Yea, they're 20s
#53
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you want 20s GET A CRUISER OR SUV NOT A SPORTS CAR
19s are totally acceptable on grand touring sports cars though, i'll have 19s on my rx8
hate so much i WANT TO SHOOT MYSELF WHENEVER I SEE THEM ON SPORTS CARS 15-17 inch if you want performance 18-19 if you want appearance with the sacrifice of some performance, anything more is unacceptable for a sports car, it totally ruins the balance. age 16
19s are totally acceptable on grand touring sports cars though, i'll have 19s on my rx8
hate so much i WANT TO SHOOT MYSELF WHENEVER I SEE THEM ON SPORTS CARS 15-17 inch if you want performance 18-19 if you want appearance with the sacrifice of some performance, anything more is unacceptable for a sports car, it totally ruins the balance. age 16
#57
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EZZY
i wouldnt call the RX-8 a performance sports car.....
#59
8 all the way
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Killeen, Tx
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see what the big deal is, 20s are only 1" bigger than 19s its not even that noticeable. So I don't understand if you like 19s why wouldn't you like 20s. But hey thats your opinion. I think the 8 looks sick with 20s, it just fills in everything. And why are 18s and 19s good for appearance but 20s aren't. Your really not making any sense.
#60
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its hard to explain but 20 is the barrier between looking proper and too big, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and for me and most, its at the 20 inch level.
#61
cry me a river...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Syd / Melb
Posts: 4,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe you havent see a nice look 8 with 20" setup.....
but again, you are entitled to your opinion..... and everyone should respect that.... (same goes to the onwer in the 20" club ;-p)
but again, you are entitled to your opinion..... and everyone should respect that.... (same goes to the onwer in the 20" club ;-p)
#64
Park an 8 next to a normal car and the 18's already look huge. 20's are silly, poor ride, poor performance. The core of the 8 is a light well handling car, 20's don't belong with that idea, 18's are already more than big enough.
#65
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 20" wheels weigh the same as the factory 18s, but the tires weigh more. The tires grip a whole lot better though.
kelrx8- the springs im using for the front are the Racing Beat springs. they offer about .5 inch drop in the front which should be just aobut right. The car should look pretty level with them as well
kelrx8- the springs im using for the front are the Racing Beat springs. they offer about .5 inch drop in the front which should be just aobut right. The car should look pretty level with them as well
#66
Originally Posted by hoosteen
Dude... you must have lost a LOT of performance.... especially off the line.
Even though they are the same weight as stockers (so you claim... i don't believe it personally). The rotational mass spans a greater diameter and therefore you are losing great amounts of performance from you big clunky wheels. All show.... no go.
and regarding IzoomzoomI... you can't have both a 20" rim and keep any decent performance. First off, 20's are downright heavy... i don't care how much you say they weigh... they are going to be AT LEAST 25lbs... and that's being generous.
Now if they were the same weight as stock... the larger diameter rim will have more mass toward the outward reaches of the rim and away from the center of rotation and therefore, much more "resistance" to acceleration.... making it harder to start... and stop.
Even though they are the same weight as stockers (so you claim... i don't believe it personally). The rotational mass spans a greater diameter and therefore you are losing great amounts of performance from you big clunky wheels. All show.... no go.
and regarding IzoomzoomI... you can't have both a 20" rim and keep any decent performance. First off, 20's are downright heavy... i don't care how much you say they weigh... they are going to be AT LEAST 25lbs... and that's being generous.
Now if they were the same weight as stock... the larger diameter rim will have more mass toward the outward reaches of the rim and away from the center of rotation and therefore, much more "resistance" to acceleration.... making it harder to start... and stop.
Last edited by FLybOi drE; 03-15-2006 at 10:07 AM.
#67
^^^Actually, that would be "moment of inertia"
Well if you like 20's, why not 22's? At SOME point, it starts looking badly proportioned and cartoonish. Maybe someone with an art or design background can chime in, but I'd say the car looks like it was designed for 18's or 19's. Above or below that, and it looks awkward. I can understand sacrificing some performance for improved style (or visa-versa), but I can't understand sacrificing performance for less style.
I'd say the best looking 8's are dropped, a little more in front, with 18~19 wheels. Preferably with an offset so they line up with the outside of the car.
Originally Posted by Terrance26
I don't see what the big deal is, 20s are only 1" bigger than 19s its not even that noticeable. So I don't understand if you like 19s why wouldn't you like 20s. But hey thats your opinion. I think the 8 looks sick with 20s, it just fills in everything. And why are 18s and 19s good for appearance but 20s aren't. Your really not making any sense.
I'd say the best looking 8's are dropped, a little more in front, with 18~19 wheels. Preferably with an offset so they line up with the outside of the car.
#68
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Hate" is such a strong word.
How about "dislike, and dislike more than a little". -37
Now if you asked "What do you think about calling wheels 'rims'?"
HATE. -37
Having said that, I saw a commercial last night for the Chevy Cobalt and they talked about the car's "rims" in the add. I guess you need to speaka da language to your intended market and all, but why not just say "we gots your bling ra' here".
*yeeccch*
How about "dislike, and dislike more than a little". -37
Now if you asked "What do you think about calling wheels 'rims'?"
HATE. -37
Having said that, I saw a commercial last night for the Chevy Cobalt and they talked about the car's "rims" in the add. I guess you need to speaka da language to your intended market and all, but why not just say "we gots your bling ra' here".
*yeeccch*
#69
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KYRX8
the springs im using for the front are the Racing Beat springs. they offer about .5 inch drop in the front which should be just aobut right. The car should look pretty level with them as well
#71
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, it's a classic no-no to mix 'n' match springs of different types, unless they're MADE to work together.
Back in "the day" when I had a modded VW Jetta A3, the problem was that the rear springs used on the Jetta and the Golf/GTI were the same, so the extra weight of the trunk would make the rear of the car droop slightly relative to the front. When I popped in Eibach springs with Bilstein dampers the problem was even MORE noticeable, even with the adjustable rear spring perch on the Bilsteins in the highest position. The obvious answer from a LOOKS standpoint would've been to leave the stock rear springs in and only put the dropped springs on the front... But noone in their right mind would do that, at least if they considered anything aside from looks (linear rate rears and progressive rate fronts are a BAD idea from a handling and driveablility standpoint).
Then again, maybe the RB units have the same spring rate as the stockers and are just shorter. Doubtful, but possible.
Back in "the day" when I had a modded VW Jetta A3, the problem was that the rear springs used on the Jetta and the Golf/GTI were the same, so the extra weight of the trunk would make the rear of the car droop slightly relative to the front. When I popped in Eibach springs with Bilstein dampers the problem was even MORE noticeable, even with the adjustable rear spring perch on the Bilsteins in the highest position. The obvious answer from a LOOKS standpoint would've been to leave the stock rear springs in and only put the dropped springs on the front... But noone in their right mind would do that, at least if they considered anything aside from looks (linear rate rears and progressive rate fronts are a BAD idea from a handling and driveablility standpoint).
Then again, maybe the RB units have the same spring rate as the stockers and are just shorter. Doubtful, but possible.
#73
if your not 1st your last
my rx8 is slow because I have 20' wait,wait
its a rx8 its slow to begin with.But it still handles better than my MONSTER.
but I understand your concern for the performance some of us only have 1 car to drive and the Rx8 maybe the most powerful car owned so far but theres alot better out there.
either way Rotary for life
its a rx8 its slow to begin with.But it still handles better than my MONSTER.
but I understand your concern for the performance some of us only have 1 car to drive and the Rx8 maybe the most powerful car owned so far but theres alot better out there.
either way Rotary for life
#74
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlueEyes
He obviously has no concern for performance, I wouldn't put it past him.
Thanks. I apologize for not buying my RX8 for performance. I guess you just cant have a good looking car, it has to be the complete package. i would have looked elswhere for performance if thats what i was concerned with.
As for the spring thing, using factory rear and RB front. Ill admit i hadnt put a lot of thought behind that. Ive seen many people run crazy combinations of springs with no negative affects so it didnt cross my mind. If that is in fact the case ill just call my distributors and see who wants to give me the best deal on some coilovers.
#75
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KYRX8
Ive seen many people run crazy combinations of springs with no negative affects so it didnt cross my mind. If that is in fact the case ill just call my distributors and see who wants to give me the best deal on some coilovers.
Having said that, I fear you are playing fast and loose with the balance of the car if you start mixing up your springs. If you've changed them and have noticed no ill effects, good on ya and I wish you the best. I just feel that Mazda knew what they were doing and built a fine road scalpel with good power (not world-beating power), phenomenal handling and feel, and truly great brakes... And messing with mismatched springs can only dilute that "feel", not to mention possibly being dangerous from a handling standpoint. If you've not noticed a problem with the setup the way you drive, then you're fine and I'm happy that you're happy. For me, though, I'm either going to leave it be or swap out the WHOLE spring package.