What's your ideal wheel size for a 'vert?

[BOOMSHAKALAKA]

There's a vert out there waiting to be sold so don't sweat it.

[jrsink]

15x10s all the way around FTW!

[jrsink]

15x10s all the way around FTW!

this is actually a pic of 15x8 and 15x10;same design though, custom wheels! 4 inches of backspacing with over fenders all the way...YOU KNOW U WANT IT! coming in january

[nismofly]

no more than a 17 in front...18s in front dont work on an s13 if you want a kit to fit right

you could either do 17s all around or a 17/18 stagger

[ca18datsun510]

17x9's on the rear 16's on the front.

[one ton garage]

"Ideal" is pretty subjective... as different people have drastically different tastes... but for me personally, on 240s with kits (esp. more extreme ones), you will want a min of 18s all around. I've actually come to realize that the ideal setup imo is an 18/19 on an S13....that's with or w/o a kit, though I've been able to get a friend's 19/19 setup to look pretty balanced overall imo (pre-bodykit). With a 19/19, it's tricky to juggle the best fitment wheels, stretched tires, ride height, neg camber all around, and ultimately, the bodykit. With that said though, I'm also going to end up running a 19/19 on my conv, just cuz in all honesty, once you see an s13 with a well-configured set of big wheels, it's really hard to go back...!

[slownslurious]

the world is filled with S13's with way too much rear wheel/tire though. staggered diameter is silly since the rears generallly need less wheel than the front for brake clearance. If youre running anything larger than a 17 you better have some massive *** brakes to justify it. otherwise its just more unsprung weight and intertia to overcome. and a staggered width is silly because it tends to increase oversteer. Unless youre all out drag of course, but if thats the case you probably have a seperate set of wheels with drag radials or slicks for the track, so its a moot point.

[one ton garage]

actually from an aesthetic pov, a larger diameter rear wheel usually helps most modern cars look more "even." This is usually because the rear fender height of most cars is greater than the front fender height (i.e. the rear wheelwell opening is lower, while the front is higher, of course for steering clearance), which effectively "pushes" the rear wheel down visually, making it appear smaller than the front wheels. It's not as bad in 240s as lots of other cars... but for a good example, off the top of my head, check out profile pics of the last-generation lexus IS300s... and notice how the rear wheels always just visually appear quite a bit smaller than the fronts. And of course this all applies to the aesthetics of the car... you figure 90%+ of your car's driving is just toting around town, so utmost performance could probably take a little back seat to aesthetics. And if you do track your car (which should be the only place you truly push a car to a point where minor wheel/tire changes make dramatic differences), then you could get track wheels/tires just for that express purpose. otherwise, it's all about having a car that looks nice for the other 90% of the time.

[ca18datsun510]

staggered width is silly because it tends to increase oversteer. moot

under steer.

[carcrazyguy]

the world is filled with S13's with way too much rear wheel/tire though. staggered diameter is silly since the rears generallly need less wheel than the front for brake clearance. If youre running anything larger than a 17 you better have some massive *** brakes to justify it. otherwise its just more unsprung weight and intertia to overcome. and a staggered width is silly because it tends to increase oversteer. Unless youre all out drag of course, but if thats the case you probably have a seperate set of wheels with drag radials or slicks for the track, so its a moot point.

I totally agree, but you have to understand that it is the current (or recent) trend to stagger wheels so you will likely get a lot of arguments from people. A vert, it is already 360 lbs heavier than the coupe it is based on (according to C/D). So you might want to consider that most people are not buying their vert for the same reason one might buy, say an SE coupe S13 for example, rather they like the look foremost with a little performance on the side.

In reality, staggering was initally a band aid procedure in the old days to help muscle cars make more rear traction. Then more recently automakers used this technique to make up for rear weight bias issues with mid engine cars and traction issues on high hp cars (example, TTZX / Supra). In reality however, if and when automakers can make a sports car with the same size wheels / tires all around they will. Look at, say, a 93-95 RX7. The stock R1 had "only" 225/50 all around and recorded the highest skidpad (.99g) of any (standard) production vehicle ever recorded at that time and probably to this day. Miatas, NA 300ZX, etc...there are quite a few sports cars that could have had staggered sizes but didn't since they didn't need it.

In other words, Nissan worked their asses off to calibrate the multilink suspensions on the various vehicles that used them. Messing with the balance, particularly on a near 50/50 (hardtop) 240SX will only net mixed results and trade offs. However most 240's are already SO off balance anyway, thanks to mixed brand suspension parts, heavy wheels, stereos, turbo conversions, and excessive lowering of the car, so why not let them stagger it, might as well. Going plus 2, 3, etc. is not going to make their car that much less of a slalom bandit. So what I'm telling you is that most convertible 240 owners could care less about balance, a neutral chassis, or autocross, and don't drive the Dragon or the Snake but do want their car to look bad ***, which is the one thing a staggered setup does (at certain angles anyway). I understand this...and would probably do the same if that is what I wanted out of my 240's. But I still agree with you, as I am a purist.

[Eikon]

Good stuff carcrazy... I agree with you about the fact that 'vert owners don't buy their 'verts for purely performance reason, and when they purchase their 'vert, they do so knowing they are sacrificing performance vs. a coupe or fastback.

Having said that... once you own a 'vert, there is no reason why you shouldn't want to improve the performance....

Here's my reasoning for a stagger being beneficial to a 'vert.

I wonder.. If the 'vert is 300+ lbs heavier (which I think is exaggerated a bit), wouldn't you agree that more of that weight is rear than it is forward?

The weight should be in small part from the top rams, frame, and pump, but moreso from the extra steel added to the chassis in reenforcements. From looking at the supplement, it appears that a great deal of that weight should lend more lbs to the rear than the front.

So, let's say you are running an autox event. When you turn hard, the center of grav should push hard one direction. If more weight is over the rear wheels, that car should have a tendancy to oversteer more than a stock 240. If that's the case, having a wider contact patch on the rear wheels should be advantageous.

I relate it to the Toyota MR2 which comes with a 1" stagger from the factory because it's rear engine.

My point.. I think the 240 'vert benefits from a larger wheels in the rear of the car.

[carcrazyguy]

Good stuff carcrazy... I agree with you about the fact that 'vert owners don't buy their 'verts for purely performance reason, and when they purchase their 'vert, they do so knowing they are sacrificing performance vs. a coupe or fastback. Having said that... once you own a 'vert, there is no reason why you shouldn't want to improve the performance.... Here's my reasoning for a stagger being beneficial to a 'vert. I wonder.. If the 'vert is 300+ lbs heavier (which I think is exaggerated a bit), wouldn't you agree that more of that weight is rear than it is forward?The weight should be in small part from the top rams, frame, and pump, but moreso from the extra steel added to the chassis in reenforcements. From looking at the supplement, it appears that a great deal of that weight should lend more lbs to the rear than the front. So, let's say you are running an autox event. When you turn hard, the center of grav should push hard one direction. If more weight is over the rear wheels, that car should have a tendancy to oversteer more than a stock 240. If that's the case, having a wider contact patch on the rear wheels should be advantageous. I relate it to the Toyota MR2 which comes with a 1" stagger from the factory because it's rear engine. My point.. I think the 240 'vert benefits from a larger wheels in the rear of the car.

Actually, 360 makes sense - other legit sources have said 400. C/D was referring to an equally eqipped (AT) 240 coupe therefore 400 would likly be referring to a 5 speed coupe versus the AT convertible. When you look at all of those pieces, which are steel and not aluminum, and then consider that the top and related parts (which likely weigh more than the metal top / rear glass), it surely means nearly 400. I have seen a few posts on here where people have actually weighed a couple convertibles and they were over 3000. SE coupes range in the 2700 range.If you truly believe this theory of yours, take it to somewhere that can weigh axles seperately (like a truck stop). Then I will eat crow if there is a notable rear weight bias (if any).

Anyway, yes it is possible that the rear of a 240 vert might weigh slightly more than the front, but I truly doubt that it would be a difference that would warrant a staggered tire package for anything other than for cosmetic reasons (read on). By the way, I know MR2's - I currently have 3 MKI's, and have owned 10 total (of both generations). The MKI MR2 has a rear weight bias percentage that surely exceeds that of the potentially rear biased 240 vert. Yet Toyota ran the same size all around, therefore was able to tune the difference out without staggering tire sizes. Nissan, master of suspension tuning would have (or may have) surely done the same if it were necessary. When the MKII MR2 was released, the rear weight bias increased again somewhat, and at that point Toyota did stagger the rear tires...yet only by one size. Then only due to "snap oversteer" lawsuits on the 91-92 models Toyota applied a substancial staggering in 93' yet this unfortunately took all of the liveliness (fun) out of the handling (accoding to any road test you will find) to keep the lawyers and insurance gurus happy.

So unless someone can demonstrate that the rear weight bias of a 240SX vert is anything near that of say a NSX or 911, then even a plus one staggering would have a detrimental effect on performance, and a plus one will do nothing for appearance. So the typical plus 3 staggering will create nothing but "mind numbing understeer" - a phrase that was used by M/T on the 93 MR2.

[masterteque]

Well here a few pics of my vert with 18x8.5f and 18x9.5r

[94_240sx]

Looks awsome!! I can see that you had some photo session. First and second pictures, you can't get good shots like that from that angle with original vert front end. It looks weak. You know what I mean?

I'm convinced now. 18s look good. I'm not a fan of sportsmax, but they look great on your car. Your car changed my mind man...

Some Qs for you:Have you run into any understeer or oversteer issue with that setup?Did you roll rear fenders?Did you remove front fender well cover? If not, tires not hitting it?

[masterteque]

Looks awsome!! I can see that you had some photo session. First and second pictures, you can't get good shots like that from that angle with original vert front end. It looks weak. You know what I mean?

I'm convinced now. 18s look good. I'm not a fan of sportsmax, but they look great on your car. Your car changed my mind man...

Some Qs for you:Have you run into any understeer or oversteer issue with that setup?Did you roll rear fenders?Did you remove front fender well cover? If not, tires not hitting it?

Thanks...I actually have a 5 lug setup sitting here but I picked up these wheels for $350 brand new from someone local...I have plans for other wheels but these will hold me over for the time being.....No steering issues....No fender rolling....No fender liners.....

[onosqv]

I wonder.. If the 'vert is 300+ lbs heavier (which I think is exaggerated a bit), wouldn't you agree that more of that weight is rear than it is forward?...If more weight is over the rear wheels, that car should have a tendancy to oversteer more than a stock 240. If that's the case, having a wider contact patch on the rear wheels should be advantageous.

I had a thread weighing my stock vert - 3108lbs w/o driver, like 1/2 tank gas & spare tire & all.

IIRC, 53(R)/47(F) weight distribution.

More weight over rear wheels = more traction = more understeer (for most conditions).Wider contact patch on rear wheels = more traction = more understeer (for most conditions).

For 240's, the most common functional reasons I have seen justifying a staggered setup is:

1) needing more tire to put the increased power produced (turbo, etc) to the ground w/o burning out every time you floor the car, like how the old muscle cars where.

2) putting more rubber in the rear bcs car loses traction too easily on the track (from suspension setup, power of car, etc) & maxing out rubber rules for current competition class (autox) & front can only hold so much w/o rubbing coilovers or fenders.

Other than that, aesthetics. That being said, no matter the setup, 16's or 17's or 18's, same all around or stagger, etc... you can basically always tune the car & driver to handle the way the driver wants.

I like 18's on s13's. I had some on mine and think it looks pimp. Can't you totally imagine this setup on a vert?

[94_240sx]

Those Grenades are damn nice...

[jrsink]

15x10f15x11roverfenderss13 vertFTW...in january

[c0347]

Nice vert.The wheels look great.What size are your tires?What brand of body kit is that?

[afracer]

17" is as big as I go and probably the most ideal because tire sizes and prices you have a ton of options. For a great all around S13, I think 16's are best because you get some more sidewall in there and don't totally sacrifice ride quality, the only problem is tire sizes aren't as readily available as they are for 17's. I haven't raced on 16's yet, only on my 17's and they do pretty good, but on long road trips, the 16's were much more comfy and still handle great. Anything bigger than 17's is just too short of a sidewall IMO.

[TIMELSS_vert]

i really want like 19x10-10 / 19x12 -15 would be ideal for me, but im just straight retarded...

[Z Style]

Just like any 240sx staggered, 17s up front and 18s out back.


Modified by prodigy at 11:39 AM 12/9/2007

[TIMELSS_vert]

^please take care of that tire in the back, it looks like ur goin into the 10" tire drag races... other wise 17/18 aint bad, but aint for me either

[Z Style]

^please take care of that tire in the back, it looks like ur goin into the 10" tire drag races... other wise 17/18 aint bad, but aint for me either

I hate rubber band tires and plus I have 60 or so of those rears. The front is a 50 series tire as well.

[Kataki_]

I hate rubber band tires and plus I have 60 or so of those rears. The front is a 50 series tire as well.

I think it will look real nice as soon as it is painted

[the vert]

I have 17x7 up front and need new tires what size should I go with. I dont want to do any fender work at the moment. thanks

[Nategreat923]

I have 17x7 up front and need new tires what size should I go with. I dont want to do any fender work at the moment. thanks

Way to bump an older thread. Probably around 195/40/17.

OP:http://www.rbwheels.com/index....=1737

Kinda weak offset. But something like that would suffice.