Turbo S wheel upgrade and fitment
04-26-2005, 04:58 PM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Turbo S wheel upgrade and fitment
Hello all,
I am in the process of redoing an 89 Turbo S and thinking about what wheels will fit on my car other than the Clubsports. I have one front that has a pretty sizable gash on it and can't seem to find just a front wheel or a complete set at a reasonable price. I'm leaning towards a 17 inch wheel and would like to know what folks here with similar cars are using for wheels that won't rub or use a minimum amount of spacers. I know the 65/60 offset presents some issues as to fitment of other stock wheels. I want to get something that is light and strong but not godawfully expensive. I have read on my search that some folks have found that 96 993 wheels will fit. What would be the disadvantages of 4 wheels of the same size (say an 8 inch) with a set of autox tires that could be rotated front to back and side to side? Any suggestions are appreciated.
I am in the process of redoing an 89 Turbo S and thinking about what wheels will fit on my car other than the Clubsports. I have one front that has a pretty sizable gash on it and can't seem to find just a front wheel or a complete set at a reasonable price. I'm leaning towards a 17 inch wheel and would like to know what folks here with similar cars are using for wheels that won't rub or use a minimum amount of spacers. I know the 65/60 offset presents some issues as to fitment of other stock wheels. I want to get something that is light and strong but not godawfully expensive. I have read on my search that some folks have found that 96 993 wheels will fit. What would be the disadvantages of 4 wheels of the same size (say an 8 inch) with a set of autox tires that could be rotated front to back and side to side? Any suggestions are appreciated.
04-26-2005, 06:59 PM
#2
Race Director
No problems with four wheels of the same size, you can rotate them for even wear too. Would also improve handling by reducing understeer. The front-end will feel a little vague and tends to wander on grooves on the freeway more, but the improvement in handing is worth it.
In 17" sizes, I don't know of any stock 17" wheels that would be an upgrade for you. Ideally, you'd want to stay close to the stock TurboS offsets. This allows for a wider rim and tyre combination. Something like a 17x10" all around with 255/40-17 tyres would give maximum performance. CCW wheels would be a good choice in custom 3-piece wheels for less than $2000 (any size and offset you want too).
In 17" sizes, I don't know of any stock 17" wheels that would be an upgrade for you. Ideally, you'd want to stay close to the stock TurboS offsets. This allows for a wider rim and tyre combination. Something like a 17x10" all around with 255/40-17 tyres would give maximum performance. CCW wheels would be a good choice in custom 3-piece wheels for less than $2000 (any size and offset you want too).
04-26-2005, 08:19 PM
#3
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, hey, Danno, don't you go givin' that boy too many ideas now. His build up is getting scary for those of us who are about to get it on at the Cumberland Airport this year.
He's on the right channel to do well enough to challenge the conventional wisdom that Turbo's aren't good autocrossers and we don't really need him getting a bunch of grip under the bits he's laying out in his suspension. If anyone wants to break the 951 autox mold, Cumberland is the place. Schweet federal spec ashpalt, third gear courses and darn near a mile to do your thing.
He's on the right channel to do well enough to challenge the conventional wisdom that Turbo's aren't good autocrossers and we don't really need him getting a bunch of grip under the bits he's laying out in his suspension. If anyone wants to break the 951 autox mold, Cumberland is the place. Schweet federal spec ashpalt, third gear courses and darn near a mile to do your thing.
04-26-2005, 08:19 PM
#4
Can't beat the 993 wheel (same overall weight, though it's further out, as the club sport forged stock wheels) for the dollar - just make sure you get real Porsche wheels and not Mille Miglia replicas. I've been running the cup II for 2 years now with no problems and no (shame on me) caster block upgrade - it's just one of those things that's been sitting in a drawer waiting to get done. Cheap, look good on the 951, and fitment is perfect. My only beef is the 7" front width as I'd prefer to go 8" to get a little more rubber and a hair less understeer - this may, however, be due as much to my sh*tty Toyo front tires as anything. Kumho MX will go on front and rear soon and I'll update with opinions.
04-26-2005, 08:27 PM
#6
Rennlist Member
Another option is to keep your Clubsport 9's, and get two more 9's. I just found six in the Rennlist classifieds. They will fit on front, and there are some good tires in 16 inch, up to 265. I've run 265-16 Victoracers on a 9 in D90 on front of a 951. Also, keeping the overall diameter down is an easy way to lower your car.
Trending Topics
04-27-2005, 01:07 AM
#10
Racer
Thread Starter
What the..... Never mind. Thanks for all the suggestions. I didn't realize a 17x10 could fit on the front. I do like the idea of 16x9 on all 4 corners as well. Decisions...decisions.....
04-27-2005, 01:39 AM
#11
Rennlist Member
If youve got stock diameter springs, you wont fit a 10 in front, and a 9 can give you some problems too. The stock 9" CS 60mm offset will rub on the spring with even moderate camber.
04-27-2005, 05:11 AM
#12
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point well taken on the added HP, that's a proven strategy to solve understeer 
Coupla random thoughts here....
1. True, IMO, on the issue of matching rubber on all points and the "hunting" thing. Redardless of your power train, when 944's get a lot of rubber in the front the car feels much shorter, something about the polar moment of interia for you physics fans. The initial benefit is indeed faster turn-in, especially if combined with lots a camber and small track width increase in the front, relative to the rear.
2. The downside to the this approach, though not a big drawback, is a very twitchy platform...much more sensitive to the pitch of the car front to rear, the crown of the track surface and any camber to the track surface, particularly at entry. Even in my modestly powered NA racer with 15 x 8's and 225/45 Hoosiers. I've been backwards so freakin fast it's laughable. Ask this thread's author, there's probably already a betting pool in my region about how long it will take me to get the new Turbo S backwards
3. I think there's one school that says traction, is traction, is traction. More grip the better, period. There is, however, an other school (that includes Derek Bell from what I've read) who thinks that 944 race cars go fastest with a modest slip in the nose. Assuming sufficient poke under the hood to induce oversteer as needed in the middle and exit of turns, and sufficient driver skill to drift (not a good assumption in my case), the factory approach to front/rear balance is a good one.
4. There is a big difference between ideal autocross prep and track prep. Depending on the course, we would be hard pressed in our hormone injected 951's to run down a bantam weight Honda CRX CSP class autocrosser. Take the same two cars to Summit or VIR and the Honda is gasping for air and out of front tires by the end of lap two.
5. If one's sole goal is to do well at the local autocross, then don't be muscling up with too much front end stiffness and go ahead and get the widest rubber you can make fit. I've seen 951's go faster in autox by literally disconnecting the front sway bar drop links between runs. When you come out for DE or track days....hook that puppy back up and maybe go order the 30 mm while you're at it
Coupla random thoughts here....1. True, IMO, on the issue of matching rubber on all points and the "hunting" thing. Redardless of your power train, when 944's get a lot of rubber in the front the car feels much shorter, something about the polar moment of interia for you physics fans. The initial benefit is indeed faster turn-in, especially if combined with lots a camber and small track width increase in the front, relative to the rear.
2. The downside to the this approach, though not a big drawback, is a very twitchy platform...much more sensitive to the pitch of the car front to rear, the crown of the track surface and any camber to the track surface, particularly at entry. Even in my modestly powered NA racer with 15 x 8's and 225/45 Hoosiers. I've been backwards so freakin fast it's laughable. Ask this thread's author, there's probably already a betting pool in my region about how long it will take me to get the new Turbo S backwards
3. I think there's one school that says traction, is traction, is traction. More grip the better, period. There is, however, an other school (that includes Derek Bell from what I've read) who thinks that 944 race cars go fastest with a modest slip in the nose. Assuming sufficient poke under the hood to induce oversteer as needed in the middle and exit of turns, and sufficient driver skill to drift (not a good assumption in my case), the factory approach to front/rear balance is a good one.
4. There is a big difference between ideal autocross prep and track prep. Depending on the course, we would be hard pressed in our hormone injected 951's to run down a bantam weight Honda CRX CSP class autocrosser. Take the same two cars to Summit or VIR and the Honda is gasping for air and out of front tires by the end of lap two.
5. If one's sole goal is to do well at the local autocross, then don't be muscling up with too much front end stiffness and go ahead and get the widest rubber you can make fit. I've seen 951's go faster in autox by literally disconnecting the front sway bar drop links between runs. When you come out for DE or track days....hook that puppy back up and maybe go order the 30 mm while you're at it
04-27-2005, 05:34 PM
#14
Racer
Thread Starter
Oddjob,
Looking at your list of rides you definitely know what you are talking about (as do most 'Listers). I have had the struts rebuilt by Koni for double adjustability and will be using the Paragon coil over kit so I can use 2.5" I.D. springs. With some negative camber dialed in do you think 9" will fit without hitting the springs? I would think the smaller diameter spring should give me some more room to work with.
Looking at your list of rides you definitely know what you are talking about (as do most 'Listers). I have had the struts rebuilt by Koni for double adjustability and will be using the Paragon coil over kit so I can use 2.5" I.D. springs. With some negative camber dialed in do you think 9" will fit without hitting the springs? I would think the smaller diameter spring should give me some more room to work with.
04-27-2005, 06:26 PM
#15
Rennlist Member
Yes, if you are going with 2.5" springs, 9"s, with the correct offset range, should fit w/o a problem.
I know for sure that the 60mm offset 9" CS wheel will rub on the stock spring with around -2.0 deg camber. And that is the wheel lip rubbing, not the tire (makes a hell of a noise). So my guess, with the smaller ID springs, is that a 60mm offset should be fine. I have not tried this myself, but I would think you can probably go up to 65 and down to 55, but it may vary depending on what camber settings you use.
I know for sure that the 60mm offset 9" CS wheel will rub on the stock spring with around -2.0 deg camber. And that is the wheel lip rubbing, not the tire (makes a hell of a noise). So my guess, with the smaller ID springs, is that a 60mm offset should be fine. I have not tried this myself, but I would think you can probably go up to 65 and down to 55, but it may vary depending on what camber settings you use.