Overcoming staggered wheels

steve13gt

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Posts
266
Reaction score
0
So although staggered fitment isn't ideal for handling, it won't ruin the balance as long as I get some adjustable sway bars.
I just think for what its worth 9" front wheels are easier, and more practical for what I really use the car for
 
Last edited:

steve13gt

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Posts
266
Reaction score
0
Anyone have a good number for amount of clearance between the tire and strut?

I'm really on the fence about front rim size, don't want to regret going one way or the other.
I don't really feel like machining my coil overs, because I have already warrantied them twice and that would definitely void my warranty.
If I could make it all work with a 5mm spacer, and lower camber down to about 1* I'm happy
 
Last edited:

NotaHybrid

I'm slow
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Posts
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
Mobile, AL
hmm. maybe too tall? I fit a 26.7" 315 up front... that 305 is only .5" taller.
Do you not scrub on the inner fender liner? I run a 285/40 all the way around and when I'm turning quickly I'm pretty sure it'll rub just a little on the fender liner. I don't have coil overs though, I'm on bmr springs and konis.

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk
 

Vorshlag-Fair

Official Site Vendor
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Posts
1,592
Reaction score
116
Location
Dallas, TX
I'm really not sure of what the OP was "asking" in his original post... and it only gets worse the more I read.

i-2CxjwLR.jpg


Curious though.....why 19" rims? I would stick with 18" or 17" if they fit the brakes.

Exactly. I'm thinking that people asking about 19" or 20" wheels in the "corner carver" section might be lost. Try the link below: http://www.s197forum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44

:beer:
 

steve13gt

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Posts
266
Reaction score
0
I want to know if I can set the car up with staggered fitment and make it work, or if I will never get near the same balance as the stock square set up. I've been at my buddies cottage for a week:beerdrink: sorry If I am starting to slurr

I'm really not sure of what the OP was "asking" in his original post... and it only gets worse the more I read.



:beer:

0.10" is normally enough clearance.

Seriously? I would have thought the tire would flex more than 0.10" I thought 0.5" was close!

Sorry, double post, wouldn't let me quote multiple posts on my phone
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zeroescape

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Posts
163
Reaction score
0
I want to know if I can set the car up with staggered fitment and make it work, or if I will never get near the same balance as the stock square set up. I've been at my buddies cottage for a week:beerdrink: sorry If I am starting to slurr

Balance is relative and subjective but, OE chassis leaves plenty of room to work with.
 

steve13gt

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Posts
266
Reaction score
0
If its safe to run 0.10" clearance between the shock body and the tire then I am all for it, Ill run 10" fronts.

Since running the 5mm spacer will give me 0.2".. So I could leave my camber as it is and the spacer would allow me to have clearance and allow me to use a center cap solving all my issues
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
326
Location
RIP - You will be missed
Seriously? I would have thought the tire would flex more than 0.10" I thought 0.5" was close!
I doubt that the upper portions of your tires deflect inward (toward the struts) very much, other than possibly in cases where the tires are mounted on rims at, near, or below min recommended width.

0.5" is a huge amount of room. Ford's OE fitment of 255/45-18's on 9.5" wide wheels on the 2008-ish GT500 left only about 0.4".

Somewhere down there around 0.040" clearance isn't quite enough.


As to the ability to re-balance a staggered wheel/tire setup back to where a square setup was/would be . . . when you do that I don't think the same balance will persist over the entire range of lateral-g or during the transients you have to pass through to get there. Using directly oversteerish suspension tuning (that only deals with part of the lateral load transfer) to counter the understeer from the difference in front vs rear tire slip angles (that depend on the complete lateral load transfer picture) is really kind of a band-aid, since these understeer and oversteer effects don't remain in lock-step with each other.

I don't know how much that amounts to, but there is a certain amount of 'steer' effects working at cross-purposes that may show up as "peaky" or "more demanding" up around the limit.


Norm
 
Last edited:

steve13gt

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Posts
266
Reaction score
0
I ordered a square set up. My biggest concern was tire to strut clearance, but with 5mm spacers I should be able to pull it together without machining anything
 

Pentalab

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Posts
5,500
Reaction score
1,312
0.5" is a huge amount of room. Ford's OE fitment of 255/45-18's on 9.5" wide wheels on the 2008-ish GT500 left only about 0.4".

Norm

If you put 285-40-18 rubber on those wheels above, you will have added 15mm (.59") on the inside. You would require a .25" spacer. (6.35mm).

Those GT-500 9.5" rims will vary from 54mm offset, (FRPP)...
to 50mm ( AM knockoffs) to 45mm, ( FRPP + AM), depending on year.

I would be leery about using spacer's greater than .125" (3.175mm) with oem studs.
 

AlbertD

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Posts
2,538
Reaction score
6
Location
Tucson, AZ
I'm running 285/40 Michelins all around on my OEM GT500 rims. The only modification I did was trim the fender liner a bit. No clearance issues whatsoever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
326
Location
RIP - You will be missed
If you put 285-40-18 rubber on those wheels above, you will have added 15mm (.59") on the inside. You would require a .25" spacer. (6.35mm).
Tire width math is more involved than that, and involves actual wheel width vs the "measuring width" wheel for the tire size or sizes in question.

A 9.5" wheel is 1" wider than the measuring width for a 255/45 tire, which adds about 40% of that extra inch to the actual tire width as mounted, so that 255/45 ends up being about 265 wide.

That same 9.5" wheel is 0.5" narrower than the 10" measuring width for a 285/40. 285 minus 40% of 0.5" (because you're going narrower) gives that 285/40 about a 280-wide actual width.

The as-mounted difference is then only ~15mm, half of which is 7.5mm or about 0.3". So starting from 0.4" clearance with the 245/45, you still have about 0.1".



Those GT-500 9.5" rims will vary from 54mm offset, (FRPP)...
to 50mm ( AM knockoffs) to 45mm, ( FRPP + AM), depending on year.
I have never seen 18" GT500 wheels advertised in +54. All by itself, that would gobble up almost all of the 0.4" wheel to strut clearance that I've actually measured. It might have more chance of working in 19", because the strut angles away from the wheel as you move upward along it.


I would be leery about using spacer's greater than .125" (3.175mm) with oem studs.
Not sure I'd go even that thick. Maybe half that, no more than 2mm (0.08") and this with limitations on use.


Norm
 
Last edited:

SoundGuyDave

This Space For Rent
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Posts
1,978
Reaction score
29
If you put 285-40-18 rubber on those wheels above, you will have added 15mm (.59") on the inside. You would require a .25" spacer. (6.35mm).

Those GT-500 9.5" rims will vary from 54mm offset, (FRPP)...
to 50mm ( AM knockoffs) to 45mm, ( FRPP + AM), depending on year.

I would be leery about using spacer's greater than .125" (3.175mm) with oem studs.

Um, no. PLEASE research before you hit the "Submit" button, you're developing a LONG history of wildly inaccurate posts. As a matter of fact, a better idea would be to refrain from hitting the "Submit" button at all until you have data to post from personal experience.

The "early" GT500 wheels were 18x9.5" with a +45 offset. Period. With 285-40/18 rubber and +50 wheels, there is roughly 2mm of clearance between the tire and the strut, at least with Nitto NT555s. This is not from math, this is from owning them and measuring them.

My personal opinion is that if you are going to run a spacer, at all, you should go to hardened, extended-length studs. Period. Note that I'm making the assumption that anybody reading in this forum (Corner Carvers) is NOT doing things to look cool at Cars & Coffee, but will be placing significant loads into the suspension, so factor that in when disputing my opinion. With a proper spacer (hub-centric, tight lug pocket dimensions) and good studs, I would and have had no problem running spacers upwards of 2.5" but I wouldn't even use a 5mm spacer with the stock studs. Again, personal opinion.
 

sdunlap10

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Tampa
Not sure I'd go even that thick. Maybe half that, no more than 2mm (0.08") and this with limitations on use.


Why is that? Would you be concerned that the studs aren't long enough for the nuts to grab enough threads? I am curious because I am running a 3mm spacer up front and may need to switch to a 5mm when I put my new tires on.


Edit: I am also using the Ford Racing hubs with ARP studs, so they are plenty long enough to cover the extra length.
 
Last edited:

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
326
Location
RIP - You will be missed
A general rule of thumb is that the length of thread engagement should be equal to the nominal fastener size. IOW, a 1/2-20 bolt should have 1/2" of thread length engaged (10 full turns in this case).

Given the criticality of these fasteners I would hesitate to go lower even if I knew enough about the fastener and nut materials to justify a shorter engagement length with the numbers.

Keep in mind that the end thread on the lugs almost certainly is not full-form, meaning that it's not contributing its share. This is probably part of the reasoning behind various racing organizations insisting on open-ended lug nuts.


Norm
 
Last edited:

Jack Hidley

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Posts
13
Reaction score
0
Steve,

Tire flex at the bottom of the revolution is much, much more than 0.5", but at the top of the revolution it is very small.

For many years we have recommended a minimum of six threads of engagement between the stock wheel studs and lug nut. This is based on the fact that the majority of the load is carried by the first three threads. This normally allows the use of a 0.25" wheel spacer with a stock Mustang wheel and stock Mustang wheel studs. In over a decade of selling spacers with this recommendation, we have never seen a stud failure.

Unless you need the extra length of aftermarket wheel studs, their higher yield strength usually never has an advantage. The wheel stud sees its highest stress when the car is sitting parked after the lug nut has been torqued.
 

Vorshlag-Fair

Official Site Vendor
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Posts
1,592
Reaction score
116
Location
Dallas, TX
Um, no. PLEASE research before you hit the "Submit" button, you're developing a LONG history of wildly inaccurate posts. As a matter of fact, a better idea would be to refrain from hitting the "Submit" button at all until you have data to post from personal experience.
I have asked Pentalab the same thing many times - READ MORE and POST LESS. He got into some weird diatribe via PMs then said he'd leave the forum, for which I thanked him. That lasted about 48 hours, but now he is back spewing rumors, inaccurate data and general nonsense.

I really don't get why he keeps doing this... :deadhorse:


My personal opinion is that if you are going to run a spacer, at all, you should go to hardened, extended-length studs. Period. Note that I'm making the assumption that anybody reading in this forum (Corner Carvers) is NOT doing things to look cool at Cars & Coffee, but will be placing significant loads into the suspension, so factor that in when disputing my opinion. With a proper spacer (hub-centric, tight lug pocket dimensions) and good studs, I would and have had no problem running spacers upwards of 2.5" but I wouldn't even use a 5mm spacer with the stock studs. Again, personal opinion.

DSC_6070-M.jpg


Agreed 100%. The stock wheel studs just aren't long enough to safely use with any additional wheel spacer.



The front is so easy to add long ARP wheel studs to, and can be done with your periodic track maintenance of changing the front hubs out. Yes, this is a wear item. Do you do track events in your S197 and you're still on the stock front hubs? Please watch the video below then TEST THIS ON YOUR CAR.



The rear studs are a different part number than what's used up front, and its best to install these with the axles out of the car so you can use a proper hydraulic press to extract the old studs and install the new 3" ARP units. Most folks do the front studs first, as that's where you usually install wheel spacers. Sometimes you need them at both ends, like we do on our 345mm rear tires with 18x12s. If so, get studs installed at both ends.

_DSC7094-S.jpg
DSC_6941-S.jpg


Tech inspectors at race and track events like to see full thread engagement and nothing makes them happier than seeing an OPEN lug nut with a stud clearly sticking through it.

DSC_6940-S.jpg
DSC2263-S.jpg


The rule is "one diameter's worth of thread engagement", so on a 1/2-20 threaded Ford stud you need 1/2" of engagement, or 10 full turns. With longer open lug nuts, like we use and sell, you can get much more than that.

Cheers... :beerdrink:
 

sheizasosay

Alive
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Posts
1,024
Reaction score
4
How much track time did you put on those hubs before they were shot and sounding like that Terry? Rustang...lol.
 

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Back
Top