[rwalker]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

That's with OEM strut clearance? (spring or strut clearance?)

Coilover would give that much more room.

I don't see how... Can you help me understand?


At 18x9et36, the wheel and tire fit in a slight indentation in the stock strut body. Coilovers can only make it worse, e.g. by bringing the spring perch down, or by being round at that point .

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by rwalker

I don't see how... Can you help me understand?


At 18x9et36, the wheel and tire fit in a slight indentation in the stock strut body. Coilovers can only make it worse, e.g. by bringing the spring perch down, or by being round at that point .

Not all coilovers bring the lower perch down. Many won't. Depends on the design.

Most from Europe will bring it down cause they use helper springs. Think it's a TUV certification thing.

[ApexWheels]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

I think you should have said "only" when it pertains to apex wheels.

You didn't mention 265s specifically in the same paragraph when you said you have to have axle specific offsets . 255s can be done with the right setup with same offset on all 4. Been done many times here, but mostly on with 8.5" or 9" wheels.

I think I might be the first to get 9.5" with square offsets to work.

I believe a 18x9.5 +50 and 265 square would work with the right suspension and alignment setup.

If you guys made the ARC8 in 18x9.5 +45 or +50 I would have went with those instead of my current setup

Ah yes, I see the confusion. My statements were specifically in response to running 265 r-compounds or similar, as we were justifying why Brett @ Strom Motorsports and GSR chose to run the wheel spec's that they did.

This does not just apply to APEX wheels, at this time I have yet to find an 9.5" wheel with an offset that works front and rear with that aggressive of a tire. Keep in mind, most enthusiasts do not want to run anything larger then 20mm spacers, and even a spacer of that thickness seems to put people off.

255 square is no problem, and your photo's are a great example that a true square 9.5" fitment can be used

We have the ability to manufacture the ARC-8 in whatever offset the community desires, we just need to see that there is enough demand behind a fitment like that. This is a great discussion, and prompts me to look into our current EC-7 18x9.5" ET43 a bit more, as this could be used as a baseline.

- Ryan

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

Not all coilovers bring the lower perch down. Many won't. Depends on the design.

Most from Europe will bring it down cause they use helper springs. Think it's a TUV certification thing.

You haven't explained how you think a coilover would increase inner clearance vs. the stock strut. 18x9et36 has the wheel right up against the stock strut, below the perch. There's no more inner clearance to be had unless you use a strut with a smaller diameter.

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by ApexRaceParts

Ah yes, I see the confusion. My statements were specifically in response to running 265 r-compounds or similar, as we were justifying why Brett @ Strom Motorsports and GSR chose to run the wheel spec's that they did.

This does not just apply to APEX wheels, at this time I have yet to find an 9.5" wheel with an offset that works front and rear with that aggressive of a tire. Keep in mind, most enthusiasts do not want to run anything larger then 20mm spacers, and even a spacer of that thickness seems to put people off.

255 square is no problem, and your photo's are a great example that a true square 9.5" fitment can be used

We have the ability to manufacture the ARC-8 in whatever offset the community desires, we just need to see that there is enough demand behind a fitment like that. This is a great discussion, and prompts me to look into our current EC-7 18x9.5" ET43 a bit more, as this could be used as a baseline.

- Ryan

Yeah, I think I could fit a 265 up front no problem with my current setup, rear outer clearance would be the issue. I run the RE71R too.

I don't mind running spacers on the track. Though I prefer not to if at all possible. But I think the advantage of my square setup outweighs the minimal risks if done properly. I use a 20mm spacer (15mm would work if I didn't have the remote reservoir to clear) w/extended 78mm studs and thread conversion to m14x1.5. Torque them to spec and should be fine....I hope

EC-7 18x9.5" ET43 was my second choice, but it weighs a little more. My buddy runs those square as his track setup on his M2.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a big enough market for aggressive square fitments with the 2 series to justify making ARC8s in a +50.....but maybe a +45 which seems to be popular for 2series (rear).

I would probably switch over if those were made.

I think going with a coilover without a helper spring makes things much easier, but then you will probably have to go with a 3rd party camber plate as most of those types of coilovers will not come with a plate.

Which is why I went with the KW Clubsports that come with the plates. Knew I was going to run a custom spring rate up front to match my square setup. So swapping to a shorter main spring was no issue for me.

Good info here in this post for people hunting for square setups. There are lots of variables to consider!

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by rwalker

You haven't explained how you think a coilover would increase inner clearance vs. the stock strut. 18x9et36 has the wheel right up against the stock strut, below the perch. There's no more inner clearance to be had unless you use a strut with a smaller diameter.

So the clearance issue with OEM suspension is the actual strut and not the OEM progressive spring?

If it's the strut, correct, it will not matter

Coilover strut might be thinner, but if it is it will be minimal.

I edited my OP to ask about the spring, but probably not before you started your reply

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

So the clearance issue with OEM suspension is the actual strut and not the OEM progressive spring?

yep, strut tube, and the strut tube actually has an indentation there for increased clearance

by the way: what makes you say that the OEM spring is progressive?

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by rwalker

yep, strut tube, and the strut tube actually has an indentation there for increased clearance

by the way: what makes you say that the OEM spring is progressive?

It may not be progressive, I don't remember honestly (took them off the first week I owned the car). I just mean they are "fat" in diameter (bulge) in the middle. In my experience with OEM setups and aggressive wheels/tires can have a tendency to rub the spring more so than the strut itself. Either the tire rubs the side of the spring or the underside of the spring when it compresses on top of the tire.

EDIT: This is what I'm referring to:

[Pnorth]

Great thread and lots of info! Thank you!
If you were to sum it up for a 255 square and a 265 square set up, what would then be your suggestion for width and ET Ryan? Anthony?

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by Pnorth

Great thread and lots of info! Thank you!
If you were to sum it up for a 255 square and a 265 square set up, what would then be your suggestion for width and ET Ryan? Anthony?

This is not any easy question to answer. Depends on your budget.

I pieced together my setup based on what I thought was the most aggressive setup for the track, but can still be used as a daily driver (no weird noises from 3rd party camber plates, no crazy rubbing).

You can save money by going with a different square setup. Springs, camber plates, 9" or 8.5" wheels, 255 square. That will be fine for most people and save money. Still a blast on the track I'm sure.

[Pnorth]

Budget is no problem. Wanted to do a 19" square and test the new pilot 4s as well as the cup2. 4s not available in 18" and cup not in a 255/18 either. Wanted to take advantage of apex 19" sale and try a 19x9 et38 arc8, but apex did not think it could be done. I thought it would since I have coilovers and camberplates, but it is a long way to order something that might not work.

[Pnorth]

Budget is no problem. Wanted to do a 19" square and test the new pilot 4s as well as the cup2. 4s not available in 18" and cup not in a 255/18 either. Wanted to take advantage of apex 19" sale and try a 19x9 et38 arc8, but apex did not think it could be done. I thought it would since I have coilovers and camberplates, but it is a long way to order something that might not work.

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by Pnorth

Budget is no problem. Wanted to do a 19" square and test the new pilot 4s as well as the cup2. 4s not available in 18" and cup not in a 255/18 either. Wanted to take advantage of apex 19" sale and try a 19x9 et38 arc8, but apex did not think it could be done. I thought it would since I have coilovers and camberplates, but it is a long way to order something that might not work.

19" square changes everything. You'll have to research/test that on your own, but I highly doubt you'll be able to do anything as aggressive like what we do for 18" square. From a performance stand point 19" does not make much sense. Most of us that go square do it for the performance/handling aspect.

Apex has a very good understanding what will work when it comes to their wheel sizes.

[Pnorth]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

19" square changes everything. You'll have to research/test that on your own, but I highly doubt you'll be able to do anything as aggressive like what we do for 18" square. From a performance stand point 19" does not make much sense. Most of us that go square do it for the performance/handling aspect.

Apex has a very good understanding what will work when it comes to their wheel sizes.

Well, that might be so... that "most of you" go for 18 out of a performance/handling aspect, insinuating this can't be done with a 19 and that it doesn't make sense to try anything else 😉. Much of what you've achieved didn't make sense to anyone until you did... 👍 😀 For years 17 was the go to, now it is 18 and I suspect it is moving to 19. Perhaps not for some time, but what leads me to think so is by watching what is happening with the tires available. Looking at the new Michelin 4s, which I want to use for street, isn't available in 18. Looking at Michelin cup 2, which I attend to use for track, isn't available as a 255 in 18. I do have great suspension that can do the job and hence I see no reason why not try. I might end up doing 18 for the track, but I want to see if I can find the same set up with the same widths for both street and track and know that the suspension is dialed in for that set up. Wheels are on their way from Apex in 19" - although a staggered set that only differs half an inch from front to rear and 3mm in ET - I will try the rears up front and see if I won't be ordering another 2 wheels so that the end result is squared. We'll see what comes out of it.

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by Pnorth

Well, that might be so... that "most of you" go for 18 out of a performance/handling aspect, insinuating this can't be done with a 19 and that it doesn't make sense to try anything else ��. Much of what you've achieved didn't make sense to anyone until you did... �� �� For years 17 was the go to, now it is 18 and I suspect it is moving to 19. Perhaps not for some time, but what leads me to think so is by watching what is happening with the tires available. Looking at the new Michelin 4s, which I want to use for street, isn't available in 18. Looking at Michelin cup 2, which I attend to use for track, isn't available as a 255 in 18. I do have great suspension that can do the job and hence I see no reason why not try. I might end up doing 18 for the track, but I want to see if I can find the same set up with the same widths for both street and track and know that the suspension is dialed in for that set up. Wheels are on their way from Apex in 19" - although a staggered set that only differs half an inch from front to rear and 3mm in ET - I will try the rears up front and see if I won't be ordering another 2 wheels so that the end result is squared. We'll see what comes out of it.

Of course a square setup with 19s is possible. All I'm saying is that for 255+ square to work with 19s I think you're going to have to make some serious compromises to get it to work. Most people that go through the effort to run 255+ square on this car will do it for the performance aspect. Otherwise what is the point? Save some money and do a nice stagger setup.

I would not base your wheel selection on those two tires. Plenty of alternatives.

One of the big reasons why the industry has moved to 18s from 17s years ago is because brakes have gotten bigger and you need 18s to clear the new brakes on performance cars.

All things being equal 19s will hurt the performance of your m235. My buddy goes with 18" for his square track setup on his m2.

Post pics of your setup when you get the wheels in.

EDIT: read the part where you didn't even order the square setup. Lol we don't need that negativity here. Square club only in this thread

[Pnorth]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

Of course a square setup with 19s is possible. All I'm saying is that for 255+ square to work with 19s I think you're going to have to make some serious compromises to get it to work. Most people that go through the effort to run 255+ square on this car will do it for the performance aspect. Otherwise what is the point? Save some money and do a nice stagger setup.

I would not base your wheel selection on those two tires. Plenty of alternatives.

One of the big reasons why the industry has moved to 18s from 17s years ago is because brakes have gotten bigger and you need 18s to clear the new brakes on performance cars.

All things being equal 19s will hurt the performance of your m235. My buddy goes with 18" for his square track setup on his m2.

Post pics of your setup when you get the wheels in.

EDIT: read the part where you didn't even order the square setup. Lol we don't need that negativity here. Square club only in this thread

Read the part where I write apex didn't recommend a set up that is even narrower than yours and hence I ordered it as staggered to be safe, but... that I would mount the rears up front to see and then order a second pair of wheels if it works. I even referred them to this thread so they could see your set up... yup, you're right... don't need that kind of negativity here...

[BPAC306]

Im thinking of this for a completely stock setup...

APEX ARC-8
18x8.5
ET 38
255 tire square

This should fit correct?

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by Pnorth

Read the part where I write apex didn't recommend a set up that is even narrower than yours and hence I ordered it as staggered to be safe, but... that I would mount the rears up front to see and then order a second pair of wheels if it works. I even referred them to this thread so they could see your set up... yup, you're right... don't need that kind of negativity here...

It was a joke

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by BPAC306

Im thinking of this for a completely stock setup...

APEX ARC-8
18x8.5
ET 38
255 tire square

This should fit correct?

It will poke too much in the rear and won't clear the fender in the front unless you run camber plates, roll the fenders, or both.

[ApexWheels]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

Of course a square setup with 19s is possible. All I'm saying is that for 255+ square to work with 19s I think you're going to have to make some serious compromises to get it to work. Most people that go through the effort to run 255+ square on this car will do it for the performance aspect. Otherwise what is the point? Save some money and do a nice stagger setup.

I would not base your wheel selection on those two tires. Plenty of alternatives.

One of the big reasons why the industry has moved to 18s from 17s years ago is because brakes have gotten bigger and you need 18s to clear the new brakes on performance cars.

All things being equal 19s will hurt the performance of your m235. My buddy goes with 18" for his square track setup on his m2.

This is correct.

Originally Posted by BPAC306

Im thinking of this for a completely stock setup...

APEX ARC-8
18x8.5
ET 38
255 tire square

This should fit correct?

The wheel and tire combo looks good, however negative camber will be needed to clear the front fenders as mentioned. If you are looking to run a 255 square fitment, I presume this car will see track time? If so, adjustable camber plates will be necessary/beneficial for multiple reasons, not just to gain front fender clearance for the aggressive wheel/tire setup.

The rear is also going to need some camber dialed in, and we recommend rolling the rear fenders a touch to be sure you are maximizing clearance under load in mid-corner etc.

- Ryan

[mibikin]

Originally Posted by ApexRaceParts

This is correct.



The wheel and tire combo looks good, however negative camber will be needed to clear the front fenders as mentioned. If you are looking to run a 255 square fitment, I presume this car will see track time? If so, adjustable camber plates will be necessary/beneficial for multiple reasons, not just to gain front fender clearance for the aggressive wheel/tire setup.

The rear is also going to need some camber dialed in, and we recommend rolling the rear fenders a touch to be sure you are maximizing clearance under load in mid-corner etc.

- Ryan

What is you're recommended sizing for a stock suspension setup?

[ApexWheels]

Originally Posted by mibikin

What is you're recommended sizing for a stock suspension setup?

Best to understand your goals for the car first. Will this be a 100% street car, or will it see any track time?

- Ryan