DocTock993

On eBay (wheels) - seller is being a bit recalcitrant with information, anyone from the 996 forum know him?
I did contact Wheel Enhancement (Dave was great) and we are guessing that most likely the wheels are ET 52 front and back. Especially as Gemballa website indicates that the 10" only come as ET 52 and ET 40. However, Dave did not rule out an older model that may/ or may not have been available.

Will ET 52 fit front AND rear on my NB 993?

TheOtherEric

For a NB 993 and 10" wheels, you want a rear offset of 65mm. So ET52 will stick out 13mm from ideal. So whether or not that'll work for you depends on what tires you want to use, how much lowered you are, what camber you have, and if you mind the tires sticking out a bit.

IMHO, I wouldn't bother, but you wouldn't be the first person to do it.

David in LA

10" ET52 will fit your NB rears....esp if you stick to 285s as your fender clearance is reduced by only 1/2". If you go wider than 295 you may need to break out the baseball bat

VNTGSPD

Careful! I have Boxster LTW 5 spokes that are 9" wide ET52 and they rub slightly with 265 Continentals under extreme bumps. I have rolled fenders. There is no way I could fit 285 without rubbing on every little bump.

A 10" wide ET52 wheel sounds like trouble on a NB.

I posted a close-up picture in anther thread so try a search. Good Luck

David in LA

The wheels shown in my sig pic below are 11" ET52 with 285s and rolled fenders - so at least on my car, 10" ET52 will fit easily; Father of 3 is also running the same wheels with the same offset and width. That said, 993s do have clearance variations (and even side to side on the same car) so that could explain why your set up doesn't work for you while mine fits. IMHO your 9" ET52 would be better used as front wheels.

RallyJon

David, your sig shows the wheels appearing to protrude past the rear fender!

Russ, check out these recent pics of 18x10x58mm offset rears on a narrow body. Very close. Different people have different tolerances for clearance. And some people live where there are bumps and potholes.

https://rennlist.com/forums/showpost...0&postcount=29

David in LA

Yes they look like that but they didn't rub since the camber increases as the suspension compresses. In the pic my tires are 285 SO3s and I've since moved to 295 PS2s which rubbed slightly on one side so I sacrificed a bat and rolled the fenders a bit more and no more rubbing since. IMHO if anyone is really concerned with rubbing then they should just stick with 10" ET65 as that is an almost guaranteed fit and gives you max flexibility on tire size and brand and will not need any fender rolling. But the question asked was whether a 10" ET52 would fit and the answer is that it is not an absolute "no".

The pics below are from eBay and supposedly shows 315 on 11" ET65 with fender rolling and no rubbing. This set up decreases fender clearance by 15mm...which is more than the 13mm decrease from moving to 285 on 10" ET52 vs the factory 285 on 10" ET65. I have not seen this car in person so can't vouch for the fit (315s on ET65 seem aggressive to me).

Flying Finn

As you can witness from previous posts, a lot depens what camber setting you have.

I have 10" wheels with 52 ET, 285 tyres with fenders rolled and no rubbing but I have -3 camber.

David in LA

btw the eBay ad says that these are 3 piece rims, but they are not.

TheOtherEric

This is a good point, because each additional degree of negative camber makes up for about 5mm of incorrect offset (out near where the tire would rub the fender).

DocTock993

First of all - thank you Rennlist.
I really appreciate this level of discussion!

OK - time to fix my ignorance (yeah right )

What is the (effective) difference between 265/ 285/ 315 tires?
Is there a difference in driving/ steering/ handling/ comfort/ speedometer reading?

What is the effect of a more negative camber? Any disadvantages to changing the camber over rolling the fenders?

As always, with this garage queen, I'm street only, and at least a year away from being out of SUV height.

DocTock993

Update!
Seller has turned out to be totally cool.
Front wheels are 8.5x18 ET 46
Rear wheels are 10x18 ET 52

Now, will these work WELL for a NB C2? (Recognizing the rear issues as discussed above, but now concerned about the appearance, function, and lack of bump-steer for the front.)

allill

Finn,

How often do you go through rubber with that much negative camber?

Wilder

Russ: I'm running 18" technologies but wanted to fill out my fenders so I put on spacers. I'm running 7mm in the rear with 65mm offsets and 14mm in the front with 56mm offsets. This effectively gives me the equivalent of ET58 in the rear with -1.25 camber and ET42 in the front with -1.45 camber. My wheels look as aggressive as as I'd want them to. Any wider might start looking out of place for a DD. The pic shows the car with spacers but with OE camber settings before I went more aggressive.

The fronts will fit fine and will look awesome. I think the rears will fit too but it'll be tight and you'll need to go at least -1.5 camber and/or roll the fenders. Nice wheels.

David in LA

Not sure what you mean by "lack of bump steer" but the front 18x8.5" ET46 are identical to my previous front wheels that I sold to Father of 3. He is running 225/40 PS and I was running these with 225/40 SO3s and then 245/35 PS2s with no fender rolling and no rubbing. Have since moved to 9" ET40.

P.S. I've replied to your email.