Only if I run some massive negative camber, and that defets the purpose of those 295's.

 

Function over looks. I daily drive my car and fenders sitting on top of my tires is out of the question.

I will be going 285/35, 265/35 with my next set of tires. Rolled my fenders awhile back so I need something bigger to stuff in there.

 

Horrible weather today in Gainesville, Fl...but I managed to snap a few shots before the clouds rolled back in for the 4th storm of the day!

Car is dirty - photos w/ canon s1000 (wasn't risking my DSLR in the rain) - nothing snazzy about the shots

Specs - Work XD9's 18x9 + 20 255/35 F
18x10 +3 (w/ 15mm spacer) 285/35 R
Dropped on Hotchkis springs & springmount cut in the rear 1/2". Will be rollin on PSS coilovers by summer end.
I'll take some better pictures once the v2 is painted and the ings sides are on!

I couldn't get photobucket to save the files vertical for some reason.

 

You'll be fine, you'll see.

 

I'm seeing quite a few setups in here that DO NOT fit the criteria. Sad...

 

Yes, there have a been a few here and there, but not too far off.

I think the rule of thumb should be the following:

Front Wheels/Tires
- at least 9" wide
- 255 or more sized tire

Rear Wheels/Tires
- at least 10.5" wide
- 285 or more sized tire

Low offsets help the aggressiveness, but they don't always have to be less than a +15.

 

I would say these are poor criteria, since a 255 on a 9" wheel is still pretty stretched. Fat tires should be defined as tires mounted on the lower end of the recommend wheel widths
8": 245
8.5": 255
9": 265-75
9.5": 275-285
10": 285-295
10.5": 295-305
As far as the other requirement, aggressiveness should be defined as at needing a fender roll in the rear at the minimum, and with corresponding offsets in the front. With fat tires, the minimum offsets for particular widths should be in this range or lower
Front
8": +0
8.5": +5
9":+15
9.5": +22
10": +25

Rear
9.5": +0
10": +8
10.5": +15
11": +22
11.5": +30

Even those guidelines are pretty generous

 

A 255 isn't even stretched on a 9.5

 

i agree. redlude must have some massive tires on his ride. oh and he has a G not a Z.

 

You are right, stretched wasn't the right word to use. It certainly isn't fat since a 9.5" wheel can fit up to a 285

 

my 19x8.5 +10 front is rubbing already.. but I been wanting to try see how that works 8.5 +5 front.. probably rip my fenders off.

 

Well put, although I think it should be a little more generous.

Based off your guideline, a 19x10.5 must at least have a +15 offset with a 295 tire. This is pretty much the limit, unless extensive body work is done.

I'm running that exact setup except with a +10 offset and I had to not only run -2 camber, but also get my fenders/rear bumper pulled and inch out on each side.

 

Yea, but thats what makes your setup so sick. Just like the stretched tire guys push the limit on offsets by going with fitments that almost no one else runs and doing what it takes to make them fit, aggressive fat fitment shouldn't be as easy as just rolling fenders and slapping wheels on. It should take precise calculation and adjustment to get it to fit perfectly, with almost perfect clearances.

 

hmm guess i won't post up anymore pics...guess i don't fit the rules. still will be a favorite thread once there is less talking and more pictures

 

anybody have tire side to side comparo of a 275/35 to a 285/35 ??

Thanks

 

 

Will I rub with 19x9 +15 -2 camber 245/35 (front) 19x10.5 +14 -1.4 camber 275/35 (Rear)?? Wanted some opinions before ordering the spacers. I am planning on rolling the fenders.

Not my ride but to keep the pics flowing and this thread alive, The look Im going for.

 

That look does not belong here.

 

Whats the widest tire you all have seen on these car's? I would like to go with a Volk 19/12 wheel and a tire like the Nitto NT05 335/30 19" 103W

 

^ How do you know that Z isnt running 305's in the rear?