im running 17x9 with 255/40 +38 no robbing at all,but most of the people i know are running +35.

 

38 is Enkei, excuse me I forgot that. My BBS were 35. The part I am asking if you are sure about is where it sits in relation to the fender. I am telling you that you are not correct. 13mm is not flush with the fender, period. 29mm such my et25 9.5's is about 4mm (or so) past the fender and corrected with 2.0*'s camber. I am not sure where you are getting 22mm from, I see 27mm (which will work, its 8mm narrower than what I run) being mentioned.

et25 on a 9.5J18 which is 29mm further outboard than stock BBS and 32 than the stock Enkei:



My contention is that a 17x9 et 27 will in fact fit just fine as it would be 8mm further inboard than this photo.

 

Im sorry I just want to ask 3 questions because I wan't to know what works for sure before I go ordering stuff.

What suspension are you lowered on??
did you get it aligned? To what specs if different than stock?
And did you have to roll the fenders?

 

it would be alot easier to give fitment advice if we know what wheels you are thinking of getting

 

Oh, Johnbradley, I see what you're referring to. Sorry about the confusion, I'm thinking in terms of inside edge (lip) of fender, since if the car is dropped, that would be what would rub. Outside of fender, as far as looking down the line, would not be in question. My measurements are totally inside measurements.

 

johnbradley, Bigtime sorry, man, I could have sworn his original post questioned a +22 offset. Not sure where in the hell i got that, unless I looked at +27 and thought it said +22. As far as the +22 comments, they're correct. But that doesn't have shat to do with his +27 question....Again, sorry about that.

 

I found the problem. Another thread asked the question of 18x9.5 +22. When I went back in to comment, I opened the wrong thread and posted it here. GEEZ, I am too old for this.

 

Thanks everyone for their input! So it seems like +38mm to +40mm offset may be better suited than +35mm (for running 255 wide tires on 17x9 rims)? Keep in mind my rear camber will be negative 1.5 degrees in the rear and negative 2.5 degrees in the front, and I am lowered by ALOT (my back wheels actually tuck up INTO the fender a little bit). Maybe I will be able to get away with not rolling the fenders by going with +40mm?

 

Actually, now that I'm on the same page, the back's problem might be on the inside. The trailing arm (name??) from body to suspension comes in to play. 17X9 +35 with 245's is 1/4" clearance on the CE28N's.

 

I'm sure that +40 would run very close, maybe with 1-1.5 mm clearance left, unless the tire used was wider than 10" at the sectional width.

 

I looked at tirerack's 255x40 and 255x45 tires. The 255x45 is .2inches less sectional width than the 255x40. Something to consider if you go to the +40 offset on the rear. One tenth of and inch doesn't sound like much unless it rubs. A tenth of an inch is 2.5mm.

 

So your saying that fender clearance wouldn't be an issue with +40 (for the front and rear wheels) however in the rear, it gets VERY close to the trailing arms? I can't wait to get my 17x9's with kumho slicks for autocross! =)

 

I thnk Warrtalon uses something close to what you're wanting. Look for his posts of what he's using.

 

You'd want to run a 255/40-17. That will give the proper tire height. I was looking just at fender clearance when I mentioned +40 mm. I have been looking at running 17x9" wheels also, and my casual inspection of the distance between the suspension and the rim/tire was that a 17x9 would be a tight fit with the stock offset of +38 mm. I'm running about -1.5 deg camber front and rear. If you go with more camber, then there will be less need to go to a higher offset, and +35 mm to +38 mm might be more appropriate to clear the strut and the trailing arm while still giving you enough clearance for the fender.

 

Mrfred you are the shizzle, thanks for the advice!