turbojames

We're talking 18" wheels here. I've been reading offset threads all day and I'm starting to think it's doable with rolled fenders.

I know that people have done 18x10 et50 with no problem - can I find 7mm by rolling the fender?

Also, I'm already aware of the proper offset for NB cars, so no need for school, please. Just looking for thoughts from those who might have rolled fenders or similarly aggressive offsets.

Thanks in advance!

rc1320

I like your style and i'm right behind you. In fact Ill push you over the edge if you need me to.

ToniPalermo

If the rim is 10" wide the 43mm offset will be very tight, especially when lowered and with 285 tires. I have 10x18 ET 52 and 285 tires, rolled fender and I don't see another 1 cm clearance between the tire and fender.
ET 43 seems like a borderline fit and with 265 and more aggressive fender rolling you might be able to squeeze the wheel in. Good luck.

David in LA

You won't be able to fit the ET43 with factory fenders, even if rolled. If you have the fenders pulled as well as rolled and also dial in quite a bit of camber, you might be able to make them fit. As far as I know the most aggressive rear offsets I have seen on Rennlist for narrowbody fenders are ET52 with 10" and 11" rims and those required rolling the fenders. Also a few have reported running 9" ET52 which also required fender rolling. With 285-295 tires it's not just the rim width and offset, but also the overall tire width that you need to consider.

But if you plan on running say 215 or 225 you can make 10" ET43 fit if you don't mind the wheels looking like this

turbojames

Thanks guys. I'll be using a 275/30R18 tire. Maybe the decreased width will make things more likely? It's not feeling that promising anymore...

David - I think you're on to something there!

ppressle

No, unless you want to run 8 deg neg camber with your 275.

turbojames

Well on the one hand, eight degrees of camber would be ideal for stability during my two-wheeled lane splitting maneuvers... Buuut I'm gonna can the idea and settle for 56mm. Thanks again everyone for the input.

TheOtherEric

Even ET56 doesn't work great if the car is lowered. ET43 no way.

rc1320

The attached image is what I'm looking for on my 993.

turbojames

Eric - what do you mean when you say it doesn't work great? Rubbing?

David in LA

10"ET56 will fit but you may still have to roll your fenders slightly depending on the model of tires you plan to use.

Macca

I run 10.5" rears on ET56. Assume this is the equivalent of an ET58 on a 10" rim. I have suspension lowere ROW Mo30m-15mm - so similar to RS + 10mm. I did have to roll the rear fenders after experiencing rubbing on high speed "dips" and joins in the road.
I use 265 Bridgestone Potenza RE11.

There is now way you can manage ET43. You cant really even manage ET 50 or 56 on a NB with 275-285 tires IMHO without significant rolling.

Cheers
M

Reddy Kilowatt

The 10.5" ET57 wheel & 285/30R18 combo I had on worked, as a data point.

Bill Verburg

Any chance that the next time you get under the car you can try to measure the clearance between the wheel and the inner chassis wall?

when I measured mine(10ET65) I found the the limiting factor was the clearance between thee edge of the wheel lip and the chassis wall. On mine I have .5" on the drivers side but only .25" on the passenger side.

10.5 ET70 should intrude another ~ .7" inboard

any easy way to check clearance is w/ a piece of wood, 1/2. 3/8. 1/4 strips being common. It's easy to stick the wood up there and use it like a go/no go gauge

just curious

Reddy Kilowatt

^Hey Bill, I have the wheels off right now (rear tires are shot), or I would be doing it right now for you. Will post back here if I put 'em back on. Cheers.