235 or 225 NT01 on 9x18 48ET in front
12-29-2015, 05:26 PM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
235 or 225 NT01 on 9x18 48ET in front
What would you do for DE tires.
Get 225 and deal with little less grip. I think that should fit without rubbing.
Get 235 and risk having to roll fender lips?
Better yet does anybody have tread width measurements?
Nitto lists:
225 at 9 inches wide on 8 inch rim
235 at 9.5 inches wide 8.5 inch rim.
So on 9 inch rim it should be a bit wider. But it's section width, anyways, which as I understand measures the widest part of the tire, which would be the area by the lip. Nitto doesn't publish tread width.
The current 245 hoosier R7 measures 10.6 (!) inches wide with about 9.6 (!) inches of tread and it rubs on the fenders under braking.
Based on rubbing marks, it looks like 10mm would be enough room, but that's based on short street trip.
Get 225 and deal with little less grip. I think that should fit without rubbing.
Get 235 and risk having to roll fender lips?
Better yet does anybody have tread width measurements?
Nitto lists:
225 at 9 inches wide on 8 inch rim
235 at 9.5 inches wide 8.5 inch rim.
So on 9 inch rim it should be a bit wider. But it's section width, anyways, which as I understand measures the widest part of the tire, which would be the area by the lip. Nitto doesn't publish tread width.
The current 245 hoosier R7 measures 10.6 (!) inches wide with about 9.6 (!) inches of tread and it rubs on the fenders under braking.
Based on rubbing marks, it looks like 10mm would be enough room, but that's based on short street trip.
12-29-2015, 07:16 PM
#3
What would you do for DE tires.
Get 225 and deal with little less grip. I think that should fit without rubbing.
Get 235 and risk having to roll fender lips?
Better yet does anybody have tread width measurements?
Nitto lists:
225 at 9 inches wide on 8 inch rim
235 at 9.5 inches wide 8.5 inch rim.
So on 9 inch rim it should be a bit wider. But it's section width, anyways, which as I understand measures the widest part of the tire, which would be the area by the lip. Nitto doesn't publish tread width.
The current 245 hoosier R7 measures 10.6 (!) inches wide with about 9.6 (!) inches of tread and it rubs on the fenders under braking.
Based on rubbing marks, it looks like 10mm would be enough room, but that's based on short street trip.
Get 225 and deal with little less grip. I think that should fit without rubbing.
Get 235 and risk having to roll fender lips?
Better yet does anybody have tread width measurements?
Nitto lists:
225 at 9 inches wide on 8 inch rim
235 at 9.5 inches wide 8.5 inch rim.
So on 9 inch rim it should be a bit wider. But it's section width, anyways, which as I understand measures the widest part of the tire, which would be the area by the lip. Nitto doesn't publish tread width.
The current 245 hoosier R7 measures 10.6 (!) inches wide with about 9.6 (!) inches of tread and it rubs on the fenders under braking.
Based on rubbing marks, it looks like 10mm would be enough room, but that's based on short street trip.
currently have 8.5ET54 w/ 235/40 which is also very tight, your 9ET48 w/ the same tire sticks out 6mm more
12-29-2015, 08:52 PM
#4
Drifting
Thread Starter
12-29-2015, 08:58 PM
#5
Drifting
Thread Starter
12-30-2015, 04:49 PM
#6
12-30-2015, 04:50 PM
#7
In contrast the same 225 on an 8" will measure ~9.2" the wheel is 9" giving a small overhang on each side
Trending Topics
12-31-2015, 11:33 PM
#8
9 ET48 is an extremely aggressive fitment for the front of a n/b 993. I used 9ET50 x18 for a while and that barely accepted a 225/40 x18 tire yours sticks out 3 mm more.
01-01-2016, 02:54 AM
#9
Rennlist Member
Why have a 9" front in the first place, too much hassle....
9X18 with an ET of 48 just ain't right. Just get 8" fronts and match it up with
10" rears. I run 8" fronts and 10" rears. I do have rolled fenders, and moderate negative camber. I have run 245s R7s on the front, no rubbing. I ran 275 on the rear as Tire Rack told me the R7 was actually about 9mm wider...On R6 I ran 285/30/18 no problems.
10" rears. I run 8" fronts and 10" rears. I do have rolled fenders, and moderate negative camber. I have run 245s R7s on the front, no rubbing. I ran 275 on the rear as Tire Rack told me the R7 was actually about 9mm wider...On R6 I ran 285/30/18 no problems.
01-01-2016, 12:02 PM
#10
to fully understand wheel/tire fitment you either need to be an artist or a game theorist
I try to be the latter but there are so many interacting constraints that other than the safest least aggressive fitments can be guaranteed to fit and only the most aggressive can be guaranteed not to fit.
Some of the constraints are wheel width, tire width and the effect of the wheel on the tire, wheel ET, suspension specs and setup, the condition of the suspension components, ride height, tire height, chassis idiosyncrasies and tire idiosyncrasies
Sometimes 1mm one way or the other is all the difference between success and failure.
design intent also comes into the picture, for best handling results the narrowest tire that fits on the widest wheel is what is wanted, for best ride the widest tire on the narrowest wheel is what is wanted, more usually the tire & wheel is somewhere in between.
Because of the idiosyncratic differences between tires and chassis and individual components what fits one may not fit another, the closer to the edge the more these things matter.
Appearance is a final concern, for some the most aggressive possible appearance is the most important thing, others have other priorities.
I have set up a generalized game theory polygon that suggests how far from oe a possible wheel tire set is going to be. I also have a data base of what works on what cars w/ as much detail as I can include, This often indicates how close to the edge the fitment can be and work or not. But most times crucial info is omitted that will allow prediction to be fully accurate. Again fitments at the edge are most susceptible to one or more of the influencing factors, this is where a silly mm here or a degree difference there causes success or failure.
I try to be the latter but there are so many interacting constraints that other than the safest least aggressive fitments can be guaranteed to fit and only the most aggressive can be guaranteed not to fit.
Some of the constraints are wheel width, tire width and the effect of the wheel on the tire, wheel ET, suspension specs and setup, the condition of the suspension components, ride height, tire height, chassis idiosyncrasies and tire idiosyncrasies
Sometimes 1mm one way or the other is all the difference between success and failure.
design intent also comes into the picture, for best handling results the narrowest tire that fits on the widest wheel is what is wanted, for best ride the widest tire on the narrowest wheel is what is wanted, more usually the tire & wheel is somewhere in between.
Because of the idiosyncratic differences between tires and chassis and individual components what fits one may not fit another, the closer to the edge the more these things matter.
Appearance is a final concern, for some the most aggressive possible appearance is the most important thing, others have other priorities.
I have set up a generalized game theory polygon that suggests how far from oe a possible wheel tire set is going to be. I also have a data base of what works on what cars w/ as much detail as I can include, This often indicates how close to the edge the fitment can be and work or not. But most times crucial info is omitted that will allow prediction to be fully accurate. Again fitments at the edge are most susceptible to one or more of the influencing factors, this is where a silly mm here or a degree difference there causes success or failure.
01-01-2016, 01:48 PM
#11
Rennlist Member
Either way, I'd want to know where you are on the curve. Either tire is probably within 1/4 sec/lap, fitment issues aside. If I'm at, say, Laguna and running 1:43 looking for everything there is to get, maybe it's worth it. If I'm running 1:45, doesn't matter in the least.
01-01-2016, 05:26 PM
#12
Drifting
Thread Starter
Either way, I'd want to know where you are on the curve. Either tire is probably within 1/4 sec/lap, fitment issues aside. If I'm at, say, Laguna and running 1:43 looking for everything there is to get, maybe it's worth it. If I'm running 1:45, doesn't matter in the least.
01-02-2016, 03:42 AM
#13
Nordschleife Master
to fully understand wheel/tire fitment you either need to be an artist or a game theorist
I try to be the latter but there are so many interacting constraints that other than the safest least aggressive fitments can be guaranteed to fit and only the most aggressive can be guaranteed not to fit. Some of the constraints are wheel width, tire width and the effect of the wheel on the tire, wheel ET, suspension specs and setup, the condition of the suspension components, ride height, tire height, chassis idiosyncrasies and tire idiosyncrasies
Sometimes 1mm one way or the other is all the difference between success and failure. design intent also comes into the picture, for best handling results the narrowest tire that fits on the widest wheel is what is wanted, for best ride the widest tire on the narrowest wheel is what is wanted, more usually the tire & wheel is somewhere in between.
Because of the idiosyncratic differences between tires and chassis and individual components what fits one may not fit another, the closer to the edge the more these things matter. Appearance is a final concern, for some the most aggressive possible appearance is the most important thing, others have other priorities.
I have set up a generalized game theory polygon that suggests how far from oe a possible wheel tire set is going to be. I also have a data base of what works on what cars w/ as much detail as I can include, This often indicates how close to the edge the fitment can be and work or not. But most times crucial info is omitted that will allow prediction to be fully accurate. Again fitments at the edge are most susceptible to one or more of the influencing factors, this is where a silly mm here or a degree difference there causes success or failure.
I try to be the latter but there are so many interacting constraints that other than the safest least aggressive fitments can be guaranteed to fit and only the most aggressive can be guaranteed not to fit. Some of the constraints are wheel width, tire width and the effect of the wheel on the tire, wheel ET, suspension specs and setup, the condition of the suspension components, ride height, tire height, chassis idiosyncrasies and tire idiosyncrasies
Sometimes 1mm one way or the other is all the difference between success and failure. design intent also comes into the picture, for best handling results the narrowest tire that fits on the widest wheel is what is wanted, for best ride the widest tire on the narrowest wheel is what is wanted, more usually the tire & wheel is somewhere in between.
Because of the idiosyncratic differences between tires and chassis and individual components what fits one may not fit another, the closer to the edge the more these things matter. Appearance is a final concern, for some the most aggressive possible appearance is the most important thing, others have other priorities.
I have set up a generalized game theory polygon that suggests how far from oe a possible wheel tire set is going to be. I also have a data base of what works on what cars w/ as much detail as I can include, This often indicates how close to the edge the fitment can be and work or not. But most times crucial info is omitted that will allow prediction to be fully accurate. Again fitments at the edge are most susceptible to one or more of the influencing factors, this is where a silly mm here or a degree difference there causes success or failure.
Brake Info: http://members.rennlist.com/1976c38/brakes.htm
Wheel info: http://members.rennlist.org/1976c38/wheels.htm
01-02-2016, 11:37 PM
#14
Drifting
Thread Starter
Thanks for the inputs!
Seems a bit inconclusive so will try 225 for this season to see if there is any rubbing and go from there. The current hoosier measures 10.6 wide so an inch less might work out.
The reason for the 9 inch rim is that I picked up a set of used forged rims that came off a 993tt race car, however it had rolled fenders to fit 245 R7s.
Happy motoring in 2016!
Seems a bit inconclusive so will try 225 for this season to see if there is any rubbing and go from there. The current hoosier measures 10.6 wide so an inch less might work out.
The reason for the 9 inch rim is that I picked up a set of used forged rims that came off a 993tt race car, however it had rolled fenders to fit 245 R7s.
Happy motoring in 2016!
01-02-2016, 11:39 PM
#15
Drifting
Thread Starter
9 ET48 is an extremely aggressive fitment for the front of a n/b 993. I used 9ET50 x18 for a while and that barely accepted a 225/40 x18 tire yours sticks out 3 mm more.
currently have 8.5ET54 w/ 235/40 which is also very tight, your 9ET48 w/ the same tire sticks out 6mm more
currently have 8.5ET54 w/ 235/40 which is also very tight, your 9ET48 w/ the same tire sticks out 6mm more