275 35R18 Slick on NT03 10.5 stock body Evo - Page 2 - EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community

Go Back  EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community > Competition > Motor Sports
Reload this Page >

275 35R18 Slick on NT03 10.5 stock body Evo

Notices
Motor Sports If you like rallying, road racing, autoxing, or track events, then this is the spot for you.

275 35R18 Slick on NT03 10.5 stock body Evo

Old Oct 1, 2013, 08:52 AM
  #16  
Evolved Member
 
ratt_finkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 535
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by inslowoutfast View Post
May I ask what is the intended use for this wheel combo? Drag, Road course, AutoX? Also what level of Power are you tuned for?

I run my X with 275's and 18x10.5's for road courses and I wonder if its too much tire and wheel. Maybe the same tire but with a 10 or 9.5 wheel would be better suited for my needs.

I had 275's on my VIII back in the day and thought I was quick. But ended up doing a faster lap at Watkins Glen with 255's. It didn't look as bad *** but I was averaging 2:13's consistently.
Not to derail the thread. But no, 275's are not too much. I run 285's on a 9 that weighs 2950 and I am considering going to 315's. If had a X I would be looking at 335's on 11" or 12" rims.

As far as the OP goes. I too run 18x10.5's. I have the worst combo of +15 offset. But I was still able to make them work in the rear with lots of pulling and eventually cutting/grinding. There are numerous threads in this sub forum covering this.

Just search 18x10.5". There is not a huge advantage IMHO running these over 10's or even 9.5's performance wise. The fronts are easy, but the rears will take some serious work.

Also of note, most of us are running a 285/30/18. Even though it's wider than the 275. The 275/35/18 Hoosier is significantly taller. So you will have even more issues in the rear clearing.
ratt_finkel is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2013, 10:05 AM
  #17  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (36)
 
e_kobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
Posts: 2,956
Thanked 88 Times in 86 Posts
Originally Posted by ratt_finkel View Post
Not to derail the thread. But no, 275's are not too much. I run 285's on a 9 that weighs 2950 and I am considering going to 315's. If had a X I would be looking at 335's on 11" or 12" rims.

As far as the OP goes. I too run 18x10.5's. I have the worst combo of +15 offset. But I was still able to make them work in the rear with lots of pulling and eventually cutting/grinding. There are numerous threads in this sub forum covering this.

Just search 18x10.5". There is not a huge advantage IMHO running these over 10's or even 9.5's performance wise. The fronts are easy, but the rears will take some serious work.

Also of note, most of us are running a 285/30/18. Even though it's wider than the 275. The 275/35/18 Hoosier is significantly taller. So you will have even more issues in the rear clearing.
Not to get off topic from the OP's post but what would the benefits be of running 12 inch wide rim with a 335 on a Evo X?! That's adding so much rotational mass to an already heavy car. Wouldn't you get similar performance results with say a 10.5 rim with 285's or 295's?!
e_kobz is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2013, 01:23 PM
  #18  
Evolved Member
 
ratt_finkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 535
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by e_kobz View Post
Not to get off topic from the OP's post but what would the benefits be of running 12 inch wide rim with a 335 on a Evo X?! That's adding so much rotational mass to an already heavy car. Wouldn't you get similar performance results with say a 10.5 rim with 285's or 295's?!
The additional rotational mass would be negligible for the increase in grip. As you said, it's already a heavy car. An extra pound or 4 per corner is not going to kill you. I'm also assuming a X with at least 350 whp. Preferably 400+.
ratt_finkel is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2013, 03:35 PM
  #19  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (36)
 
e_kobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
Posts: 2,956
Thanked 88 Times in 86 Posts
Originally Posted by ratt_finkel View Post
The additional rotational mass would be negligible for the increase in grip. As you said, it's already a heavy car. An extra pound or 4 per corner is not going to kill you. I'm also assuming a X with at least 350 whp. Preferably 400+.
I get what you're saying, I was just trying to figure what kind of X you were talking about. but I would love to see a evo rockin some 335 meaty tires. And I would love see a evo 9 with 315's. Make it happen
e_kobz is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2013, 04:39 PM
  #20  
Evolved Member
 
ratt_finkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 535
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by e_kobz View Post
I get what you're saying, I was just trying to figure what kind of X you were talking about. but I would love to see a evo rockin some 335 meaty tires. And I would love see a evo 9 with 315's. Make it happen
My good friend Jeremy Ault runs 315's on 18x10.5" +15 Enkei RPF1's. Personally I think 315's should be on at least an 11" wheel. But I have driven this car and it has a LOT of grip.

http://srwphotography.smugmug.com/Au...7754&k=gt2vrzJ

http://srwphotography.smugmug.com/Au...2966&k=VpxSHZX

http://srwphotography.smugmug.com/Au...4168&k=JkgkkBw

http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Racing-E...1496&k=HKmTDML

http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Racing-E...1836&k=4PcvPV7

Back to the original OP point again. There is very little performance difference between 9.5" width and 10.5" width. And technically, no one has proven which width is the fastest.
ratt_finkel is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2013, 05:52 PM
  #21  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Everett
Posts: 721
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by e_kobz View Post
That's adding so much rotational mass to an already heavy car.
Does this sound right? (T is torque)

Taccel = Teng - Tlosses - Tback
where:
Tlosses are engine losses
Tback is the back torque from friction, wind resistance, etc.
Teng is the torque the engine produces on the crank. The combustion cycle applies the torque to the engine. This is a set value per combustion (@ rpm).
Taccel is the torque put into accelerating the crank (leftover torque from the engine after the losses and back torque have been accounted for)

Taccel = MOI*alpha
where alpha is angular acceleration and is inversely related to the overall MOI of the drivetrain.

I am not sure if the dyno measures the angular acceleration of its inertia (I believe so) or what it is exactly doing.

Depending on how a dyno works, the MOI reduction may be accounted for in the dyno measurement and as such, shows up in the measured horsepower of the car for classing.

The classing weight-to-power ratio uses the overall mass of the car.

Reduction in MOI would result in a greater dyno horsepower for a set Teng (depending) but would not result in a significant reduction in the mass of the car.

A faster car in a set weight-to-power ratio (ie: NASA) would take advantage of lower Tback but a reduction in MOI would have to be "tuned out" to only make the power necessary for the class.

Hence, as long as you make rated horsepower for a wide powerband for the class you are racing in, MOI reduction is not terribly meaningful.

Or have I bungled this all up?
nollij is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2013, 09:34 PM
  #22  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
RJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 1,311
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Aww man, I missed the 10.5 party! Here's my stock body w/ 10.5 +30 NT03s (+5 front) and 285 BFGs



I have fender spacers in the front and a pretty big pull in the rear. I haven't relocated the bumper bolt (yet)

Last edited by RJones; Oct 1, 2013 at 09:49 PM.
RJones is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2013, 10:40 AM
  #23  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Greensboro
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RJones View Post
Aww man, I missed the 10.5 party! Here's my stock body w/ 10.5 +30 NT03s (+5 front) and 285 BFGs



I have fender spacers in the front and a pretty big pull in the rear. I haven't relocated the bumper bolt (yet)
Are those the g-Force R1? Not slicks, but I'd love to see what a 295/35/18 Rival looks like on an Evo and on these NT03's.

285 R1, Section width: 11.4"
Diameter: 24.9"

295 Rival, Section width: 11.9"
Diameter: 26.1"!!!

Based on what I've read, the height will make this very difficult.
eeweeks is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2013, 10:49 AM
  #24  
Evolved Member
 
ratt_finkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 535
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by eeweeks View Post
Are those the g-Force R1? Not slicks, but I'd love to see what a 295/35/18 Rival looks like on an Evo and on these NT03's.

285 R1, Section width: 11.4"
Diameter: 24.9"

295 Rival, Section width: 11.9"
Diameter: 26.1"!!!

Based on what I've read, the height will make this very difficult.
Um yeah. That is a HUGE tire. And it will be slower on top of that.
ratt_finkel is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2013, 11:00 AM
  #25  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Greensboro
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ratt_finkel View Post
Um yeah. That is a HUGE tire. And it will be slower on top of that.
You'd gain about 3.5mph at the top of second and a little bit of contact patch. The two tires aren't comparable, but the sizes are.
Just thinking aloud...

Last edited by eeweeks; Oct 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM.
eeweeks is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2013, 11:56 AM
  #26  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Meathooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 509
Thanked 17 Times in 16 Posts
275/35r18 hankook's

a LOT of pulling in rear. did not have to remove rear bumper bolt. 2.1-2.2 camber in rear.

front - 4 camber with 20mm spacer. used washers to space fender out approx .375"

Name:  DSC_1956_zps1fe5c80f.jpg
Views: 0
Size:  85.2 KB

minimal rubbing on rear when cornering and hitting a bump. not bad though.

Name:  12_zps03aaa6a9.jpg
Views: 0
Size:  103.6 KB

Name:  DSC_2013_zps0a1190ba.jpg
Views: 0
Size:  81.8 KB
Meathooker is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2013, 01:21 PM
  #27  
Evolved Member
 
ratt_finkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 535
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by eeweeks View Post
You'd gain about 3.5mph at the top of second and a little bit of contact patch. The two tires aren't comparable, but the sizes are.
Just thinking aloud...
That's also 3.5mph of boost lag you loose on the bottom end. While the extra speed in 2nd would be nice. Ultimately the lack of grip would be far from worth it.
ratt_finkel is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2013, 04:49 AM
  #28  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Greensboro
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ratt_finkel View Post
That's also 3.5mph of boost lag you loose on the bottom end. While the extra speed in 2nd would be nice. Ultimately the lack of grip would be far from worth it.
These two tires aren't comparable. But a 295 rival vs a comparably sized direzza? I'll have to wrap my mind around the 3.5 mph of boost lag statement when I'm not so coffee deprived.
eeweeks is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2013, 04:52 AM
  #29  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Greensboro
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by eeweeks View Post
These two tires aren't comparable. But a 295 rival vs a comparably sized direzza? I'll have to wrap my mind around the 3.5 mph of boost lag statement when I'm not so coffee deprived.
Well, maybe I've got it. Boost correlates to airflow and engine speed, not vehicle speed. Power band obviously stays the same, effective gearing changes.
eeweeks is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2013, 05:58 AM
  #30  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (54)
 
honda-guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Central PA
Posts: 3,540
Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts
Fyi, 255/35/18 R6 and 275/35/18 R6 have the same thread width. Only difference is 255 has shorter sidewall. They are considers a 275 tires in most clubs.

Last edited by honda-guy; Oct 4, 2013 at 06:00 AM.
honda-guy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 275 35R18 Slick on NT03 10.5 stock body Evo


Contact Us About Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.