SCCA Street-class legal rims?

yargk said:

Hi, I'd be interested in an ET60 and I think a few others will be as well. Is 10 the minimum for a run?

Click to expand...

I'll push on this and the +53 first, I'll keep you posted

Ah volume. I forgot to consider volume. Dangit!

yargk said:

Hi, I'd be interested in an ET60 and I think a few others will be as well. Is 10 the minimum for a run?

Click to expand...

ET53 is specifically for SCCA Street-class autox (which is the subject of this thread). ET60 would be less desirable/optimal for this application.

An et53 should allow you to get a little more rubber inside the wells right?

hondatech nate said:

An et53 should allow you to get a little more rubber inside the wells right?

Click to expand...

7mm more strut clearance. From other posts, fender clearance does not seem to be an issue. The textbook size for 19x8.5 would be 235/35x19 - but for autox, people seem to go as wide as they can. 235 section width is 9.5", 245 (OE) section width is 9.8", 255's 10.2", 265 10.7"

I would guess that 255/35x19 will clear with ET53 - 255 would be 0.2 inch closer to the strut than OE with ET60; 0.2" = 5mm, so less than the 7mm in clearance gained by ET53. In addition, 255's are measured on a 9" rim, so mounting on an 8.5" will also reduce section width. I'd feel pretty confident.

265/35x19 won't 'fit' on 8.5" rims - 9" is the minimum recommended width - but how well that works depends on the tire. Forcing that size to fit on an 8.5" rim would also reduce the section width (measured rim is 9.5"), but for discussion, 0.45" = 11.5mm, which puts the tire 4.5mm closer to the strut with ET53. There is probably enough static clearance, but dynamic clearance under autox conditions? Only one way to find out .

YMMV.

So bad news from Enkei. The highest offset they can make is +42. Seems that they don't have the tooling in those sizes to go any higher.

I'm looking into other options from Rays, Yokohama, SSR, or WedsSport