Kyle

I've always been a fan of these wheels, probably my favorite design, and I love the bronze finish OZ offers (darker copper imo). I've searched and I've seen a thread previously where apparently they don't offer a 17" setup for the car:

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/wheels-t...itment-815037/

But that was roughly 6 years ago and things can change in that time. Personally not a fan of 18" wheels on the s2k, I just think the profile of the overall car is too small to really accentuate an 18" wheel and vise-versa, but that's strictly personal preference on my part and merely an opinion.

It seems they now offer a 17" option for the S2k, but it would have to be a square setup which I'm okay with. Does anyone have any experience with a setup similar to this or is currently running Ultraleggeras in this configuration? Input would be greatly appreciated as I'm really set on these wheels. If not it'll have to be back to the drawing board. Just to clarify I've done extensive reading on square vs staggered setups, and considering I'm going to be doing a lot of suspension work by switching to Ohlins coils and various other bits I'm sure I'll be able to dial back in the natural handling characteristics to factory or better with sway bars and suspension tuning, so in that regard I'm not concerned with the handling aspect as much as I am with the aesthetics and actual fitment.

Thanks for any input gents!

dc2-2-ap1

dc2-2-ap1

Kyle

Thank you for your input. I'm rather new to modifying the s2000 platform which seems to be very particular about fitment as opposed to cars I've owned in the past. I spent a long time this morning researching wheels I might be interested in. TC105Ns are also now on my list but I think I'll suffer the same issue with them as well....they're 17x9 +49, so not much different from the OZs although I imagine I could run a larger tire on them.

It seems that getting 255 tires on this car is the goal/ideal. I plan on going supercharged in the future so I'd like as much rubber as I can get in the back atleast. Is there any possible way to run the above setup without modification? I don't need to be super low aesthetically as I'm more interested in function. Could some more aggressive camber (-3* or so) all around prevent rubbing? I wouldn't mind a mild fender roll up front, but when I see bumper tab relocation and stuff like that I start to shy away.

Thanks again. I really appreciate the help.

Kyle

Really wish this site would let me edit; but I found this.

For the front:
Offsets lower than +43 are not recommended on the front because a very narrow tire would need to be used to avoid rubbing.
+43 to +47 offset: 205 tires, 6.5" - 7.5" wide wheel
+48 to +52 offset: 215 tires, 7.0" - 8.0" wide wheel
+53 to +57 offset: 225 tires, 7.0" - 8.0" wide wheel
+58 to +62 offset: 235 tires, 7.5" - 8.5" wide wheel
+63 or higher offset: 245 tires, 7.5" - 8.5" wide wheel

For the rear:
Offsets below 40 are not recommended for the rear because a tire narrower than the stock tire would need to be used to avoid rubbing.
+40 to +44 offset: 235 tires, 7.5" - 8.5" wide wheel
+45 to +49 offset: 245 tires, 7.5" - 9.0" wide wheel
+50 to +54 offset: 255 tires, 8.0" - 9.5" wide wheel
+55 to +59 offset: 265 tires, 8.5" - 9.5" wide wheel
+60 to +64 offset: 275 tires, 9.0" - 10.0" wide wheel
+65 or higher offset: 285 tires, 9.0" - 10.0" wide wheel


Based on this list I had planned on doing TC105Ns with the following offsets using the tire sizing this guide shows.

"+48 to +52 offset: 215 tires, 7.0" - 8.0" wide wheel" - 17x8 +49 w/ 215s up front

"+45 to +49 offset: 245 tires, 7.5" - 9.0" wide wheel" -17x9 +49 w/ 245s in the rear


I'm not entirely sure if the guide is accounting for stock camber and height or not. It seems that 1mm in the rear is stopping me from running 255s ? Think this could be offset with slightly more aggressive camber like I mentioned in my previous comment?

dc2-2-ap1

Kyle

Looks like it's gonna be 245s out back then. Thanks.

Shift9303

I think I remember someone posted recently that they managed to fit the staggered TC105N 17x8+49/17x9+49 with 215/245 tires without having to roll fenders? I think? However, I'm running currently running 17x9.5+57 wheels with 255 square tires, which is a more conservative setup than the one above in the rear and I still managed to rub on the fender lip.

And what do you exactly mean by not being concerned with handling?

Do you mean you don't care about the difference in handling characteristics between stagger vs square or do you mean you don't care that 17x8 limits your tire choice ? Either way I'd also encourage you to go 255 square, the grip is excellent. It can totally change the attitude of the car. I have a stock suspension '00 AP1 with just 255 square tires and, while I can see why some say it would be extremely oversteer biased, I think it is still very driveable and predictable. 255 square in the front provides massive turn in and 255 in the back has really calmed down the rear end compared to the AP1 OEM 225s. The additional width really matters in the back. Compared to my buddy's B street '01 AP1 with monster front bar but only 225 square tires, my car feels lazier in transitions because I lack the front sway bar but his car still seems to feel much twitchier at the limit in the rear, likely due to the narrower tire.

And as far as far as aesthetics and actual fitment goes, I can't imagine 17x8 with 225s looking very aggressive. While 17x9+63 is super safe it can still look fairly aggressive a la adrs2k's CR build with Advan RSIIs. If you want the super meaty bulldog look then you'll have to go more aggressive with offset and need fender rolling. You just can't get the tire side wall flush with the fender lip without a roll.

As far as 17x9+63 wheels go, since you like the OZ Ultralegras I assume you like thin multispoke designs, then you might like the TSW Interlagos or TRM C3. If you're willing to drop down the cash on JDM bling, Advan makes several wheels in 17x9+63. I love the RSII and RZII but couldn't stomach the price or lead time. Enkei makes the NT03RR in 17x9+63 as well but the face is very flat and the reinforcement ring weirds me out.

Stepping up slightly more aggressive in offset is the Enkei PF01 and PF01SS in 17x9+60 which apparently rub the front fender but not too severely? I'm personally not a fan of the design and it seems like it still requires a roll if you want to lower the car at all. Titan 7 makes the TS5 in 17x9.5+57, which I have, and from my experience it definitely requires fender rolling. Forgestar has the F14 in 17x9+58 which is ever so slightly more conservative but will require fender rolling as well. On stock alignment these last two options stick out a bit from the front fender 3-5 mm at static height but do tuck in on compression so no real need to flare the fender. The rears are nearly flush with the rear fender.

Kyle

Shift9303

You might want to double check but I don't think the TC105N in 17x8+49 clears BBKs.

TSW Nurburgrings clear Stoptechs without spacer and I think their Interlagos requires a 3mm spacer. Enkei PF01 (not the PF01SS models) clears Stoptechs as well without spacers I think.

In terms of offset, the RSII with 3mm spacer will come out with the same clearance as the Enkei PF01. I don't have first hand experience with this wheel but from reading it seems to only rub ever so slightly at stock height. I've read that it might still be clear when lowered depending on camber, spring rates, and tire section width (not all 255 are the same width) however I've ran into autocrossers who still had to roll their fenders with this wheel. It is likely safe in the back, just not the front. Adrs2k has 17x9+63 Advan RSIIs and has managed to get away with a lowered car (probably more than you plan to lower) without fender roll but he still bent up the liner tabs to play it safe. I don't know how safe he would be if he had a 3mm spacer in front. Also keep in mind that the Stoptech rotor hat is actually slightly thicker than stock and pushes the wheel 1mm or so outwards anyway. If you still really wanted to play it safe when you upgrade to a bbk then you can remount with 245 in the front for a slight 245/255 stagger. Mathematically that will give you marginally more clearance than even the prior setup. The spacer and hat pushes the tire wall out by 4mm (3 from the spacer and 1 from the hat) but then reducing tire width to 245 will bring the tire tread inwards by 5mm making it a net change of 1mm inwards away from the fender lip. In practice you might still rub depending on how the tire tucks into the fender during compression and if it gets far down enough towards the wheel lip for the more outward stretched portion of the tire to grab the fender lip. The difference between 245 and 255 in the front is probably minor. Slightly less maximum grip but you might gain marginal increased responsiveness from the slight stretch on the tire wall and reduced contact patch.

IMHO I think rolling the fronts isn't too big of a deal, the panel is replaceable, the metal is thin, and the lip is actually really narrow. This all makes the front fenders fairly easy to roll and fold over. It's rolling the rears that's sketchy because it's double ply and the fender is welded in as part of the structure. That's what busts my balls about my fender roll. Three fenders rolled perfectly but one of the rear fenders turned out a bit wavy (likely from prior damage). People don't notice it but since it's my car it stands out like a sore thumb. A body shop can likely hammer it out but I have more important mods on my list. And, really, it stops bothering me when I actually drive the car because 255 square is just so awesome to drive. And that's why we get these cars right?