Fitting 18x10.5+22 squared on E46 M3

[Jimbo's M]

There's something to be said about the "old head" forum mentality--so many people are ultra conservative when it comes to wheel and tire fitment, it appears as though we're stuck in 2006.

Something to be said? LOL! Please, share your infinite wisdom. I imagine one or two of us think this already classic is fine without clown wheels.

[bigjae46]

I run 10.5 +22 with 265/35s. This is primarily a track car but I street drive it frequently. I'm not that low but I plan on going a little lower soon. I track it with this set up and it does not rub at all. I'm not even running particularly high spring rates, but I am running -3.8* front and -2.5* rear camber. I can run a 10mm spacer in the rear on the street at this height. Front fenders are rolled and the rears are shaved. Tuners in Japan run this size all day long.

What kind of tires? I've been thinking about trying something wider than 275 on a 10.5" ET22 wheel. I'm running -4.0 camber front and -3.0 in the rear...I might have more of an issue with the rear. I'm going to have to figure out a way to get the inner lip flat.

I'm wondering if an 18x11 et25 will fit. Don't Ohlins reduce the inner wheel clearance a little bit more than most other coilovers? I have TC Klines...I think those are relatively wheel friendly.

[Cronenberged]

I run 10.5 +22 with 265/35s. This is primarily a track car but I street drive it frequently. I'm not that low but I plan on going a little lower soon. I track it with this set up and it does not rub at all. I'm not even running particularly high spring rates, but I am running -3.8* front and -2.5* rear camber. I can run a 10mm spacer in the rear on the street at this height. Front fenders are rolled and the rears are shaved. Tuners in Japan run this size all day long.

- a 265 on a 10.5 is an optimum stretch for predictable grip and breakaway
- I don't rub at all, even on track
- it looks good
- people still say they "don't fit"

It's definitely aggressive, but at the end of the day to each there own. I don't understand why people care what other people run on there car, they don't drive it, own it, or plan to buy it. It's definitely not for me, I think the 265 on et35 looks best. Looks like high negative camber will work best to get everything to fit looking forward to pics.

[bigjae46]

It's definitely aggressive, but at the end of the day to each there own. I don't understand why people care what other people run on there car, they don't drive it, own it, or plan to buy it. It's definitely not for me, I think the 265 on et35 looks best. Looks like high negative camber will work best to get everything to fit looking forward to pics.

Those people can STFU! What's the problem with trying to fit more wheel and tire on a track car?

Back to the regularly scheduled program.

[Gearhead55]

Thank you!! There's something to be said about the "old head" forum mentality--so many people are ultra conservative when it comes to wheel and tire fitment, it appears as though we're stuck in 2006.

Looks incredible. Appreciate the info, looks like I'll need a decent amount of front camber but will be fine otherwise.

1000% about the forum mentality. Especially when it comes to picking spring rates and traditional suspension set ups and what not. If you actually go to the track people are much more apt to push boundaries if it's functional.

For you I say get some camber plates and send it. We need to run this much negative camber up front with this chassis anyway, it's not a cosmetic choice just to fit wide wheels. Based on my tire wear I should actually start running MORE negative camber up front. Obviously how much you are street driving the car changes that choice. The static camber needed up front is an inherent downside to the front suspension design of these things.

[Gearhead55]

Something to be said? LOL! Please, share your infinite wisdom. I imagine one or two of us think this already classic is fine without clown wheels.

My infinite wisdom is that I went 1:58 at Buttonwillow CW13, full weight, full interior, no aero, with flat-ride spring rates on a 200tw tire on "clown wheels". The proof is in the pudding.

I swear old BMW guys are getting just as prissy as porsche owners. Let people do what they want with their own cars.

What kind of tires? I've been thinking about trying something wider than 275 on a 10.5" ET22 wheel. I'm running -4.0 camber front and -3.0 in the rear...I might have more of an issue with the rear. I'm going to have to figure out a way to get the inner lip flat.

I'm wondering if an 18x11 et25 will fit. Don't Ohlins reduce the inner wheel clearance a little bit more than most other coilovers? I have TC Klines...I think those are relatively wheel friendly.

Nankang CR-S. Great tire. It does run wide. I know people have gotten away with a 285/30, which actually has less overall diameter than a 265/35 IIRC. There is a guy in japan with a 295/30 on 10.5 but I don't know the offset and I don't think he tracks it. You have to trim the lip in the rear, you probably cant get away with just a roll. I'm on MCS 1WNR (I think 6in spring in the front) and clearance is pretty tight.

[Jimbo's M]

My infinite wisdom is that I went 1:58 at Buttonwillow CW13, full weight, full interior, no aero, with flat-ride spring rates on a 200tw tire on "clown wheels". The proof is in the pudding.

I swear old BMW guys are getting just as prissy as porsche owners. Let people do what they want with their own cars.

Good for you. I see a car sitting on the street. I have ZERO problem with people doing with the car what they want. If you'll notice at the top, my comment was about the previous comment...

"There's something to be said about the "old head" forum mentality--so many people are ultra conservative when it comes to wheel and tire fitment, it appears as though we're stuck in 2006."

So, who's doing the judging? As usual, it's my way or the highway in certain "circles". I'll leave it at that.

[9kracing]

Nankang

..

[cornerbalanced]

Something to be said? LOL! Please, share your infinite wisdom. I imagine one or two of us think this already classic is fine without clown wheels.

That’s your opinion, and that’s fine. I have a differing one, and that’s fine.

It’s just funny when you go to the track, or to the canyons and see people running WILDLY different setups than what is commonly propagated by a lot of people on the forums. Not to say one camp is wrong, and the other is right—more so to say that we all have different preferences when modifying, and driving these cars. It’s a disservice to the car itself to say (x) objectively wont work when it in fact can, and may serve some performance benefits.

On a separate note, I never started this thread with the intent to upset anyone, apologies if that has been the result.

We ultimately learned that 10.5+22 squared will easily clear the rear, and *will* fit up front, just with more than -3 degrees of camber and rolled fenders (YMMV re: spring perch clearance). I was previously unable to search this information, so I hope it may be of some use to someone down the road.

[Gearhead55]

..

Whats the joke here? The CRS, especially the V2, is just as fast as the AO52, doesn't get as greasy throughout the session, and it lasts significantly longer. If you think that Nankang isn't a serious competitor nowadays with the CRS and the AR1 then you either aren't tracking or you're not paying attention.

[EthanolTurbo]

..

Nankang makes some of the best track tires on the market, you know that right?

[Gearhead55]

That's another example of old-head forum thinking that has not adapted to the real world. "These brands are 'good' tires and these brands are 'cheap' tires", without any real world experience of what tires actually perform better nowadays. Tire technology changes faster than any other aspect of these cars and clinging to old stereotypes is just going to leave you with a less-than-optimum set up.

[jet_dogg]

So if a traditionalist opts for Michelins then he is left with a less than optimal setup in your opinion because he is clinging to old stereotypes and not new thinking adapted to the real world that the cheap tire brand is better now?

[enjoy_m3]

I hope I can clear up the assumptions here without causing further debates. I think the issue is that nankang was quickly dismissed because it doesn't have the reputation of the big conglomerate companies without even considering it's capability. This becomes a conversation between guys who track and guys who don't, which will not likely see any middle ground if one side assumes that a certain brand is a joke. I can safely say majority of track drivers I know who have tried Nankang CRS have been happy with them. I tried cup 2 tires myself and they don't have the grip a falken rt660 has which is a smaller company. Brand reputation really has a hold on consumers. Which I completely understand but doesn't mean smaller companies should easily be dismissed without consideration.

[Gearhead55]

So if a traditionalist opts for Michelins then he is left with a less than optimal setup in your opinion because he is clinging to old stereotypes and not new thinking adapted to the real world that the cheap tire brand is better now?

For what application and which Michelin? If someone is using a PS4S or Cup 2 over a CR-S on the track simply because one is a Michelin and one is an Nankang then yes, they are a dumbass. The CR-S is a better track tire. If you want to use a PS4S as a street tire go ahead, you'll get longer life but you'll be sacrificing overall grip. Tire choice is completely dependent on the use case. People scoffing at Nankang because it's a smaller company is stupid.

I run PS4S on my X3M because it's a daily and that's a good street tire, but I'm not married to the brand just because other people use it. If someone makes a better street tire in the sizes I need I'd happily switch it up.