E30 M3 9Jx16 rims

I think it is hard to keep the rolling circumference the same when using a 245`s on the rear. A 45 profile is closest and it`s better to go slightly bigger than smaller.

On my old car I fitted 225 *45`s after ditching the 245`s and it looked fine, I was concerned how they would look on a 9inch rim(stretched!) but it didn`t look bad at all.

Nice car by the way




Edited by Darren M

Thanks for that Toby.  Think I'll go 225/45 both ends in that case, I'd rather having it look a little bit stretched than rub the arches.

Cheers, yeah they are the t*ts eh!

Some more pics of my car here: http://www.timskipper.net/E30M3

(aka Caneswell on evo and s14.net forums)

You've found this forum now then tim! Car still looks good. My car has the same size wheels and came with 225 45s allround, which looked fine in my opinion. They are now bald and will be replaced with the same size. I don't think you want to upset the balance by having wider tyres on the back. No one likes understeer!

225/45 ALL corners with 8J front and 9J rear is PERFECT.
This is how this set of rims was delivered. I had the same combination and still regret it sometimes that I have sold them! Keeping in mind that my rims would have needed a fair amout of money to be sorted.
This set of rims is still the best looking rim for the M3 IMHO.
I once thought to have the blistering idea of putting 245/45 on the 9J rears, but it was absolutly useless. It was rubbing on the inside and the increased circumference was slowing the car down.
But it looks impressive!

if Schitzer sold them on 8 and 9" rims I believe there can't be much wrong.
I agree that 9" is on the bigger end of the scale for that tyre. But it was road legal in Germany and they are quite strict as everything has to last on full speed Autobahn (which it did )

Edited by UweM3

rr_ww wrote: Uwe On the thread for the 17" splits you said that 245 would be a preference with regards to the 9J rears?

Because of the width/heigth ratio. If 245/40/16 would be available (maybe some brands do)than it's fine. But the 45 ratio of the 16" will require 225 to get the correct circumference.
Same for the 17". You have to use the 245/35 because of the circumference. Based on the rim width you have to work your way round to find the correct tyre within the specs.

On a related note what size wheels/tyres are your BBS Ch's?

8.5 x 17 ET15 all corners. 215/40/17 front and 245/35/17 rear. Good for looks but not the best set up for cornering. (Understeer!)

HI Tim Car looks very good - seats do not look like anyone has sat in them. how many miles has it done?

 

Martin

 

 

rr_ww wrote: How would you like to counter the understeer?

By ignoring it. You can't really do a lot against it without messing other things up (like tyre wear).
For "normal" Road use it doesn't really matter and for track days I have a set of 8x16 anyway.
I bought the CH's only for the looks.

UweM3 wrote: if Schitzer sold them on 8 and 9" rims I believe there can't be much wrong.

Probably, but not necessarily.  I can confirm from personal experience that one major car manufacturer was selling  at least one non-approved wheel and tyre combination on one of its highest selling ranges.  These are usually sales driven - nice looking wheel - good deal on the tyres - can they be physically fitted (forced) on to the wheel in testing? Excellent  - put them in the options list.   Fortunately it was detected at point of fit (where they are fitted in batches normally and problems become apparent fitting 75 not 2) and withdrawn before any got to market, but not without an awful lot of pressure from the vehicle manufacturer to fit them.

I have had dealings with seven separate vehicle manufacturers in the area of OE tyre fitment (3 passenger car and 4 commercial vehicle) and all bar one have had "issues" with inapproriate fitments - usually detected at point of fit and always sales driven.

I have seen a new tyre being forced on to a new wheel for a new commercial vehicle using the forks of a forklift to break the bead as there was no other way to do it.  This fitment (though not the method - they don't care how it is fitted but moan like hell if the rim or tyre is damaged)  was specified by the manufacturer and to say they were loathed to delist it is an understatement.   

The same manufacturer insisted that a previous OE tyre fitting contractor design, develop, commission and pay (£225,000)  for a machine specifically to fit a tyre wheel combo that was impossible to inflate. Again this fitment was not approved by tyre and wheel manufacturers and in this case all three fought like fury to retain the fitment even after the ETRA refused to sanction it, and four tyres came off the rims in PDI.

I have seen a vehicle manufacturer specify inner tubes for tubeless tyres to overcome problems caused by incorrect fitments.  Get the vehicle signed out to hell with the consequences is often the mantra.

I still think 225 is to narrow for a 9J rim.  :-)

My 2ps worth over.