Wheels and Tires Discussion about wheels and tires for the S2000.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

17" Volk CE28N Question...

Thread Tools
 
Old Aug 19, 2002 | 03:32 PM
  #1  
HeNeSSeY's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring
Default 17" Volk CE28N Question...

Guys..

Seems like everyone purchases 17x7.5 +50 and 17x9 +63 wheels. How come no one buys 17x8.5 +52 for the rears? Is it because you guys want to run bigger tires in the rear?

What if I plan on running 245/40/17 in the back, will the 17x9 be too wide?
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2002 | 04:41 PM
  #2  
Tedster's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Default

The 1.5" difference between front and rear makes it a lot easier to get close to the stock '25% more rubber to the road in the rear'.

What front width are you planning on using with a rear 245? I think even 205s would be too wide...

Ted
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2002 | 06:42 PM
  #3  
HeNeSSeY's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring
Default

Oh... I meant for the rears, I was asking why people choose the 17x9 instead of the 17x8.5. Front I plan on going with the 17x7.5 with 215/45/17, and the rears I want 245/40/17, but contemplating on whether I should do the 17x8.5 +52 instead of the 17x9. Just wanted to understand why people choose the bigger width before I make my purchase.
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2002 | 07:59 PM
  #4  
Tedster's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Default

I think I understood what you were asking, sorry I wasn't clearer.

Yes, the reason to go with the 17x9" rear wheel is to run a wider tire in the back.

I'm running 255/40 on the rear.

Your 215 front 245 rear (with tires with similar tread patterns) would be about 14% more rubber on the rear.

205 front with 255 rear would be pretty close to the 25% more rubber on the rear that the OEM tires have (due to the wider voids on the front tires).

Does that make sense?
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2002 | 09:27 PM
  #5  
HeNeSSeY's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring
Default

Yeah.. cool. Thanks Tedster...
Reply
Old Aug 28, 2002 | 06:28 PM
  #6  
noscargo's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Rockville
Default

I went with the 63 offset - 245's in rear - 215's in front. My only regret is that I did not go with 255's.. My take is that the extra rubber equates to a closer performance to the S02's... My 245's spin a bit on acceleration. When the S02's are replaced - you then have a real perspective on how great this tire is/was.
Reply
Old Aug 28, 2002 | 07:50 PM
  #7  
Elistan's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Default

I have the 17x7.5 and 17x9 setup. I'm running 225/45/17 front and 255/40/17 rear Kumho Victoracers. I've done a track weekend and an autocross on them and I'm very pleased with the balance. No need for aftermarket swaybars so far.
Reply
Old Aug 29, 2002 | 08:51 AM
  #8  
socal28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles (SFV)
Default

As far as I know, CE28N doesn't come in 8.5 width +52 that will fit S2000.
http://www.rayswheels.co.jp states that they have a 17x8.5 +52, but it's only for bolt pattern 5x100, not 5x114.3 which is s2000's.
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2002 | 07:47 AM
  #9  
rlaifatt's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,666
Likes: 2
From: Encinitas (San Diego), CA
Default

I'm considering going to 17's for the track. Does anyone have actual experience with the 225/45F and 255/40R tires with and without a bigger front swaybar?
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2002 | 07:55 AM
  #10  
Elistan's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlaifatt
[B]I'm considering going to 17's for the track.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:37 AM.