Rim Width question ..
03-09-2010, 08:32 PM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
92 300e
Rim Width question ..
Does anyone know what the max width would be without having to modify anything. Im looking at some 18inch amg rims that have a width of 8inch and another option of 8.5
The car im trying to put these on is a 92 300e. Basicly im trying to get a solid flush on the sides but I would like to get as deep into the fender without rub.
The car im trying to put these on is a 92 300e. Basicly im trying to get a solid flush on the sides but I would like to get as deep into the fender without rub.
Last edited by Cryof; 03-09-2010 at 09:50 PM.
03-09-2010, 10:59 PM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
Does anyone know what the max width would be without having to modify anything. Im looking at some 18inch amg rims that have a width of 8inch and another option of 8.5
The car im trying to put these on is a 92 300e. Basicly im trying to get a solid flush on the sides but I would like to get as deep into the fender without rub.
The car im trying to put these on is a 92 300e. Basicly im trying to get a solid flush on the sides but I would like to get as deep into the fender without rub.
03-10-2010, 04:15 PM
#4
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: OC SoCal
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1989 300E
03-10-2010, 04:49 PM
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
The offset, which is the distance from the centerline of the rim to the rear face of the hub/bolt flange is critical if you change rim width.
ET35 is very safe with the 8" wide rim.
ET35= 35MM = 1.4", or the bolt hole flange is 1.4" from the center line of the wheel towards the outside edge.
ET44 = 44MM = 1.76" or .25" more then the ET35.
This would move the rear lip of the wheel .25" closer to the suspension.
The additional .25" could cause interference with the suspension when the front wheel is turned, or rubbing with the rear suspension.
The higher the positive number, the closer the inner wheel comes to the suspension.
The lower the positive to negative number the more the wheel moves toward the fender sheetmetal..similar to adding a spacer..
ET35 is very safe with the 8" wide rim.
ET35= 35MM = 1.4", or the bolt hole flange is 1.4" from the center line of the wheel towards the outside edge.
ET44 = 44MM = 1.76" or .25" more then the ET35.
This would move the rear lip of the wheel .25" closer to the suspension.
The additional .25" could cause interference with the suspension when the front wheel is turned, or rubbing with the rear suspension.
The higher the positive number, the closer the inner wheel comes to the suspension.
The lower the positive to negative number the more the wheel moves toward the fender sheetmetal..similar to adding a spacer..
03-10-2010, 05:40 PM
#6
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: OC SoCal
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1989 300E
Thanks, thats the best explaination I have seen yet.
One more question, do people not go fo ET 11 because it causes the negitive camber issue with the wheel?? Is that the beog trade off, either its too close to the suspension or it starts messing up the alignement of the wheel?
One more question, do people not go fo ET 11 because it causes the negitive camber issue with the wheel?? Is that the beog trade off, either its too close to the suspension or it starts messing up the alignement of the wheel?
03-10-2010, 10:29 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
Thanks, thats the best explaination I have seen yet.
One more question, do people not go fo ET 11 because it causes the negitive camber issue with the wheel?? Is that the beog trade off, either its too close to the suspension or it starts messing up the alignement of the wheel?
One more question, do people not go fo ET 11 because it causes the negitive camber issue with the wheel?? Is that the beog trade off, either its too close to the suspension or it starts messing up the alignement of the wheel?
The negative camber that many experience come from lowering the car too much.
This changes the suspension geometry.
Really doesn't make much sense to lower a street car more then about 1.5"...
I run a negative 7 ( ET-7) offset on my rear 10" wide rims with no camber problem.
Misconception that a lowered car will corner quicker then a non lowered car.
Theoretically true, providing that the caster and camber is set properly.
Without the proper settings you'll be slower around a corner as the tires aren't rolling on the contact patch...
