5zigen FN0R1-C question

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Mar 8, 2005 | 09:52 AM

#31

Z1 Performance

Account Disabled

iTrader: (185)

Joined: Mar 2002

Posts: 2,565

Likes: 0

From: Long Island, New York

then you did not have 17x8 +25..maybe misboxed, or sounds more they were 17x8 +35. We ahve done tons of cars with 17x8 +25 and they all fit perfectly without spacers

Mar 8, 2005 | 10:02 AM

#32

UFO

Evolved Member

iTrader: (7)

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 1,529

Likes: 0

From: Houston, TX

Quote:

Originally Posted by instigator

I had 17x8 +25 and they rubbed the brakes in front. My 17x9 +35s fit fine.

I have 17 X 8 +25 and they fit without rubbing. They do come close to the rotors though.

Mar 8, 2005 | 04:15 PM

#33

naucrx

Evolved Member

iTrader: (19)

Joined: May 2003

Posts: 1,406

Likes: 1

From: Columbus, OH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie

Nice pics! I like how you have the wheels--and spokes--positioned the same in both pics, but you didn't crack open the windows in pic #2

Blue/bronze/lowered looks so sweeeet.

What brand of tire did you go with? They also complement the look.

It's interesting that many people have reported that the wheels weigh 19 lbs, where as mine weigh 17 lbs; I weighed them before I had tires mounted, as did the guy who sold them to me.

Thanks! It was purely coincidence that the wheel spokes lined up.

I went with Bridgestone tires, the RE750 in a 255/40/17.

I'm not sure how accurate the method I used to weigh the wheels is. I just used a digital bathroom scale. lol

Mar 9, 2005 | 04:31 AM

#34

instigator

Evolved Member

iTrader: (7)

Joined: Jun 2003

Posts: 512

Likes: 0

You guys are right. I remembered it wrong. They sent me a 17x8 +35 that rubbed the brakes.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=35130

Mar 9, 2005 | 06:39 AM

#35

Bogie

Evolving Member

iTrader: (11)

Joined: May 2003

Posts: 425

Likes: 0

From: Suburbs of Chicago, IL

Quote:

Originally Posted by naucrx

I just used a digital bathroom scale. lol

So did I! FWIW, I used a couple of my wife's dumbells to confirm the scale's accuracy. The combined weight of my wife's 10 lb dumbell (not me, I'm the 180 lb dumbell

) plus 7.5 lb dumbell equals 17.5 lbs. Therefore, despite my primitive instrument for weighing the wheels, if 17.5 lbs is 17.5 lbs on my scale, it is safe to say 17 lbs is 17 lbs.

Mar 13, 2005 | 10:47 AM

#36

Z1 Performance

Account Disabled

iTrader: (185)

Joined: Mar 2002

Posts: 2,565

Likes: 0

From: Long Island, New York

for those that emailed us, we have one set of the gloss black/polished lip 17x9 +35 wheels in stock:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=127360

Mar 13, 2005 | 12:35 PM

#37

value

Evolved Member

iTrader: (1)

Joined: Dec 2002

Posts: 2,777

Likes: 1

From: Evergreen state

These 5 Zigen wheels are a good example how the universal +35 will fit theory doesn't apply to all wheels.

Mar 13, 2005 | 01:55 PM

#38

Z1 Performance

Account Disabled

iTrader: (185)

Joined: Mar 2002

Posts: 2,565

Likes: 0

From: Long Island, New York

Exactly - on cars like the Evo, STi, Z and others with factory big brakes, its the relationship between width, offset and spoke design that makes them a go/no go