Pros/Cons of a staggered wheel/tire setup

[Matticus91]

My decision timeline for new wheels and tires is still far out but I'm curious if anyone has any input on whether I should go with a staggered wheel/tire setup or a square one?

I've read through the wheel/tire thread plenty of times.


I know the style of wheels I want, and I know I want 18's. I don't want/need anything crazy as far as handling goes. I'd really just like the wheels to be close to flush with the fenders and fit right without rubbing.

[VRG_135]

I was wondering the same thing this morning.
Pro: Better tire wear (you can rotate the tires). I wonder if I can fit my car square with one of the wheel sizes I currently have.
ps.... My Caddy SRX was staggered, and those cars are infamous for going
through tires yearly.

[Fume]

Pros for staggered:
- E82 platform makes it much easier to fit wider in the rear than the front. So if you go square, you're either sacrificing rear width or doing some fender rolls + more front camber to match front width to rear width and also maybe using spacers since rear needs higher offsets than the front.
- Some people like the look of staggered wheels more.

Cons:
- Less balanced than having square (i.e. makes the car more likely to understeer).
- More expensive since you can't rotate front and rear tires.

[Matticus91]

Originally Posted by VRG_135

I was wondering the same thing this morning.
Pro: Better tire wear (you can rotate the tires). I wonder if I can fit my car square with one of the wheel sizes I currently have.
ps.... My Caddy SRX was staggered, and those cars are infamous for going
through tires yearly.

Originally Posted by Fume

Pros for staggered:
- E82 platform makes it much easier to fit wider in the rear than the front. So if you go square, you're either sacrificing rear width or doing some fender rolls + more front camber to match front width to rear width and also maybe using spacers since rear needs higher offsets than the front.
- Some people like the look of staggered wheels more.

Cons:
- Less balanced than having square (i.e. makes the car more likely to understeer).
- More expensive since you can't rotate front and rear tires.

Thanks guys great input and exactly what I was expecting to hear.

So with this in mind - would it make sense to do a square setup with spacers in the back? In my mind, this would make the most sense for tirewear and handling, and still give the wider look out back even though the tires are actually the same size.

[Ric in RVA]

Will rear wheels fit up front with a fender roll and camber pins/ M3 control arms?

[lowbudgethero]

Originally Posted by Ric in RVA

Will rear wheels fit up front with a fender roll and camber pins/ M3 control arms?

+10mm or 12mm spacer
m3 control arms are optional, but helps

[Tommm]

Depends on whether you want the better driving car or the cooler looking car. Once you decide that, you will know the route to go.

[Matticus91]

Originally Posted by Tommm

Depends on whether you want the better driving car or the cooler looking car. Once you decide that, you will know the route to go.

Would doing a square setup with small spacers in the back noticeably change handling for the worse?

[Tommm]

Originally Posted by Matticus91

Would doing a square setup with small spacers in the back noticeably change handling for the worse?

Handling is subjective. What I think is better you many not.

I like a square setup because the cars are designed with understeer for safety reasons, and a staggered setup increases understeer. I also like to rotate my tires.

As for spacers, everything you do has an effect on something else. If you lower your suspension, you change the geometry of the triangle that is the top of the strut to the control arm at the subframe to the control arm at the ball joint and back to the top of the strut. If you change that (I know you didnt ask that), and then add a spacer that puts the tire farther out, how does the contact patch differ from where you started?

How does just a difference in the offset affect the rest of the geometry? On a solid axle car, not much. on our car with IRS, and struts... I don't know. That's where the internet comes in and articles written by people who do this regularly help.

Remember what Newton said - every action has an equal reaction. You have to find the balance that is right for you. I made these mistakes, and am trying not to make many more.

[snub-nose 28]

Originally Posted by lowbudgethero

m3 control arms are optional, but helps

With all due respect on this forum, I disagree these being optional...

Why? Personal experience...validated by a long list of mods in this very community.

I installed them and they make a world of difference in turn-in, front entry response and tracking precision. Near nervous? Almost but not annoyingly so. The M rack does that!

This does not alter physics, but as for driving feel, handling dynamic and seat-of-the-trousers enjoyment, they are essential.

If it's good enough for 1M it's okay for my more well-done beyond stock handling focused NA '09. IMO, spacers for a DD are well, spacers...and not routinely endorsed.

APEX ARC-8 or VMR offer such great choices for looks, make it handle first -save them for last, "...lookin' good!!"

[lowbudgethero]

Originally Posted by snub-nose 28

With all due respect on this forum, I disagree these being optional...

Why? Personal experience...validated by a long list of mods in this very community.

I installed them and they make a world of difference in turn-in, front entry response and tracking precision. Near nervous? Almost but not annoyingly so. The M rack does that!

This does not alter physics, but as for driving feel, handling dynamic and seat-of-the-trousers enjoyment, they are essential.

If it's good enough for 1M it's okay for my more well-done beyond stock handling focused NA '09. IMO, spacers for a DD are well, spacers...and not routinely endorsed.

APEX ARC-8 or VMR offer such great choices for looks, make it handle first -save them for last, "...lookin' good!!"

dude i meant optional to fit the tires, not handling