Notices
993 Forum 1995-1998

My 993s new stance

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-16-2009, 02:09 PM
  #16  
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Bill Verburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 12,255
Received 512 Likes on 352 Posts
Default

just my 2cents I used 10x18 ET56 w/ 265/35, rolled fenders and at low height the tires will kiss the lips on the drivers side. Stiffer springs might stop that, dunno but it's already got -3 camber. ET 65 even w/ 285/30 is no problem
Old 03-16-2009, 06:45 PM
  #17  
Juha G
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
Juha G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,527
Received 60 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg
just my 2cents I used 10x18 ET56 w/ 265/35, rolled fenders and at low height the tires will kiss the lips on the drivers side. Stiffer springs might stop that, dunno but it's already got -3 camber. ET 65 even w/ 285/30 is no problem
My car is at ~RS height and there is very little compression travel with the Motons. I have been running these very LMs with the 285s on them at the track and it never rubbed. The ET is 55 but I had 8mm spacers, so the actual ET was 47. Now I'm down 8 more mm to ET 39. It is very close but I think it will not rub. There is plenty of room to gain by rolling the fenders though.
We'll see...

On a side note, now that I got the lower ends of the Motons working (replaced the uniball joints), one of the quick-release connectors (that connects the shock to the canister) has gone south. I need to call Moton again. I hope it doesn't take 4months this time like it did with the uniballs...
Old 03-16-2009, 08:39 PM
  #18  
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Bill Verburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 12,255
Received 512 Likes on 352 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Juha G
My car is at ~RS height and there is very little compression travel with the Motons. I have been running these very LMs with the 285s on them at the track and it never rubbed. The ET is 55 but I had 8mm spacers, so the actual ET was 47. Now I'm down 8 more mm to ET 39. It is very close but I think it will not rub. There is plenty of room to gain by rolling the fenders though.
We'll see...

...
It's extremely difficult to believe that any 10 W/ an ET below 56 can fit on a lowered car, 10 ET56 is ok at RoW M030 but not at RS in my expereince. How sure are you of the widths and o/s's

The widebody cars use 10 ET40 and they have fenders that are 30mm wider per side
Old 03-17-2009, 04:10 AM
  #19  
MrRoboto
Burning Brakes
 
MrRoboto's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,060
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg
It's extremely difficult to believe that any 10 W/ an ET below 56 can fit on a lowered car, 10 ET56 is ok at RoW M030 but not at RS in my expereince. How sure are you of the widths and o/s's

The widebody cars use 10 ET40 and they have fenders that are 30mm wider per side
My volks are 18x10 50mm offset. My car has bilstein HDs and row M030 suspension, but I suspect the fenders are rolled.

Also, my previous Fikse FM10's were 18x10.5 et 57mm. So the volks are 1mm further out than my old fikses.

Last edited by MrRoboto; 03-17-2009 at 04:38 AM.
Old 03-17-2009, 11:19 AM
  #20  
V
Drifting
 
V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg
It's extremely difficult to believe that any 10 W/ an ET below 56 can fit on a lowered car, 10 ET56 is ok at RoW M030 but not at RS in my expereince. How sure are you of the widths and o/s's

The widebody cars use 10 ET40 and they have fenders that are 30mm wider per side
Bill I hear ya but the stock rear 10x18 ET40 almost looks odd on a lowered 993 WB. It's just too far inward. As a reference, I use RH 3.6 wheels that are 11x18 ET40 (so 12.5mm closer to the fender than stock) and I still have room to go more aggressive.

I also know that "David in LA" runs 11x18 ET52 in the rear on his 993 Cab without issues. With that in mind, I don't think 10x18 ET56 will be a problem. But all cars are individuals so one would have to test fit to make sure..

Just food for thought..
Old 03-17-2009, 04:17 PM
  #21  
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Bill Verburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 12,255
Received 512 Likes on 352 Posts
Default

I'm just reporting what I've seen and experienced. If you got them to fit, great!
Old 03-17-2009, 05:55 PM
  #22  
Juha G
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
Juha G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,527
Received 60 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg
It's extremely difficult to believe that any 10 W/ an ET below 56 can fit on a lowered car, 10 ET56 is ok at RoW M030 but not at RS in my expereince. How sure are you of the widths and o/s's

The widebody cars use 10 ET40 and they have fenders that are 30mm wider per side

Yes, but my LM's are 9,5 x18"

Originally Posted by Juha G
On a side note, now that I got the lower ends of the Motons working (replaced the uniball joints), one of the quick-release connectors (that connects the shock to the canister) has gone south. I need to call Moton again. I hope it doesn't take 4months this time like it did with the uniballs...
And, this is a true RTFM case; I called Moton in Netherlands today and told them about the disfunctioning connector. The first question the tech asked me was if I had released the pressure from the canister before disconnecting the line. No I hadn't, I didn't have a clue I should've done that.
i.e. the connector was ok, I just had to let the 12bar (185psi) air pressure out of the canister, re-connect and re-pressurise the canister again. (for this I used a cigarette lighter air pump). -> all is well! =)
Old 03-17-2009, 05:56 PM
  #23  
MrRoboto
Burning Brakes
 
MrRoboto's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,060
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

It boggles my mind how David in LA fits the size of wheels he does on his car. Mind boggling i tell ya.
Old 03-18-2009, 12:50 AM
  #24  
face-ache
Instructor
 
face-ache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: white rock b.c
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

any long term negative effects (ie wheel brgs) with spacers of that size?
Old 03-18-2009, 02:45 AM
  #25  
David in LA
Nordschleife Master
 
David in LA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by KraZy007
It boggles my mind how David in LA fits the size of wheels he does on his car. Mind boggling i tell ya.
The reason it fits is that the tire is relatively stretched on an 11" rim...you can see that in my sig pic below....a 285 on an 11" rim vs a 10" rim does not reduce your clearance by 1/2"...it's more like 1/8" or 1/4". It also works because the camber increases slightly when the suspension compresses but it's tight and I wouldn't go any lower than the current height set-up. When the car is standing still the tire looks flush with the fender; I have a pic somewhere of the car on an uneven surface with the suspension on one side fairly compressed and the tire is tucked in about an inch or so.

Right now that car is running 295 PS2s and has a slight rubbing on the right side on big bumps ; the previous set up with 285 SO2s had no rubbing at all...the PS2 has a substantially wider and squarer shoulder profile vs other brands/models, even with the same size tire. BTW I'm not the only one running an 11" ET52 in the rear here...it will fit but it is very dependent not only on tire size but also brand and model. Unfortunately its not the no-brainer, guaranteed easy fit as it is with a 10" ET65. Also if you look at the application list for Gemballa wheels in the catalog it indicates that their 10" ET52 can be used w/o any fender modification (so a 10mm can be fitted with MY02s with minimal issues). That list btw doesn't show my 11" ET52 fitting NB 993s but does show it fitting MY01 996 with fenders rolled.

That same list also shows an 8.5" ET46 fitting in the front w/o any modification of the fenders and 9" ET40 fitting with rolled fenders....I have fitted both of these size rims/offsets and can confirm that they fit as the list describes and that the 9" ET40 may have been able to fit w/o modification had I stuck with a 225 or 235 instead of the 245 that is on there. It also shows that a 9" ET52 will fit the front w/o fender rolling and is why previously I was looking for a 9" MY02 from a Boxster to use up front along with 10" ET53 (ET65 plus 12mm spacer) on another car....unfortunately I never found a pair that wasn't part of a set.

Last edited by David in LA; 03-18-2009 at 03:07 AM.
Old 03-18-2009, 02:52 AM
  #26  
David in LA
Nordschleife Master
 
David in LA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by vhanzon
....the stock rear 10x18 ET40 almost looks odd on a lowered 993 WB. It's just too far inward. As a reference, I use RH 3.6 wheels that are 11x18 ET40 (so 12.5mm closer to the fender than stock) and I still have room to go more aggressive....
The Gemballa application list shows that 11" ET40 on a widebody fits with rolled fenders but you know that there is still lots of room. An 11.5" ET33 will fit so you have AT LEAST another 1/2" of clearance available on the fender side.
Old 03-18-2009, 11:28 AM
  #27  
V
Drifting
 
V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by David in LA
The Gemballa application list shows that 11" ET40 on a widebody fits with rolled fenders but you know that there is still lots of room. An 11.5" ET33 will fit so you have AT LEAST another 1/2" of clearance available on the fender side.
I run 295/30/18 on the 11x18 ET40 wheels (rear). I can get a finger in between my non-rolled fenders but not much more than that. 11.5" ET33 would sit (as you suggested) another ½inch closer to the fender wall. Frankly I don't think that will work, at least not on my car. Unless you have like a 285/30/18 on that 11.5" rim, which really streched and lots of negative camber, then it might work. Test fit would be a must.

But as Juha said, his wheels are 9.5" ET56, which translates to 10" ET62, which is pretty close to stock. Should be an easy fit for him .
Old 03-18-2009, 05:08 PM
  #28  
Juha G
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
Juha G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,527
Received 60 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vhanzon
But as Juha said, his wheels are 9.5" ET56, which translates to 10" ET62, which is pretty close to stock. Should be an easy fit for him .
Correct, but the wheels were ET 55 before the conversion. Now they are ET 39.
BTW Viggo, I will probably pay a visit to Stockholm in May, if I do, I'll take the Porsche with me!

Here's a side shot and a close-up shot from the rear.



Old 03-19-2009, 11:57 AM
  #29  
V
Drifting
 
V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Looks great but tight .

Would be great to meet up in May!

Let me know in advance when you are coming and I'll make sure I
m here !
Old 01-22-2011, 10:09 PM
  #30  
ABCar
Rennlist Member
 
ABCar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,872
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Would like to know the verdict on this LM inside mount. Any Rubbing?

I have 10 X 18 os 65
8.5 X 18 os 50.

Really would like to mount the centers on the inside, but...


Quick Reply: My 993s new stance



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:44 PM.