Widest tire and wheel question...

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:56 am

I recently picked up a 1994 Turbo Legacy.

I'm pretty stoked on the car, but I am definately in need of some new kicks for it.

What is the widest tire I can fit on the Turbo? Will a 225 fit?

Also, what rims look good on the car? I REALLY like the Rota SDR's, but 17" sounds pretty damn big, but I've never seen a Legacy on 17's.

Any info would be great!

Also, what are opinions on the BFG G-Force KDW's? They have good numbers from Tirerack, and they aren't to pricey.

Does anyone know, off hand, the stock size of the STi tires? I want to see how much taller (or shorter) they are than the stock Legacy Turbo tires.

jake15 · Post by **jake15** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:39 am

Wheels are 17x8's with sti suspension, Version 2 i think

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:49 am

Woah, what size tires are those?

I'll be running STi Spec-C struts and Pink springs I think (still talking to a few people), so I may be sitting at the same level as that.

Do you have any rubbing issues with that setup? (I'll be on 17x7.5 with +45mm offset).

jake15 · Post by **jake15** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 7:27 am

no rubbing issues that i know of (my dad's car) but when i drive it i dont notice anything

you can even put on big brakes, 4 pots in front, 2 pots in rear.

THAWA · Post by **THAWA** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:10 am

225/50/16 fit and look great

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:10 am

What offset should I get?

The Rotas are only available in +48mm. Those won't stick out or anything, will they?

THAWA · Post by **THAWA** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:19 am

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthr ... did=335263

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:22 am

Perfect!

I am 99% sure that my car will look like this:

(quick photoshop)

What do you guy's think?

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:57 am

You don't happen to live around New England do you? Does that car have an AWIC? Looks just like one I test drove in western, MA a while back.

Steve

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:24 am

I bought it off e-bay. It's located in Avon, CT.

The guy didn't give me any details really, so I just assume that it is stock and everything.

If you drove it, how was it? I am VERY excited about it. We go up this weekend to drive it home. I'm happy

Edit: What do you think of the idea of 17" SDR's on the car?

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:45 am

If that's the same car (which it very well could be as it's not far from where this one was), it had a new clutch, around 135k, an air-water-intercooler, a little rust around the rear wheels (nothing big), horrible brakes, and it smoked at start up. Interior was decent, but looked more worn than mine (like new when I clean it). The used car dealer who was selling wouldn't come down from $5k and the car was slower then my N/A wagon at the time (off the line slower and then felt only marginally faster under boost). With the brakes, price he was asking, and bodywork needed, I didn't feel like diagnosing any possible turbo issue and fixing that, too, when I have a car that runs perfectly, has good brakes, and no unkown issues. Plus I prefer a wagon so I stuck with it. Anyway, that was a year and a half ago - I'm sure those issues would have been solved. At the time I didn't realize the AWIC wasn't stock.

Steve

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:51 am

Nah, this one has 94k. But it does have a small patch of rust on the wheel-well.

But what you just said scares the shit out of me

.

I HOPE it's not the same one...

Look familiar? I don't think cars can lose 40,000 miles in a year and a half...

THAWA · Post by **THAWA** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:00 am

unfortunately some do

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:12 am

It is possible I remember the mileage wrong and it is the same color, of course, but it might not be the same one. The interior in the one I drove was a little worn (normal or even better than average for its age, but I'm anal as mine's nearly perfect), but nthing you'd pick up in a photo. Do you have an engine pic? The AWIC on the top of the motor will be the real giveaway. It's the standard RS-looking AWIC (black tank with SUBARU in silver or white letters in front of the firewall in case you're not familiar). I doubt there'd be two with AWICs in the area. I don't think the problems were major - I would've bought it if the guy would've talked down to $3500 or 4k and I wasn't so sentimental about my wagon. Worse case the one I drove would need a new turbo (which was the weak stock one anyway). There's no way somenone wouldn't have fixed the brakes by now, but if they didn't I think it was just pads, rotors, and maybe a fluid change. It wasn't like they didn't stop the car as in a safety issue, just that they were very poor if you were planning on driving fast. Either way it was a nice looking car.

Steve

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:28 pm

I guess I'll end up finding out. The turbo will be swapped reguardless.

If that's the same car, can I sue or something for odometer rollback?

I am going to be PISSED if I drive all the way up to CT and find out that the car is a peice or something.

Although all of the problems you mentioned will be taken care of quickly. Interior is going out for a full WRX interior (possibly with STi front seats). Wheels are going for those above. Turbo and whatnot are going as well.

I can deal with everything else, lol.

Why would it be slow than your N/A car though? Weak turbo?

ciper · Post by **ciper** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:20 pm

Unlike what you see on TV wider is not better.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:20 pm

It wasn't slower or a piece. The guy just wanted too much and wouldn't talk even with cash in hand. It was only marginally faster than my N/A when the turbo kicked in. My N/A used to be pretty quick, though, I ran a 16.3 1/4 mi in it. I'd guess the turbo to be 16.2 or the same. I expected it to be noticeably faster and with the white smoke at start up I suspected a turbo issue. For that price I didn't want to deal with it. As for the mileage I may not have remembered it right and what I have is heresay as I picked the ad off the internet. These cars aren't really worth enough IMO to risk getting caught for odometer rollback, so either my memory is off (highly possible) or it's a different car. Sounds like you already are planning to fix the problem areas it had anyway, so to you the only issue would be the minor rust (could fix the expected minor scratches at the same time) and maybe standard brake issues although I'd bet that would have been resolved by now. The car had not been in an accident and felt very tight otherwise.

Steve

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:22 pm

ciper wrote:Unlike what you see on TV wider is not better.

True, but at 3,000 pounds, the Turbo Legacy is no Miata.

I'm not trying to go wide for traction on acceleration, I'm going wide for turning and braking performance. I could probably get away with 205's for the power I'll be putting out.

No sense in accelerating fast in a straight line if you can't hold a turn.

At what point does wide become too wide?

ciper · Post by **ciper** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:41 pm

Wider tires arent going to make you corner better either. Tires that react less are more important. You would be better off running stiff 215 series tires on a 7 inch wide 16 or 17 inch.
Think of it like a sway bar. Harder bushings can make more difference than larger bars, the point is to reach equilibrium. If your wide tires have soft sidewalls the car will stick until the flex stops and the sideways momentum of the car pulls you.

You do realize there is a balance where wider starts to reduce traction right?

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:37 pm

ciper wrote:Wider tires arent going to make you corner better either. Tires that react less are more important. You would be better off running stiff 215 series tires on a 7 inch wide 16 or 17 inch.
Think of it like a sway bar. Harder bushings can make more difference than larger bars, the point is to reach equilibrium. If your wide tires have soft sidewalls the car will stick until the flex stops and the sideways momentum of the car pulls you.

You do realize there is a balance where wider starts to reduce traction right?

I guess what I am asking is, why is a 225 to wide? What advantage is there to run a 215? The rims they will be going on are 17x7.5". I don't really care the width (225 or 215), I just thought 225/45's would be closer to stock size. That was the main reason for running a 225, minimize the effect on the speedometer.

Also, what's a decently stiff tire? I was thinking about the BFG G-Force KDW, but I'd like other opinions.

ciper · Post by **ciper** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:28 am

The thread title was widest tire, not will 225 fit. I was responding to that. 225 is okay but you will have to worry about inner AND out clearance, where a 215 is more forgiving.

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:45 am

Doh! Sorry for the clarical error.

I was talking to SubyDude at NASIOC about the wheels (17x7.5 Rota SDR's), and he was saying that the car will clear 235's before rubbing becomes a problem. He said 225's would fit fine, but I'm not sure.

215's would be fine, as long as the overall height is about the same.

Will a 215 width tire be wide enough to work with a 7.5" rim?

Any info on the tires? Would an 18 pound rim be pushing it? 2 pounds heavier per corner than stock WRX rims, but will a 225 or 215 be to wide for the 6.5" wide WRX rims?

Damn my newbieness

mTk · Post by **mTk** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:52 am

215 will fit fine on a 7.5" width. I'm running 205 on mine.

MK

ciper · Post by **ciper** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:35 am

If you plan to run the Rotas or wheels with the same offset and subydude has tested them on your SPECIFC model then Id go with the 225. Problem is what fits on one car might not on another especially if you suspension isnt matched to the wheels.

I think you should be after the lightest wheels of smallest diameter you can live with. A 16 pound 16 inch is "faster" than a 16 pound 17 inch. Also the tires to fit the 16 inch are "faster" than the tires to fit the 17. Caused by the movement of weight towards the outside like a flywheel and the 17 inch being thicker near the outside edge.

If you can get a set of cheap WRX rims and spend the money saved on some super sticky tires I suggest doing that instead of blowing your wad on expensive 17 and having to settle with tires with less traction. The 17 will have shorter sidewall though so its a tough decision.

You know you can get 13 pound 16x7 rotas from subydude for 500 shipped brand new.

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:47 am

I was looking at those. I can get the SDR's for the same price.

I am actually kind of reconsidering the SDR's for exactly the reason you said. 16" rims will be faster, even if they are the same weight as the 17'ers.

What size tire (225 width or 215) is the same height as stock?

legacycentral bbs

A forum for 89-94 BC-BF(BJ) Legacy Owners and Fans

Widest tire and wheel question...

Widest tire and wheel question...