17x11" on rear of narrow body 993?
#1
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mount Prospect, IL
Posts: 4,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17x11" on rear of narrow body 993?
...so I was hoping to be able to downgrade to 17" wheels for track duty (cheaper tires and I can get the very cheap kuhmo victorracers in 17")
Anyway.... I haven't actually tried to fit them yet (rear tire currently mounted TOO large anyway) but according to Fikse they won't work (Fikse says you can't put an 11" wide wheel on a narrow body 993)
..now I KNOW someone here put an 11" wide GT3 wheel on their narrow body 993 but I can't find that post right now.
So I measured the back spacing and came up with this:
17x8.5" front with 7" backspacing or ET62
17x11 rear with 8.25" backspacing or ET56
anyone have any concrete evidence of working or not on these before I try the hard way to fit them myself on the car OR give up and resell and give up on my brilliant downgrade idea...
What I hoped to do is eventually mount Kuhmo Victorracer 245 45 17 front and 275 40 17 rears (same exact ride height) --- I'd either sell my 18s or use up the expensive $1100+ tires with the knowledge that I can get the Kuhmo's for around $700 shipped next....
meanwhile... I know I don't have a chance in hell of making the exising hoosier 315 35 17 fit in my rear wheel well... (at least not on my narrow body)
Anyway.... I haven't actually tried to fit them yet (rear tire currently mounted TOO large anyway) but according to Fikse they won't work (Fikse says you can't put an 11" wide wheel on a narrow body 993)
..now I KNOW someone here put an 11" wide GT3 wheel on their narrow body 993 but I can't find that post right now.
So I measured the back spacing and came up with this:
17x8.5" front with 7" backspacing or ET62
17x11 rear with 8.25" backspacing or ET56
anyone have any concrete evidence of working or not on these before I try the hard way to fit them myself on the car OR give up and resell and give up on my brilliant downgrade idea...
What I hoped to do is eventually mount Kuhmo Victorracer 245 45 17 front and 275 40 17 rears (same exact ride height) --- I'd either sell my 18s or use up the expensive $1100+ tires with the knowledge that I can get the Kuhmo's for around $700 shipped next....
meanwhile... I know I don't have a chance in hell of making the exising hoosier 315 35 17 fit in my rear wheel well... (at least not on my narrow body)
#2
I have been keeping track of what wheels fit what here 11" wide wheels w/ +ET 62-67mm have been reported to fit n/b 993.
Doesn't matter in the slighteest whether they are 17, 18 or 19. What does matter is dynamic loaded radius, which can be inferred from the revs per mile(~831 for a 993), static loaded radius is second best data and overall diameter if all other data is missing(~25.2")
Doesn't matter in the slighteest whether they are 17, 18 or 19. What does matter is dynamic loaded radius, which can be inferred from the revs per mile(~831 for a 993), static loaded radius is second best data and overall diameter if all other data is missing(~25.2")
#3
Pro
11 inch wheels on nb
i did it.
11 x 18 et 63, gt3 wheels with 285 30 18 michelin n1.
car is lowered.
tried 295 30 first but they rubbed.
rolled fender lips, still rubbed on drivers side.
switched tires to 285 30 18, perfecto!
good luck
jeff
11 x 18 et 63, gt3 wheels with 285 30 18 michelin n1.
car is lowered.
tried 295 30 first but they rubbed.
rolled fender lips, still rubbed on drivers side.
switched tires to 285 30 18, perfecto!
good luck
jeff
#4
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mount Prospect, IL
Posts: 4,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, ET56 vs. ET63 is not what I wanted to hear.. I guess I can hope I measured the backspacing wrong and just get it over with and do my own test fitment and see if the wheel itself rubs on the rear suspension or not (trouble is I have to get a tire dismounted to attempt this test fitment)
#7
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by ceboyd
So I measured the back spacing and came up with this:
17x8.5" front with 7" backspacing or ET62
17x11 rear with 8.25" backspacing or ET56
17x8.5" front with 7" backspacing or ET62
17x11 rear with 8.25" backspacing or ET56
(backspacing - (.5*width)) x 25.4mm = offset in mm's, or ET
I get:
08.5" rim with 7.00" backspacing yields an offset of 69.85
11.0" rim with 8.25" backspacing yields an offset of 69.85
Trending Topics
#8
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mount Prospect, IL
Posts: 4,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well.. unless I measured my backspacing wrong.. which is entirely possible... but I checked and rechecked... (basicly a T ...straight edge across the back edges of the wheel and straight edge down to the back of the lug -- then got measurement of the line --- the I in T length is what I got for backspacing)
I guess my only thing left to do now is do an actual 'test fit' on my car and know for sure or not!
I guess my only thing left to do now is do an actual 'test fit' on my car and know for sure or not!
#9
Originally Posted by SwayBar
According to my calc:
(backspacing - (.5*width)) x 25.4mm = offset in mm's, or ET
I get:
08.5" rim with 7.00" backspacing yields an offset of 69.85
11.0" rim with 8.25" backspacing yields an offset of 69.85
(backspacing - (.5*width)) x 25.4mm = offset in mm's, or ET
I get:
08.5" rim with 7.00" backspacing yields an offset of 69.85
11.0" rim with 8.25" backspacing yields an offset of 69.85
ET = backspace - .5*overall width
use this diagram to see where to measure
#15
Here's something of very little value - ET is an abbreviation for the German word einpresstiefe . . . literally, pressed or pressed in depth, or offset as used in English.