TheLoyale Posted April 29, 2012 Author Share Posted April 29, 2012 Correct! 15x6 is the wheel size. 15 inches tall by 6 inches wide. 6x5.5 is the lug pattern. 6 lugs by 5.5 inches or 139.7mm. It says 3.50 inches is the back spacing. So almost 5" I measured at 4 and 3/4". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcox Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 so if stock backspacing is aproximatly 4.75" and those cregars are 3.5" of back spacing they would be inside the wheel well more, or stick out more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 29, 2012 Author Share Posted April 29, 2012 so if stock backspacing is aproximatly 4.75" and those cregars are 3.5" of back spacing they would be inside the wheel well more, or stick out more? Stick out more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcox Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Stick out more. so those white pugs on your wagon have the same as stock back spacing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 so those white pugs on your wagon have the same as stock back spacing? The pugs in fact stick stick out a little more then stock, they are a wider rim to begin with and then the wide mud tires. Peugeot wheels are pretty close, even in the 15" alloy form. The tailer wheels I'm looking at should also be pretty close to stock so I've seen. Toyota Wheels are pretty close too, which is why people run them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wentz912 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Stick out more. This is of course assuming that the wheel width is the same. Any of the numbers alone will NOT tell you how much more will stick out past the fender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 This is of course assuming that the wheel width is the same. Any of the numbers alone will NOT tell you how much more will stick out past the fender. Yep. Best thing to do is see who has run whichever wheel, for a "view on car" approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcox Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 ok so then look at these two. would i be able to mount an 215, or 235 on them. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/USW-704-5860P/ http://www.summitracing.com/parts/USW-70-5860P/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wentz912 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Yep. Best thing to do is see who has run whichever wheel, for a "view on car" approach. Well, really the "best" way to do it empirically is figure out how much wheel there is from the wheel hub out and compare that to a stock Subaru wheel. The backspace will determine whether or not the wheels will rub on the suspension, but really that's about it. Wheel width minus backspace is how much wheel there is from the hub out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcox Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 hey "wentz912" woul i be able to mount a 8.5" or 9.25" tire on an 8" wheel? thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wentz912 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Of course, and feel free to refer to me as simply Wentz. I still respond to it pretty easily from my military background As long as the wheel isn't literally narrower than the wheel, you should have no problem mounting it. Even a little narrower than the wheel isn't a HUGE deal, the vw guys do it all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcox Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 ok so then look at these two. would i be able to mount an 215, or 235 on them. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/USW-704-5860P/ http://www.summitracing.com/parts/USW-70-5860P/ ok so then these would definitely work with a 215, or 235? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) The tires will work just fine on the wheels. Its the point of the tires rubbing on the struts. The widest I can run a '95 Outback were 225/60/16s (I had about 1/4" between the sidewall and the strut body) Keep that in mind. This Brat has 16x6 6x139 wheels, with 205/45/16 tires. Pretty wide... This is the setup I am going to run. Edited April 30, 2012 by TheLoyale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wentz912 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Yes most definitely, another thing to remember is that the shorter the sidewall ratio is on a tire, the easier it will stay it's true width, leaning towards actually being a touch wider from having a more square shoulder profile. Example: In the same exact tire, a 205/75-15 although reading as the same tread width size on the sidewall, won't be quite as wide as a 205/55-15. Tracking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Very true. When the Profile number goes up (55, 60, 65, 75 ect..) so does the width. Example: In the same exact tire, a 205/75-15 although reading as the same tread width size on the sidewall, won't be quite as wide as a 205/55-15. Tracking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wentz912 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Very true. When the Profile number goes up (55, 60, 65, 75 ect..) so does the width. Very true? You just agreed to the opposite of what I said :banana: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 My understanding is, if you have a tire with a higher profile number (75) the sidewall will bulge out more (Making it wider) if you run a (70) the sidewall has less bulge and is more square (As you said) making it a fraction narrower. I notice tires with higher profile numbers have more sidewall bulge, and less tread width, then a lower profile numbered tire, where the sidewall and tread width are pretty much the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wentz912 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 My understanding is, if you have a tire with a higher profile number (75) the sidewall will bulge out more (Making it wider) if you run a (70) the sidewall has less bulge and is more square (As you said) making it a fraction narrower. I notice tires with higher profile numbers have more sidewall bulge, and less tread width, then a lower profile numbered tire, where the sidewall and tread width are pretty much the same. That's what I was trying to say, even though apparently it didn't come out right. I was stating this for the purposes of contact patch, which is what we all REALLY care about right? That said, a revised version of my statement would be: The lower the numerical number of the sidewall aspect ratio, the wider the contact patch will be with the same numerical tread width. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) There we go! Misinterpretation of what each of us were saying at its finest. Personally, I want the contact patch of a Bicycle, with the width of a 10.5" tire. (Ballon effect?) Hahaha Edited April 30, 2012 by TheLoyale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wentz912 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Now that's just silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Indeed it was intended to be. But in all seriousness, here are a few Subarus running 6 lug hubs. As I said before, Toyota uses a pretty close to stock backspacing. These are 15x7" alloys found on 4-Runner/Hilux/FJ80 This one has 15" Nissan wheels. And this one, I have no info on the wheels, nor tires, other then the rubber is 32" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Also another, which is running 14" Mazda wheels. As you can see, the Backspacing is again, very close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Wilcox, Here are some wheels similar to what your looking at. The backspacing on these look fairly close as well. Although, he re-drilled the the wheels to 4x140 vs drilling the hubs to 6x139. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoyale Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 This is now the official write-up in the USRM. Please, no posting in this thread: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=132536 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcox Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 My understanding is, if you have a tire with a higher profile number (75) the sidewall will bulge out more (Making it wider) if you run a (70) the sidewall has less bulge and is more square (As you said) making it a fraction narrower. I notice tires with higher profile numbers have more sidewall bulge, and less tread width, then a lower profile numbered tire, where the sidewall and tread width are pretty much the same. close, your on the right track. for example an 175R/75/15. the tire is 175mm wide, the side wall is 75% of that, and it is radial tire on a 15" wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.