I am about to get some American Racing Outlaw rims, and I am curious about the difference the width makes. I have 7" wide now, and the rims I am looking at come in 8" and 10". Can anyone explain to me? Thanks.

 

The wider rims will allow wider tires to fit properly, w/o cupping. It will give your car a wider "footprint" on the ground and increase chances for traction and handling capability. But if your suspension don't promote traction, the wider tires are useless...I always tell people to spend money on tuning your suspension first, especially if your power level isn't really high(over 375hp). Then your car will be ready to handle the power increases and use bigger tires when needed. Factory IROC 245/50/16's(9"-10"wide) with good brand tires, can handle quite a bit of power. I've seen cars hit 11's with similar width tires. That is, if the suspension is set up properly...
Key points:
**Sub frame connectors(reduces body twist, unloading)
**tubular Panhard rod & LCA's(reduces flex and wheel hop)
**LCA relocator brackets(changes "instant center")
**Adjustable torque arm(changes pinion angle)
**good or adjustable rear shocks(helps weight transfer & stabilizes)
These alone will make a HUGE difference in "putting the power to the ground"!....

 

I just traded for some 91-92 Z28 rims from 86 iroc on these boards..and going from what I had before...i like it alot

 

Thanks for the great post 90rocZ. Too bad I drive a V6. Pushing about 150hp I'd guess. What would be a good size tire to go with?

 

Check out places like BFGoodrich or Goodyear online sites, it gives you tire sizes, all tire dimentions, what size rims will be needed for the tire you want etc, etc, etc.
I'm gonna see what size my buddy's '85 has, he has 15"ers that really fill the rear wheel wells, and the fronts a size or 2 narrower...looks Bad@$$..

 

Thanks again!

 

9.5 in the front is about as wide as anyone should need to go. the firehawk was the only production thirdgen that came with 9.5" all around. if you are road racing or just want that look i suppose the 9.5" in front or all around is a good choice. for myself it limited how low i could drop the car and it tracked very badly on the road finding the smallest lines.

last year i upgraded to 9.5 front and 10.5 rear and couldn't stand having it that wide in the front. i later sold the rims and went back to an 8" front and a 10" rear and love it. fits the wells perfectly and handles great. i would have went smaller in the rear but the 10" fills very nicely.

 

Michlein Pilot tires like a 355/40R17 only needs recommends a 9" rim. I'm hoping to put those out back... with some 245's up front...

 

Try 255/40r17 on a 9" rim. A 355mm tire would need at least a 12-13" wide wheel.

 

My buddy has 215/60/15's up front and 275/60/15's out the rear. Not sure of his backspacing but they fit perfectly out at the edge of the fenders with a slight rake down to the front... It's got kinda an "Old School" bad @$$ look!..

 

i am sure this is a little off-topic, but i thought this was a good thread to bring it up in.

there is so much more to grip and tires than wider=better, typicaly wider is better, due to the shape of the contact patch, and how the slip angle changes as the contact patch shape changes. the actualy size of the contact patch is not determined by tire size, it is determined by tire pressure. for drag racing have a large contact patch is the key. thus why dragsters run TALL tires, and very lower tire pressure. it maximizes contact patch, and gives them alot of forward-rear grip. for cornering, wider tends to be better, but the key here is a wider wheel, and a properly sized tire, they way the tire fits the wheel is key in the deflection properties, deflection affects the slip angle.

just brushing on it. brian beckman really gets into the physics behind it here:
http://phors.locost7.info/phors10.htm

really good reading for the car physics junkies. so really when picking wheel/tire combinations there is so much more to consider than just pure size.

Sorry for hi-jacking, if that is what i did.

 

I run 12.4's on stock suspension with radial T/A tires. I believe the opposite, why dump money into suspension mods when for a fraction of the cost you can buy a good set of drag radials.

 

i somewhat agree here. no matter HOW good your suspension, it has to go through the tires. period.

now, using drag radials is a great idea, some well thought out mods will really help maximize the effect. having tubular adjustable this and that, well it helps, isn't the main factor. the real key is geometry, having a geometry set up to for traction, with factory LCAs/tA/ect will go a long ways, DR's and LCA brackets are going to by far give you the most bang for your buck.

 

Are you cascade crew dewey? I am unknown_host on cascade crew .

I agree, I know that I wouldnt even know where to begin if i had adjustable tubular everything. I plan on replacing my panhard bar with a spohn unit because mine was bent when I got it, but that is about it.

 

Mid 12's on radials, that's a phenominom, is your suspension worn or fresh??Run on a pro track??I've ran ET Streets and didn't fare much better than my GSC's with my stock rear..
That's just the trouble boys, our rears as designed push forwards on the rear not down. Then enters "wheel hop", EVERY stock 3rd Gen I've EVER seen sqwatted under hard acceleration.

Tires are worthless if you can't PLANT them, period...

The rear geometry is simple to understand, just extend imaginary lines forward from your LCA's to the point they would intersect the driveline. It's a LONG ways right, there's little leverage pushing up on the car, or visversa, down on the tires...
I know guys running 10's on 10" slicks, all day long.
I've tried BFG DR's = Worthless on my stock sus car..
Why do you think Old School guys ran "slapper bars", leverage..
And the only two mods I really directed at traction are not much more $$ than a GOOD pair of tires...