Official Square Setup Picture / Specs / Handling Characteristics Thread

[NightmareMoon]

i am looking to get a square set up and looking into wheels that are 19x10 et 35.

my question...is a 295/35/19 too wide for a 10 in wheel? and i suppose there will be slight poke in the rear and flush up front based on what I've seen with how 285s fit.

and Im also assuming if 10 is too narrow then 10.5 would be better but ill need extended studs?

Thanks for any help

tires I'm looking at are MPS4S

295 on a 10” is a little wide, but I bet it would fit fine with a small 5mm front spacer. Flush or poke is highly dependent on how much camber you’re (willing to) run. Close to 2 degrees in the rear and it shouldn’t be too pokey.

Since a 295 is going to take up the space anyway, you might as well put it on a 10.5” wheel. You could even do an 11” front w/o spacer and w/o extended studs if you’re willing to give up the ability to rotate wheels front to back. For a street setup tho, a 285 MP4S on a 10” is really easy.

Sponsored

 

[Norm Peterson]

i am looking to get a square set up and looking into wheels that are 19x10 et 35.

my question...is a 295/35/19 too wide for a 10 in wheel? and i suppose there will be slight poke in the rear and flush up front based on what I've seen with how 285s fit.

and Im also assuming if 10 is too narrow then 10.5 would be better but ill need extended studs?

Thanks for any help

tires I'm looking at are MPS4S

10" is the recommended minimum wheel width for 295/xx tires. So it's legitimately do-able, if you don't mind trading away a little cornering response and steering precision. Ride quality might improve a tad, though not much over 285/35's on the same 10" wide wheels. But I agree with Nightmare, if you're going to go with 295's you might as well design the package around making them at least "measuring width" good. Otherwise 285/35's on wheels of their measuring width (10").


Norm

 

[Biggsy]

295 on a 10” is a little wide, but I bet it would fit fine with a small 5mm front spacer. Flush or poke is highly dependent on how much camber you’re (willing to) run. Close to 2 degrees in the rear and it shouldn’t be too pokey.

Since a 295 is going to take up the space anyway, you might as well put it on a 10.5” wheel. You could even do an 11” front w/o spacer and w/o extended studs if you’re willing to give up the ability to rotate wheels front to back. For a street setup tho, a 285 MP4S on a 10” is really easy.

10" is the recommended minimum wheel width for 295/xx tires. So it's legitimately do-able, if you don't mind trading away a little cornering response and steering precision. Ride quality might improve a tad, though not much over 285/35's on the same 10" wide wheels. But I agree with Nightmare, if you're going to go with 295's you might as well design the package around making them at least "measuring width" good. Otherwise 285/35's on wheels of their measuring width (10").


Norm

Thanks guys for the responses! Yea I will most likely just end up doing 285s on 10" to be safe BUT if I were to do 295s on 10.5", is there an offset that will allow me to do so without spacers on a square set up?

 

[NightmareMoon]

10.5 square? No, not really any single offsets which will work well square w/o spacers. Offsets that fit without poking in the rear are probably blocked by the struts in the front.

However, I think 10.5 ET 38 would fit in the rear, but it would probably be barely rubbing in the front. I think it would be very close but should work with a 5mm front spacer (get a hubcentric one). Poke on the rear would look like a PP2 rear wheel, but 2/10ths of an inch more pokey, and the front would be aggressively flush. I'm guessing with the spacer you'd have 4-5mm clearance at the strut. You'd want to run aggressive camber in the back ~1.80-2 degrees if you wanted it to look flush, cause its definitely on the pokey side of things. 5mm is the maximum slip on spacer you should run with the stock studs while still getting enough thread engagement. Any more than that and you should be looking at extended studs.

You could run a ET40, but you'd probably only have like 2-3mm clearance at the strut with the 5mm spacer which makes it hard for me to recommend without going to larger spacer and running slightly extended studs, but the rear with an ET40 would poke just about exactly as much as a factory PP2 rear wheel.

 

[Biggsy]

10.5 square? No, not really any single offsets which will work well square w/o spacers. Offsets that fit without poking in the rear are probably blocked by the struts in the front.

However, I think 10.5 ET 38 would fit in the rear, but it would probably be barely rubbing in the front. I think it would be very close but should work with a 5mm front spacer (get a hubcentric one). Poke on the rear would look like a PP2 rear wheel, but 2/10ths of an inch more pokey, and the front would be aggressively flush. I'm guessing with the spacer you'd have 4-5mm clearance at the strut. You'd want to run aggressive camber in the back ~1.80-2 degrees if you wanted it to look flush, cause its definitely on the pokey side of things. 5mm is the maximum slip on spacer you should run with the stock studs while still getting enough thread engagement. Any more than that and you should be looking at extended studs.

You could run a ET40, but you'd probably only have like 2-3mm clearance at the strut with the 5mm spacer which makes it hard for me to recommend without going to larger spacer and running slightly extended studs, but the rear with an ET40 would poke just about exactly as much as a factory PP2 rear wheel.

Okay that makes sense! Thanks for the explanation. This gives me a better idea what to consider when looking to purchase.

Still trying to understand how wheel fitment works. Thanks again!

 

[Norm Peterson]

This comparison picture may help (I think these are the two cases). Sidewall shapes are curve-fit approximations that you probably won't find elsewhere. Sidewall and tread location differences are small, but the wider you go with tires and wheels the smaller the amount of "room for error". Going taller has a more apparent effect on clearances

Norm

 

[wildcatgoal]

275 or 285 on 10" wheels. 285 on my 10.5" wheels is perfect IMO. Hard to fine 10.5" wheels, but wish there were more as it's a very universal width for tires from 275 to 305 depending on the tire look you want to target.

 

[CTH621]

Paul pretty much answered all your questions. As far as alignment is concerned, even the stock amount of camber would work fine with the 20mm spacers. I'm currently sitting at -2.0*, so not too much more than stock.

Find the 19x11 square setup thread that killspray started. There are more details in there and eventually we are going to get around to getting more measurements with different combinations of front end setups.

Did you ever have problems with rubbing on the fenders with your setup? I'm thinking of doing the same but I'm on FRPP dampers only and 1 inch lowering springs. Not coilovers.

 

[Norm Peterson]

275 or 285 on 10" wheels. 285 on my 10.5" wheels is perfect IMO. Hard to fine 10.5" wheels, but wish there were more as it's a very universal width for tires from 275 to 305 depending on the tire look you want to target.

For a great many people, 10.5" would be a very good choice for at least 275/xx through 295/xx.

For tires wider than stock, I suspect most buyers fall into one of two categories - those who prefer a more conventional "muscle car" wheel & tire appearance and aren't all that interested in serious cornering and will pick 10's without giving it second thought, and those who really are that serious about their cornering who'll go straight for the 11's.


Norm

 

[NightmareMoon]

10.5" is perfect for some, but still its in the middle with better 11" track setups for 305 tires on one end, and ubiquitous and very streetable 10" setups on the other. The majority of the market seems pretty content with the existing 10 square and 10/11" staggered offerings which are not challenging at all to fit under the fenders.

IMHO, the real competition to a 10.5" square setup is the common 10/11" staggered setup for the street people, and square 11"s for the track rats, and it doesn't really offer any advantages over either of those in for those audiences. The 10.5" would not be able to be square and rotatable unless you're on extended studs already (and might as well go to 11"s), and if the 10.5" is a non-rotatable setup with specific offsets for front/rear, then its competing with the 10/11" setup, which the street people seem pretty happy with. 11" in the rear is > 10.5 you see.

 

[Biggsy]

This comparison picture may help (I think these are the two cases). Sidewall shapes are curve-fit approximations that you probably won't find elsewhere. Sidewall and tread location differences are small, but the wider you go with tires and wheels the smaller the amount of "room for error". Going taller has a more apparent effect on clearances

Norm

Thanks Norm! I greatly appreciate that

275 or 285 on 10" wheels. 285 on my 10.5" wheels is perfect IMO. Hard to fine 10.5" wheels, but wish there were more as it's a very universal width for tires from 275 to 305 depending on the tire look you want to target.

Yea, I was actually looking at your build log a week ago and thats what gave me the idea of 10.5 with 295s. Not wanting to go all the way to a square 305 with a spacer but also getting more rubber than a 10 with 285s. The ones that do exist or that i found are mostly rear wheels with rear wheel offsets and i dont have the resources for custom wheels

 

[BmacIL]

10.5" is perfect for some, but still its in the middle with better 11" track setups for 305 tires on one end, and ubiquitous and very streetable 10" setups on the other. The majority of the market seems pretty content with the existing 10 square and 10/11" staggered offerings which are not challenging at all to fit under the fenders.

IMHO, the real competition to a 10.5" square setup is the common 10/11" staggered setup for the street people, and square 11"s for the track rats, and it doesn't really offer any advantages over either of those in for those audiences. The 10.5" would not be able to be square and rotatable unless you're on extended studs already (and might as well go to 11"s), and if the 10.5" is a non-rotatable setup with specific offsets for front/rear, then its competing with the 10/11" setup, which the street people seem pretty happy with. 11" in the rear is > 10.5 you see.

*applause*

Perfectly said.

 

[MidwayJ]

20x10 +42 with 275/35 NT555 G2s all around

These wheels are TruForm TF104, look even better on the car than I had imagined.

Those look really nice. With +42, did you need spacers in front?

 

[Nagare]

Those look really nice. With +42, did you need spacers in front?

Thanks!

Not needed, but I bought some 5mm ones that I have not put on yet.The center caps do not sit fully in on the front wheels right now (you can kinda see it in that pic with the white edge to the upper left quadrant). I could remove that rubber cap inside, but I'd rather leave it there and use a slip on spacer. I'll get around to putting the spacer on one of these days...

 

[MidwayJ]

Thanks!

Not needed, but I bought some 5mm ones that I have not put on yet.The center caps do not sit fully in on the front wheels right now (you can kinda see it in that pic with the white edge to the upper left quadrant). I could remove that rubber cap inside, but I'd rather leave it there and use a slip on spacer. I'll get around to putting the spacer on one of these days...

Interesting. From the posts here I figured the offset needed to be less than 40 in that width to clear the suspension inside. I bought a set of 19x9.5 +33 wheels but waiting to wear out my current tires before buying the rubber.

Sponsored