don't like it.
|
|
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT!
|
|
Odin
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,406
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 10:57:25 GMT
|
I think with the stock arches that width looks a bit odd at the rear. But at the front, a 16 doesn't fill the arch AT ALL. 17s all around but with 9s on the back instead maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 11:01:43 GMT
|
On such a smart non kitted car my opinion is it doesnt look right stuck out. of course many will support the keep em and get some stretched rubber.
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 11:07:00 GMT
|
Drop the front, pull the rear arches and add negative camber to taste. Spray it silver.
What are you chicken?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 11:11:37 GMT
|
had the suspension settled when you took those pics? the bottom pic makes the front look lower than the one above. or is that just the angle? I'm in too minds if i like em or not. I'm sure with a bit of 'setting up' they would be the bomb! shall i pop round with the lump hammer later and we'll see to those arches? ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 11:13:28 GMT
|
TBH - i'm suprised they fit at all It would appear that you could get the rears to work by fitting a lower profile/narrow tyre to get more stretch and outwardly rolling the arches - whilst lowering the front even more on coilovers maybe? Combined with the same arch treatment to balance out the look. But this would hugely compromise the usability and dynamics of the car - which I think is a large part of this car's appeal. Strange how the 'cut' of the front wheel arch on many cars is alot higher than that of the rear - its the same on my car but it seems especially prominent on BMWs as the swage line is broken at the front but runs over the arch at the back
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2006 11:19:16 GMT
|
But this would hugely compromise the usability and dynamics of the car - which I think is a large part of this car's appeal. Very good point. A lot of stuff I've done wheel and suspension-wise has been without that much consideration to the dynamics, as they've never been really sporting or fast cars. With the Bimmer, it's performance is part of its appeal, so screwing up the ride and handling for the sake of a fat set of rears might not be worth it...
|
|
|
|
|