Notices
993 Forum 1995-1998
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Trouble With Tramont

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-13-2016, 06:06 PM
  #16  
fivelitre
Advanced
 
fivelitre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

As a guide, I'm running a 10jx18" ET59 Speedline Daytona c/w 265/35/18 Bridgestone S-02 at RS ride height. Geo is a fast road setup and all I needed was a gentle roll of the arch for full compressed clearance.
Your offset is just 4mm more aggressive on a higher suspension setup. Get the car to a garage/workshop that understand suspension geometry and I'm certain they will be able to set the car up and are likely to know someone if the arches need tickling.

C.
Old 06-13-2016, 06:56 PM
  #17  
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Bill Verburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 12,405
Received 591 Likes on 407 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RacerX1166
Okay...



I measured bead to bead. The wheels have 9Jx18 ET52 cast in them.



Tramonts are 18x10 with a 55mm offset.
I'm running 265/35/18 Pilot SS tires.

As noted, I screwed up. Tramont sent the right wheels; I thought I had 10" wide rears from the factory. Since the new Tramonts were wider than my factory rims, it followed that they were 11" wide.

Also I used the factory wheels as the basis for determining fit and proper ride height. Since they were 9" wide, it threw things out of whack when I mounted the 10" wheels.
There are 2 things going on there
1) the old wheel front space was 75mm the new 84.7mm, f/s is bugger due to extra width and different ET, this means that the wheel outer face sits 9.7mm more outboard. The bead moved out the same and thus so did the tire sidewall.

2) the 10 stretches the nominally 265mm tire more than the 9 did. a Pilot SS when mounted on a 9 will measure ~10.5"(267mm) section width, the same tire mouted on a 10 will measure ~10.9"(277mm)

I've run much lower than you guys are w/ 10ET52 and 265/35 x18 w/ more aggressive camber(-1.9) and a bit off a fender roll particularly on the left rear.
Old 06-13-2016, 06:59 PM
  #18  
RacerX1166
Racer
Thread Starter
 
RacerX1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: KC - Land of Excitement
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by nile13
Do you know _exactly_ where the rubbing is? Possibly more camber, possibly fender rolling. I'm not at all sure that any reasonable height adjustment would do the trick here
The rub is at the top of the arch on the inside of the lip. And I tend to agree that ride height alone likely won't cure the issue.

Originally Posted by P-daddy
A 10" et 55 is very aggressive for a C2. Do you know your rear camber setting?
That's what Tramont recommended. Based upon what I thought was on the car, it didn't seem that radical of a change.
Camber is at factory recommendations.

Originally Posted by fivelitre
Get the car to a garage/workshop that understand suspension geometry and I'm certain they will be able to set the car up and are likely to know someone if the arches need tickling.
Sound advice. There's a shop here in Richmond (Lufteknic) that I've never tried but everyone swears by. TIme for a visit. I think the combination of fiddling (some camber here, fender rolling there) might just do the trick.

Originally Posted by nile13
However, 9" with 55 offset is a strange wheel. I'm curious where it was used, it's pretty uncommon. 986 Boxsters?
I thought the wheels I removed were what the car came with from Porsche. To ensure I wasn't a complete loon, I just checked the owner's manual. Yep, 18x10's on the back; no mention of an 18x9 option anywhere. My COA says the car came with the 18" Technology Design wheels. Perhaps the wheels were swapped at some point, for some unknown reason? Wish I knew because the mystery swap is giving me a headache for the second day in a row...
Old 06-13-2016, 07:09 PM
  #19  
nile13
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
nile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,570
Received 97 Likes on 63 Posts
Default

Like Bill and others, I would think that a mild fender roll should do the trick.
Old 06-13-2016, 07:19 PM
  #20  
u7t2p7
Banned
 
u7t2p7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,579
Received 51 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by P-daddy
A 10" et 55 is very aggressive for a C2.
Originally Posted by RacerX1166
That's what Tramont recommended.
I find that difficult to believe. Do you have that in writing or verbally. It's possible you heard et 55 but they meant et 65.
Old 06-13-2016, 07:26 PM
  #21  
nile13
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
nile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,570
Received 97 Likes on 63 Posts
Default

Et55 recommendation doesn't surprise me. HRE used to have overly aggressive 993 offsets for the rear wheels as well and probably still do.
Old 06-13-2016, 07:27 PM
  #22  
RacerX1166
Racer
Thread Starter
 
RacerX1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: KC - Land of Excitement
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by u7t2p7
I find that difficult to believe. Do you have that in writing or verbally. It's possible you heard et 55 but they meant et 65.
Tramont (Christine) only communicates in writing, so not much opportunity to hear them incorrectly.
Old 06-13-2016, 07:28 PM
  #23  
Spyder_Man
Drifting
 
Spyder_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by nile13
That is understood. However, 9" with 55 offset is a strange wheel. I'm curious where it was used, it's pretty uncommon. 986 Boxsters?
986 Boxsters had both solid and hollow spoke OEM 18" twist wheel options in 7.5" front and 9" rear.
Old 06-13-2016, 07:40 PM
  #24  
RacerX1166
Racer
Thread Starter
 
RacerX1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: KC - Land of Excitement
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Spyder_Man
986 Boxsters had both solid and hollow spoke OEM 18" twist wheel options in 7.5" front and 9" rear.
Just looked, and sure enough, the fronts that came off the car were 7.5". At least I don't have any issue with the new fronts.

Wonder when my wheels got swapped?
Old 06-13-2016, 07:47 PM
  #25  
RacerX1166
Racer
Thread Starter
 
RacerX1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: KC - Land of Excitement
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Default

BTW, I'd like to offer a sincere thanks to all for the input. I began the day thinking I had a mild disaster on my hands but the wisdom of the group turned things around to where it looks to be a minor bump.

I'm darned happy with the new wheels again. I think those, combined with gmorat's bumperette inserts really transform the car. Gratuitous before and after photos -
Attached Images   
Old 06-13-2016, 08:51 PM
  #26  
P-daddy
Rennlist Member
 
P-daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 6,973
Received 478 Likes on 283 Posts
Default

Hay caramba! Lady in red with proper shoes
Old 06-13-2016, 09:03 PM
  #27  
TouringTeg
Burning Brakes
 
TouringTeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 951
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

You definitely have some options to make the rear wheels clear. Just depends which route you want to take.
  • Change tire brand but use the same size. Identical size tires made by different companies have different section widths and will fit differently where the tread meets the sidewall.
  • Add negative camber
  • Roll the rear fenders
  • Machine material off from the mounting pad of the wheel
Old 06-13-2016, 09:15 PM
  #28  
timothymoffat
Rennlist Member
 
timothymoffat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Rainforest (Vancouver, BC)
Posts: 7,619
Received 1,082 Likes on 486 Posts
Default

Car looks beautiful with either set.

I remember seeing your car advertised for sale a couple years back, glad you could keep it! I noted at the time your car had option code 408, or "technology" wheels (hollow spokes). As your car currently has 7.5"/9", then someone definitely swapped the factory equipped 8"/52ET and 10"/65ET wheels at some point. Unfortunate as they're not that easy to find, particularly the rears.

As noted, car looks grea with either wheel set installed. Hopefully you can find the ideal ride height/alignment setup to make them work without any rubbing.
Old 06-13-2016, 10:31 PM
  #29  
Knight
Drifting
 
Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 2,337
Received 76 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

I'm not sure if it's the angle of the pic, but do the rears appear overly aggressive and disproportion vs the fronts? Maybe after all is sorted with your rubbing issue you might need a small spacer for the front.
Old 06-14-2016, 02:11 AM
  #30  
Dick in TN
Racer
 
Dick in TN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Signal Mountain, TN
Posts: 345
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

A couple of points.
Just increase neg. camber only works if you don't care about tire wear.
The position of the wheels relative to the fenders from an appearance standpoint is a personal matter, for me you get the ricer look if you do tricks like rolling fenders and running a lot of neg. camber to allow pushing the wheels out as far as possible.
You can replace the outer barrels and it isn't that difficult. I had one damaged in shipment and replaced it, Tramont sent me the procedure.
Tramont is a first rate company and Christine is great to deal with, I hope you have made things right with them.


Quick Reply: Trouble With Tramont



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 04:13 AM.