I've been thinking about getting the 5zigen FN01R-C in 17x9". They should fit with an offset of 43. I've seen a lot of people using a lower offset (like 35) in the rear...seems like it would be awefully close to the fender.

Anyway, i really wanted to see if anyone could post a picture of an FD with 17" FN's...preferably titanium bronze. I've never been able to find one and i think it would look awesome.

Thanks.

(PS I would have put this in the wheels section, but nothing's for sale...)

 

bump intersted as well

 

Moving to wheel forum....there's plenty of people running these rims and some have posted pics. The correct wheel would be 17x9 +43 offset all around with 255/40 17s.

 

i just put some 17x8 +38 i think 225's on my 88 , fits great looks good

 

mine r bronze too, ill get pics

 

Thanks 240. Pics would be great, but i'm really more interested in FDs. This original post is rather old and since then i've found some great pics, but now i have another question about these wheels. I was originally going to get 17x9" w/ 43mm offset all around, but they also offer a 17x10" with 35mm offset which i was thinking of trying to fit in the back. Jimlab's spreadsheet says i should be able to fit these with 274/40-17 tires but with -0.1" clearance on the outside fender. Seems to me that this could be taken care of by rolling the fenders. My friend has a 17x9" with 38 offset and 255/40-17 tires and it looks like there is still a good deal of room for 275s. Any experience or opinions?

(Oh, and I have 600/500 lb/in springs front and rear so they don't articulate or move around near as much as with stock springs.)

 

Here's pics of my car when it had the 5Zigens. Fronts were 9.0 x 17 + 35, and rears 10.0 x 17 +35. I still had some more room left and didn't have to roll the fenders.

 

I had a couple of questions about these rims and 17X9's in general.

Rynberg says that the correct size is 17X9 with +43 all around with 255/40/17s. Boom, there it is, I'm almost ready to go ahead and order those sizes off of that advice alone. My question is how some people are able to fit 17X9 with +35's up front at all. Jimlab's spreadsheet seems to agree that at least +43 is need upfront. Are people getting away with it with different tire sizes or what. It's just not clicking for me.

Also in the back, Rynberg said that +43 should be the offset, but the spreadsheet says +31 with 1.28 clearance on the inside. Wouldn't +43 make it really tight in there?

I was also under the impression that the +43 offset for the FN01R-Cs were no longer available. Please tell me I'm wrong.

At the end of the day, what I'm trying to get is light wheels as close to 17X9's all around with no rubbing, and secondly, that sunken face look like in the picture in the post above. I don't like the idea of potential understeer with wider tires in the back than the front, but if that's what it takes I would be willing to consider it. If anyone can help find the sizes that'll get me what I'm looking for, or can suggest other wheels that can give me the same thing, I'll be much obliged. Thanks.

-Chris

 

I guess it depends on preferences (looks, stance, etc.) as well. I like my wheels to be on the edge of the fenders front and rear. As a matter of fact I later installed quarter inch wheel spacers for the fronts because they were set inward more than the rears. Also, tire sizing plays a role too. The fronts have 235/40's and the rears have 245/40's in the picture. I had a lot of fender clearance with this combination without having to roll the fenders. Another thing we have to look at is when the car is at stand still the rim might be even with the fenders, but when the suspension compresses the top of the tire tucks inward to a degree. This was my track car for road racing and after I wore this set of tires out I went with bigger (and grippier) Toyo RA1's, sizes 255/40 and 275/40. I then had to roll the fenders for clearance.

Look at my other post when I went to 9.5 +27, 10.5 +30 X 18.

Below is a picture of the car with quarter inch spacers installed in the front.

 

No, I said the best 5zigen choice was 17x9 +43. An offset of +50 is ideal, as this maintains the stock scrub radius and wheel bearing loading. But a 17x9 +43 is acceptable. The answer to your second question is that people are not getting 17x9 +35s to fit. Not with proper size tires. Certainly not with a lowered suspension. Rolling fenders may allow the needed clearance, but running such a low offset is bad for wear and negatively effects handling.

Jimlabs numbers are the absolute LOWEST offset you could scrape by with. +43 would fit much EASIER. Again, +50 is the best.

Your best bet at getting lighter reasonably priced wheels is to go with a staggered setup -- 8.5 front/9.5 rear. It is a rare wheel that will properly fit up front, is wider than 8.5, is light, and is reasonably priced. In fact, I can't think of one until you hit CCW level.

 

Here, wheels and tires new before they were mounted on the car. 245/40-17 on 10.0J +35, have no clearance problems. The price is right too. At the time the wheels went for $150 each. This was late last year sometime.

 

Awesome. Thanks for the input, guys. I think i may stick with the 17x9"s all the way around as i prefer the more flat look of the fronts to the rears. Between going from 245s to 255s along with a 1" wider wheel and stickier tire i think i'll have significantly more traction to work with as well as a nice, balanced feel and appearance. These will eventually be my street wheels. If i want to go wider in the future i'll probably be running slicks that will have to be mounted on another set of wheels anyway, so i don't have to go with the widest possible tire for now. Plus anything bigger than 255s on the road could get pretty harsh and noisy...not that i really care about that very much, but still...i do want it to be very streetable as it is still my daily driver.

Again, thanks for all the pics and input, guys!

 

Oh, and any word on whether or not the +43 offset has been discontinued in these wheels???

Thanks.

 

Ever try that 17x10 +35 on the front with the 245 tires?

 

jeez, if I was running a 17x9 +43 on an FD, I'd run 275 all around.
the 275 fits nice and squarely on a 9" wide wheel, Ive seen it in person on an FC widebody front.

gotta love the 10" wheels bent spoke design, but I think that +35 offset isnt "right" for the FD so I would run a +43 with a 9" wheel out back.

you can probably fit 275's all around with 17x9 +43 wheels on an FD... GRRIP!

 

Hello just a big questions I have an 82 rx7 of course any ways I am planning to put some ALT 298x-factor rims but the bolt pattern is 5x114.3 and 40 offset 17x7 with 5 holel my car bolt pattern is 4x110 I need sugestions

 

Before I bought the 5Zigens, I tried out my friends 10x17 +35. But, the car was up in the air and they did stick out when I put them on the front. Of course when you let the car down the top of the tire will stuck in somewhat. It's my opinion that after lowering the car with those wheels up front, it will probably stick out just a little. Here's a picture of 9.5 x 18 +27 up front. The offset is more negative than a +35 and the wheel is a half inch wider. The rim is even with the fenders.

 

The outside diameter of a 275/40/17 is too big for the FD in the front. No one makes a 274/35/17. You can run a 285/30/18 up front but again, tires are limited. Michelin PSC's are roughly $300 a pop.

 

So, what about a 17x9 all around with 275's out back and 255's in front. +43 o/s.

 

^ That should work and was what i was going to do originally, but some people seem to have a problem mounting a 275 width tire to a 9" rim for some reason. Sure you may not get as much tread on the ground as with a 10" rim, but that's true for almost any tire. And it would still be more rubber to the road than with a 255.

Having said all that, i think i'm going to do 17x9 with 255's all around just to maintain the wonderful neutral balance of the car. If i wind up putting more power down or decided i'd rather have more rear traction than i'll consider changing to 275 in the rear the next time i have to buy tires.

 

Here's some more

18 x 8.5 front (+30)
18 x 9.5 rear (+35)

 

i'm curious as to what makes some of the spokes appear to be flat, like on exhaustnotev2's car as opposed to concave, like on REH's car?

 

different widths and offsets

 

so which look is indicative to which width/offset?

I'm really out of my element when it comes to this stuff.

 

They're related to one another. Offset is the distance (in mm) of the mounting area in relation to the centerline of the wheel.

Imagine the mounting area moving independently from the hoop, in and out of the wheel, this would technically change the wheel offset.

If you had same-width wheels in a car in the front and rear with different offset--let's arbitrarily say +50 front, -50 rear (to accept big brakes up front, for instance)-- the "lip" would be narrower in the front than the rear because you're affecting the centerline of the wheel.