So I have found the what I think is the best set of wheels in my price range that have the aggressive offset the RX-7 requires. I have two choices however, here they are:

Staggered:
17x9 +42 Front
17x10 +50 Rear
(will probably add spacer in rear, wish they came as +35-40 ish)

Square"
17x10 +50 all around

I know that +50 is alot for the rear but could be brought out easily with a spacer.

Its really hard to find off the shelf wheels for this car, and can't justify spending 3k+ on custom wheels, my RX-7 just really isnt one of those super pristine RX-7s that are so hard to come buy nowadays..

Tires are another issue...
With the staggerd setup and 17in wheels, I would have to run a 255-40-17 front and either 285-35-17 (very rare unless r-compound) or a 265-40-17 in the rear. 265s are a little rare but available.

I dont want to run 275-40-17 because of the added height which close to 26 inches on most tires, put there are plenty of options.

I have been building the car for a while, and I intend to use it mostly as weekend cruiser, but I am seriously considering using it as my track day mule. I daily drive my Evo X and maintaince on a daily driven track day car is daunting.

I know there are the RPF1s, but I dont like them.

Please set me straight. Flame if needed.

 

Run the square setup with same size tires. You'll thank yourself when you can rotate wheels.

 

I agree. That in itself is a good enough reason. I guess now that I have it writen out, it makes more sense.

Just to able to find a 17x10 +50 was hard enough, it would be a shame to only be able to have them on the rear, and not even be the best fit back there.

Thanks man.

 

So what wheels are these? I ran RPF1 in 17x9.5 +45 with 255 all around and the rears still had a good 10mm to go. If you run the 17x10 +50, your fronts will need a roll/slight pull.

 

Really??? I have been using the using the stickied fitment chart, it says I'd have about -.04" sticking out, but I also heard the chart was a little conservative from this thread:

https://www.rx7club.com/suspension-w...ide-fd-892901/

It says a 17x10+52 is perfect.

In this thread the, guy sold his 17x10+51 17x11+38 CCW classics, they look pretty sick!! he looks like he has room to spare, but also is runing 255s up front. But I feel like 255s on a 10 inch wheel would bbe a waste, might as well get 17x9s.

https://www.rx7club.com/wheels-tires...4-3-a-1052730/

I figured +/- 1 or 2 mm wouldnt make much difference.

I'm not arguing, I appreciate the input!! this is just what I came up with from trying to research and not start another wheel fitment thread.

As for the wheels, (please dont laugh) but they are Rota RT5s in speed bronze (dark bronze). I am really all about the simple 5 spoke design, they are my favorite kind of wheel.

 

Sorry, I don't know what happened but I meant to type that the size is 17x9.5 +38.
I think the wheel choice is pretty nice!
Here is a photo of my setup but also, camber and ride height plays a big part in it. With this setup, I had no issues tracking on Laguna Seca without any rubbing. I believe camber was set to -2 on the front.

Another angle on my black FD with the same wheel

Here is how my Advan TC III 18x10.5 +25 look in the rear.

 

Just took a look at the CCW FS thread and I see that he has a 17x10 +51 which is roughly 7mm less aggressive than my 17x9.5 +38. However, he also has a stretch on the 255 so that makes the tire clearance a little more than the 9.5. I don't feel that 17x10 is a waste on 255 but that depends on the tire you use and what not. I like having a little stretch on my tires since it helps preload the tires a bit and gives you a sharper response IMO.

 

Are you going to track the car?

 

Those are some really nice looking cars! Thanks for the input, I appreciate that. Maybe I will reconsider using 255 tires. I guess once I get the wheels I should mock them up and take some measurements and see what I can get away with. I suppose a little fender rolling isnt the end of the world. The RPF1s look better than I expected, I may reconsider those as well.. Desicions desicions...

 

I am considering using it as a track day car, I'm still working on the making the car reliable enough to the point I feel comfortable enough to beat on it.

 

I bought 18x8.5 and 8x10 staggered wheels, and in hindsight wish I'd gone square
Would've needed some WB front fenders though I think

 

It's a RX-7! It'll never be reliable!!

 

For track use, I'd go square. I like the bias to understeer on my staggered setup on the street. On the track, it can be frustrating. My car spends a lot more time on the street, so i dont plan to change anything at the moment. But will get an 18" square setup when I can afford them. most likely 18x9.5+45 RPF1's with 265/35 Z2's on all 4.

Jason

 

Balance can easily be adjusted to your liking whether you go staggered or square via springs, sway bars and alignment. IMO, it's a lot easier to get a wider tire in back with less effort, so in the sense of maximizing lateral grip without modifying the front fenders, staggered setup is often the way to go.

I also think that ability to rotate tires is not really much of a benefit. It's not like you're really adding to tire life, you're just able to manage wear such that all four wear out at the same time. Which is kind of a benefit, but to me not enough of one to worry about.

I run staggered setups on the FD and the S2000, and I just replace tires in front or rear pairs as needed, no biggie.

On the FD, I'm running 245/40-17 fronts with 275/35-18 rears for the street, and about to get a new set of track tires which will be 255/40-17 front and 275/40-17 rears. Since I'm rubbing the front fender liners with my current setup, I wouldn't want to try the taller and wider 275s up front.

 

Anyone knows the colour code of the grey rx7 timscribbles picture ?

 

I like running tires the same width on a 50/50 weight distribution car.

17x10 for a 255/4017 all around is perfect. the slight stretch will provide more mechanical grip and have better characteristics at the limit with the stretched tire.

I dare you to find a true race car that has money backing that runs much wider tires than their wheel width.

If anything running wider wheels in the front is more important than the rear IMO.

17x10 +50 if perfect, +38 will also work with rolled front fenders, rear should fit either way.

 

i purchased that fd off of jasonn. it was wrapped, not painted

i have 18x10 +38 all around wih 255s, its a bit tight on the front but its fine, plan on running a 275-35 in the rears soon though.

 

255 + 255 is the best overall choice unless you're making enormous amounts of power.

Wheel size and offset is a matter of opinion though... I would suggest using the widest allowable width and the lowest offset you can fit in both the front and rear fenders. You want to use the same offset along with spacers to adjust balance (if you feel the need to do so) so you can rotate the tires.

More spacer = lower offset = wider tread = more grip, but you have to balance that with the changes it causes to the steering and suspension geometry, as well as increased load on the hubs.

In my experience just a 3 mm spacer can change how a car handles when you put it on the front or back.

 

Rotating wheels are not an argument really
In the end you use the same amount of rubber, and will change tires just as often.
But instead of doing the rears every year, you are doing all 4 every 2nd year. Only difference is that you will have to do the fronts also from time to time, so in the long run a few $ more

 

Your car will perform much more consistently when both axles always have the same amount of tread left and are the same age.

When your rears wear twice as fast (as is the case with my MR-2) you will spend twice as much time with unevenly worn tires unless you replace your fronts well before you need to.

Your fronts will also not grip with a **** because the rears almost always end up being half as old. So your car will only be at it's best every second set of rear tires, assuming that's when your fronts get replaced.

So whether or not it's a big deal sort of depends on how much faster your rears wear...and whether you care about lap times.

In the end, if you're buying all new wheels and tires, go for the square setup. The additional cost of the wider fronts wheels and tires will pay for themselves pretty quickly.

 

Disagree.

Rotating tires significantly extends the life of the tires... It helps spread the tire wear out much more evenly. Ideally you should rotate everything 3000 miles.

On my race car, I rotate my tires after EVERY session/race. It SIGNIFICANTLY increases my tire life. Instead of wearing down a LF tire to nothing, it will last an entire weekend versus a couple sessions.

 

Agreed. I get much more life out of my race tires because I rotate them.

 

Do you mean "evenly" in the sense of even wear across the tread? Because that's an alignment issue.

If you mean "evenly" in the sense that all four tires now wear at the same overall rate, so you can change them all at the same time, that's fine but you have NOT increased overall tire life.

If the wear rate at the front is 1/2 the wear rate at the rears, and get (say) 16k miles life out of rears and 32k life out of fronts for street tires, that does not mean you will get 32k out of all four tires by rotating! You will get 24k miles out of all four. The overall average wear rate will be the SAME.

Also, on the street, with a reasonable alignment, and left-side tires wear similarly to right-side tires, you can ensure even wear between all four tires with ONE well-timed rotation if there is greater wear at one end of the car (like on an fwd car or decently powered near-50/50 rwd car). Mazda3, wait until fronts are about 60% to the treadwear indicators and rears are at about 40% to the treadwear inicators, rotate, and all four get to the TWIs at the same time. Without rotating every 3k miles... With a wonky alignment, worst case rotate every 10k miles for 40k mile average life tires to ensure each tire gets a stint at each corner.

On some cars like my old 240SXs (modestly powered front-weight-biased FR), I've gotten get even wear without rotating at all.

Wouldn't that much more wear on the outside front indicate too much front roll stiffness bias?

I've always put more heat and wear on the outside rear on my street/track cars on the setups I've gravitated to.

On the 240Z I would rotate Hoosiers between events (2 track days without rotating) and get 6-8 track days out of them.

Street-driving the S2000 and FD to and from and between events on R888s and NT01s, sometimes don't rotate at all if I do enough CCW tracks (NHMS, Palmer) events to even out wear from CW tracks (Mosport, the Glen, Thompson...).

I'm doing track days/time trials in modded street cars, not RACING, so not exactly the same thing. I can *usually* live with a 0.5 sec slower lap time...

Anyway, my 0.02, fwiw...

 

If you don't race do whatever set-up you think looks cool.

If you do race you will already know why you want a square set-up.

Or will grow into knowing (you will also grow into 18s instead of 17s so you can fit wider tires).

-----------

The stock body FD actually fits equal width wheel/tire front and rear so why not take advantage of that.

Front fenders roll easier and replace easier, so its an easier decision to roll them (you aren't altering the unibody like in the rear).

"Wide body" front fenders bolt right on and work (in the rear you have to cut/weld the unibody to bolt "wide body" fenders on and actually have them work).

The front camber needed for racing also enables the wider tire up front (you don't want/need much rear camber in racing).

For these reasons people have been racing the FD with 285s or 295s up front for at least the last 15 years.

If you want wider tire than 295 up front it starts to take some parts (wide fenders) and a little work.

If you want wider tire than 295 in the rear it starts to take some parts (suspension or body) and a lot of work.
---------

In my opinion the reason to run a stagger fitment in racing is to fit a WIDER tire in the back than you can fit up front and not a NARROWER tire up front than you can fit up front.

This scenario begins with tire widths in the 305 to 315mm range on the FD.

You can fit 305 or 315mm up front, but I haven't yet seen 335 or 345 up front (and have in the rear).

Also, at these tire widths in race tires you start to reach a point of diminishing returns since the narrow FD will start to corner on 2 wheels (I think around 1.4G continuous).

 

I'm doing track days/time trials in modded street cars, not RACING, so not exactly the same thing. I can *usually* live with a 0.5 sec slower lap time...

Anyway, my 0.02, fwiw...


Right, in the competitive sport of racing you want the lowest lap time possible (and usually on some kind of budget).

This means you don't want heat cycled out old front tires and fresh sticky rear tires or vice versa.

Ever. It is a headache to keep resetting your chassis for that.

Better to have all 4 tires degrade at the same rate (by rotating) and replaced at the same time.

Also, you don't ever want a skinnier tire up front than you can fit. That is less traction overall even if you are adjusting the chassis bias.

You might want a wider rear tire than you can fit up front. It will add overall traction and you can adjust the chassis balance and put up with added cost of not being able to rotate tires.