Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[Ginger_Extract]

Bumping this up. Any one else interested?

[bongo]

I'm interested. Any news from Apex?

[Ginger_Extract]

Also, I'm changing my vote. I want a 17x9.5 for the rear of these cars, and the offset needs to be between ET55-57.

I ended up buying a pair of the current 18x9.5 ET62 ARC8 and I burned through the fuel filler line on the passenger side, and contacted the chassis on the driver's side because the offset was too high. I'm currently using a 5mm spacer to clear the fuel filler, and it seems to just work. This is with a 255 width tire, so I can't imagine that people running 265s or larger aren't all running into the same problem. A local racer is using a 12mm spacer to clear the inside of the chassis with his 275 section width comp tires.

[Ginger_Extract]

Originally Posted by bongo

I'm interested. Any news from Apex?

Send them an email showing your interest. I have heard nothing back yet.

[John_01]

Originally Posted by Ginger_Extract

I ended up buying a pair of the current 18x9.5 ET62 ARC8 and I burned through the fuel filler line on the passenger side, and contacted the chassis on the driver's side because the offset was too high. I'm currently using a 5mm spacer to clear the fuel filler, and it seems to just work. This is with a 255 width tire, so I can't imagine that people running 265s or larger aren't all running into the same problem. A local racer is using a 12mm spacer to clear the inside of the chassis with his 275 section width comp tires.

Just curious - Have you maxed out the negative rear camber?
Maybe the ET62 wheels were designed with the assumption that wheel alignment would be kept at the stock settings.

[Ginger_Extract]

Originally Posted by John_01

Just curious - Have you maxed out the negative rear camber?
Maybe the ET62 wheels were designed with the assumption that wheel alignment would be kept at the stock settings.

Nope, I actually run the lowest camber setting that I can get at the rear with my ride height, -1.5, which is very much within OE spec.

[Expert@ApexWheels]

Hey Guys-

The APEX team check on this thread from time to time. If you're interested, please post in here or contact us at our 'SkunkWorks' site that Ginger_Extract mentioned. That's how we're collecting ideas for cool new products to bring to market soon: http://www.apexskunk.works/

Making noise can make wheels! We always seek to offer 'problem solver wheel fitments'. To do this, customer demand ends up making a business case for or against a new wheel tooling. The 1 series is particularly tricky due to the uniqueness of its fitments, being that they are mostly only applicable to 1 and 2 series. If you want this, you have to make noise and let us know


---Steve, on behalf of David

[Fume]

I might be in the minority here but both of these options kind of scare me in that I have a feeling both options will require both a large amount of negative camber and/or big amount of fender rolling, especially for the square fitment.

Coming from the viewpoint that I'm using this as mostly a daily driver, my ideal wheel would be something that would be allowed in STX classing (17x9 max wheel and 255 width tire max) with spacers up front if necessary to keep square tires and require no fender rolling and maybe up to -2 to -2.5 camber required max. With those last two requirements, 17x9 is probably just unrealistic.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Fume

I might be in the minority here but both of these options kind of scare me in that I have a feeling both options will require both a large amount of negative camber and/or big amount of fender rolling, especially for the square fitment.

Coming from the viewpoint that I'm using this as mostly a daily driver, my ideal wheel would be something that would be allowed in STX classing (17x9 max wheel and 255 width tire max) with spacers up front if necessary to keep square tires and require no fender rolling and maybe up to -2 to -2.5 camber required max. With those last two requirements, 17x9 is probably just unrealistic.

I'm very willing to run higher negative camber with fender work in order to run 17x9 and 255 tires in the front. It seems most if not all members in this thread share the same sentiment and are ready to go that extra mile. Having that fitment work in this car is so worth it!

I'd like to note that there are quite a few members here who have already fitted 255 on 18x9 wheels using spacers with no problems on the track. Also, I've been running -2.4 camber and 0 toe on the street for the past couple years and surprisingly it has not resulted in any significant amount of uneven wear.

[bokyo1987]

I voted for the 9.5s... But at this point I'd take either one as long as it actually gets produced lol.

[honesty]

I'd like to get a set of these before the spring/summer racing season begins. Had a set of APEX ARCs for autox on my E36 M3 and I'm very interested in a similar setup for my 135.

[JPuehl]

I have the 17x8.5" ET40 APEX ARC-8 Wheels and with a 245 rear tire and ~1" drop, the outside of the tire rubs a bit. I would like a 9" wheel with more offset so I can drive to the place we have our auto-cross events so I don't have to change tires at the event. I might be able to add more rear camber but I like where it is set now and would rather have a rim with the correct offset than change geometry to accommodate wheels.

[PeterPure]

I take a 9" wide 17" wheel to replace my 18's.

[pepper135I]

Bump!!!! I would order these in a minute!

[AGM2]

Originally Posted by Darkiedm4

I take a 9" wide 17" wheel to replace my 18's.

+1

[Newguy123]

Anything ever come of this? Running kosei k1 in the meantime

[TZANIDO777]

+1 would love a high offset 9.5" to fit a 275 in the rear in 17"

[berns]

I'm most interested in an aggressive square setup. I know APEX has done some testing to see if the 17" ARC8 can clear StopTech 355mm ST60 BBK, which is what I have.

I'm happy to cut the inner lip of my rear fender, or roll, same goes for the front.
Track guys are running -3* to -3.45* up front anyway and likely around -2.5* out back.

17x9 with BBK clearance and 255 or 265 square setup would be epic.

[hungry r]

Been 2 years since thread has started and still there is no ARC 8 in 17x9 et45

[lowside67]

The market for 17s is slowly dying - when you look at the size of brakes both stock and typical upgrades for newer performance cars, 18s are the new 17s. Doesn't surprise me that Apex will never build a 17x9 +45. Which is too bad.

-Mark

[Bimmer-Bob]

I have the 17x8.5" ET40 ARC-8s (E36 fitment) and I think they work out pretty well. I run 245mm-width tires and am lowered. Rear fenders are rolled a little, but the result is zero rubbing, even when loaded or during rapid weight transfers during AX.

I mean, I get that a wheel with an extra 1/2" of width and chassis-specific offsets would be better, but in the absence of perfect, there is at least a pretty workable solution.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by hungry r

Been 2 years since thread has started and still there is no ARC 8 in 17x9 et45

They make a 17x9 et42. Just pull the fenders an extra 3mm