cobra R brake kit what is best wheels for opentrack - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 49 Old 02-28-2009, 06:09 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
jaysch302's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 705
cobra R brake kit what is best wheels for opentrack

I am installing 13" 2000 Cobra R Brembo Front brake kit on my 95 GT

I had 17x9 17x10.5 Bullet wheels on it with Nitto NT01's. I am selling them to a friend because they wont fit due to the calipers.

Question is what wheels should i buy:

Thinking i still may need 14" brake kit in future cause i don't know if this kit is going to stop the car (552rwhp) I was thinking i would buy 18"s

is there a big performance gain due to weight of wheels?
like:

18x9 18x10 Saleen wheels
&
18x9 18x10 SSR or Volk

I need at least 18x10 or wider to get the power down what is the biggest that will fit?

the 17x10.5 has been working great

Any rims recomendations? I think i am going to buy Hoosier R6's for the first time ever how long should they live?

Thanks Fellas,
Jay


95 GT 331ci, T-76 770whp/675tq [email protected]
2015 C7 Stingray 7spd manual
2012 Mustang GT [email protected] sold
http://jaysch302.hollosite.com Youtube: Steelankles
jaysch302 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 49 Old 02-28-2009, 08:47 PM
Registered User
 
tigerdrvr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 488
For open track, I can't see any reason to get all spendy on wheels...the last 2-3 lbs a corner the Volks or SSR Comps will save means nothing, unless you are fighting for every 1/100 of a second...on the other hand, afaik, all Saleen wheels since the old Speedline made rims have been boat anchors (I haven't really looked at anything Saleen makes in years, so I could be way off base)...no reason to add an extra 5+ lbs of unsprung, rotational mass per corner, either. I'd think you could find something in between, maybe by OZ or Enkei, that would be a good compromise.

tigerdrvr is offline  
post #3 of 49 Old 02-28-2009, 11:03 PM
Registered User
 
2ndsideways's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: north jersey
Posts: 463
yea like the decision i just made to go with the 15.9lb Enkei RPF1s 17"x9". you think the 9lbs lighter per wheel compared to a cobra R replica will be a noticeable difference? it should excelerate faster, and stop shorter.

Must keep making progress
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
....

Last edited by 2ndsideways; 02-28-2009 at 11:06 PM.
2ndsideways is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 49 Old 02-28-2009, 11:40 PM
Registered User
 
tigerdrvr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 488
No, I don't think you'll notice any difference in the car's ability to "excelerate" or stop.

The RPF-01 is the type of light, cast wheel I was referring to, though, for the OP. Good bang for the buck and well proven design.
tigerdrvr is offline  
post #5 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 12:10 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Philly'ish
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysch302 View Post
Thinking i still may need 14" brake kit in future cause i don't know if this kit is going to stop the car (552rwhp) I was thinking i would buy 18"s

...I need at least 18x10 or wider to get the power down what is the biggest that will fit?

the 17x10.5 has been working great
552 rwhp will hardly tax the 2000R Brembo calipers with the right race pads and race rubber. Same with the going part. You don't need bigger wheels. You need real rubber. The stock Galpher pads Brembo's come with are okay but dusty as hell and not as capable as dedicated track pads (which means you must run race rubber because street tires will not handle the grip).

John
Ex-Novi'd 99 Cobra
E36 LS2

Last edited by Maynor; 03-01-2009 at 12:16 AM.
Maynor is offline  
post #6 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 01:13 AM
Registered User
 
tigerdrvr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 488
^I'd agree. If the OP has to go to 18" rims to clear the calipers, maybe going to equal size (18X9.5" or 18X10" are pretty common sizes) all around and running 295/30-18 R6's makes sense, if there's no clearance problems up front. The 295 will work fine on as small as a 9.5" rim and running the same size all around makes it easier to manage tire wear.

Last edited by tigerdrvr; 03-01-2009 at 01:17 AM.
tigerdrvr is offline  
post #7 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 02:39 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Philly'ish
Posts: 813
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist but all 17x9 mustang wheels I've heard of will clear the Brembo's. 18s aren't necessary. Its the width of the calipers that causes clearance issues with 17x8 wheels, with very few exceptions. Not the height of the caliper.

John
Ex-Novi'd 99 Cobra
E36 LS2
Maynor is offline  
post #8 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 03:45 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (19)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 1,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerdrvr View Post
No, I don't think you'll notice any difference in the car's ability to "excelerate" or stop.

The RPF-01 is the type of light, cast wheel I was referring to, though, for the OP. Good bang for the buck and well proven design.
I disagree with this statement - if he's saving 9 lbs per wheel, using the widely accepted adage that one pound of unsprung weight is roughly equivalent of eight pounds of sprung weight, that would be the same as removing 288lbs from the interior.

We can throw out some other adages - every 100lbs removed is equal to 100hp, 1" of brake rotor and 1" of tire width...

Increasing wheel diameter will have an exactly negative effect...you're moving the heaviest part of the wheel/tire combo (the bead and related tire-mounting area) farther outward from the center of the spindle. More energy wasted getting it moving and slowing it down. If at all possible run the smallest rims you can. This will offset some of his gain from the weight savings, but certainly not all of it.

Lightweight wheels were one of the modifications I found most beneficial on my cars. Whether you can feel it or not is up to the accuracy of your own butt dyno - whether it improves your lap times is a quantitative and important measure. Weight is the single most important modification variable on a road course - that's why most, if not all classes run in wheel to wheel competition have some type of major limiting weight factor not only power to weight ratio but a weight limit period. Weight makes the car work less hard to turn, accelerate, and decelerate - it makes it more predictable and easier to control doing all three, and it wears your parts down at a much smaller rate than a heavier car. You consume less fuel, less brake, less tire...

98 Cobra - the same junk everyone else and their mother have
95PGTTech is offline  
post #9 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 06:08 AM
Registered User
 
dtheo's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 77
I know one thing, I went from my POS saleen rims 18x9, roughly 30 pounds each to 17x10 ccw classics~~20-21pounds and I felt a big difference with responses (ie. braking, exit speed, etc)

What looks pretty doesn't mean its fast. There is a middle ground for reasonable price.
dtheo is offline  
post #10 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 09:02 AM
Registered User
 
mike06tr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Orleans LA
Posts: 1,006
Blog Entries: 3
I am ordering up a set of the RPF1's for my fox body in the 17x9's.
Like stated earlier they are only 15.9 pounds. I would imagine that would make a significant improvement. It would even help at the drag strip to, wich I don't plan on doing much of.


Cheaper than VHT and works great.
So sticky it will practically pull your shoes off, just like the movie theater
floor..
mike06tr is offline  
post #11 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 09:19 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
jaysch302's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 705
wow great info fellas

only reason i was thinking i would need 18s was due to the 13" brembos would not be enough. I would rather have 17's due to tire price and less weight

i have been reading all over about lightweight wheel being better but (no real people have written an article talked about yes this is worth 2000 bucks for wheels)

i appreciate the info

so a better plan is either buy

lightweight
4 18x9.5's
or
17x9
17x10.5

with hoosiers

thanks again for great info

95 GT 331ci, T-76 770whp/675tq [email protected]
2015 C7 Stingray 7spd manual
2012 Mustang GT [email protected] sold
http://jaysch302.hollosite.com Youtube: Steelankles
jaysch302 is offline  
post #12 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 09:28 AM
Registered User
 
mike06tr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Orleans LA
Posts: 1,006
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysch302 View Post
wow great info fellas

only reason i was thinking i would need 18s was due to the 13" brembos would not be enough. I would rather have 17's due to tire price and less weight

i have been reading all over about lightweight wheel being better but (no real people have written an article talked about yes this is worth 2000 bucks for wheels)

i appreciate the info

so a better plan is either buy

lightweight
4 18x9.5's
or
17x9
17x10.5

with hoosiers

thanks again for great info
The enkeis in 17x9 are $250 a wheel @Tirerack, a bargain if you ask me..

You see them alot on 350z'z but they look good on a Mustang too.


Cheaper than VHT and works great.
So sticky it will practically pull your shoes off, just like the movie theater
floor..
mike06tr is offline  
post #13 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 09:34 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
jaysch302's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 705
i was just looking at those wheels you have the sbc coating ? does that make them heavier?

95 GT 331ci, T-76 770whp/675tq [email protected]
2015 C7 Stingray 7spd manual
2012 Mustang GT [email protected] sold
http://jaysch302.hollosite.com Youtube: Steelankles
jaysch302 is offline  
post #14 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 09:38 AM
Registered User
 
mike06tr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Orleans LA
Posts: 1,006
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysch302 View Post
i was just looking at those wheels you have the sbc coating ? does that make them heavier?
That's not my car just one of the two fox's I could find pics of with these wheels. And I believe the weight is with the coating. People I autocross with that have these wheels swear by them.
Mine will be ordered next month when I get my bonus.
This is my car with Enkei V1's on it wich are pretty light but don't really fit the car.

And you can see I have 13" cobra front's and to am thinking of getting the Brembo 4 piston calipers.

Cheaper than VHT and works great.
So sticky it will practically pull your shoes off, just like the movie theater
floor..
mike06tr is offline  
post #15 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 11:03 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
jaysch302's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 705
also thought about wedsport sa70 and gramlight wheels bu not sure how to know if any of these will clear brembo calipers


http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/Wheel...All&sort=Brand

95 GT 331ci, T-76 770whp/675tq [email protected]
2015 C7 Stingray 7spd manual
2012 Mustang GT [email protected] sold
http://jaysch302.hollosite.com Youtube: Steelankles
jaysch302 is offline  
post #16 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 12:38 PM
Registered User
 
mike06tr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Orleans LA
Posts: 1,006
Blog Entries: 3
Yeah I thought about those two. The thickness of the caliper is what you need to worry about. I would think that if a 03 cobra wheel will fit that any off the 22-20mm wheels would. Cobra R is a 24mm offset don't know how important those 2-4mm are..

Cheaper than VHT and works great.
So sticky it will practically pull your shoes off, just like the movie theater
floor..
mike06tr is offline  
post #17 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 12:47 PM
Registered User
 
tigerdrvr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95PGTTech View Post
I disagree with this statement - if he's saving 9 lbs per wheel, using the widely accepted adage that one pound of unsprung weight is roughly equivalent of eight pounds of sprung weight, that would be the same as removing 288lbs from the interior.

We can throw out some other adages - every 100lbs removed is equal to 100hp, 1" of brake rotor and 1" of tire width...

Increasing wheel diameter will have an exactly negative effect...you're moving the heaviest part of the wheel/tire combo (the bead and related tire-mounting area) farther outward from the center of the spindle. More energy wasted getting it moving and slowing it down. If at all possible run the smallest rims you can. This will offset some of his gain from the weight savings, but certainly not all of it.

Lightweight wheels were one of the modifications I found most beneficial on my cars. Whether you can feel it or not is up to the accuracy of your own butt dyno - whether it improves your lap times is a quantitative and important measure. Weight is the single most important modification variable on a road course - that's why most, if not all classes run in wheel to wheel competition have some type of major limiting weight factor not only power to weight ratio but a weight limit period. Weight makes the car work less hard to turn, accelerate, and decelerate - it makes it more predictable and easier to control doing all three, and it wears your parts down at a much smaller rate than a heavier car. You consume less fuel, less brake, less tire...
Well, the extra rotational inertia of a heavier wheel or tire contributes to the effective linear inertia of the car, just like extra weight in the cabin would, as you said. But, the theoretical absolute upper limit (that I've been given by both MIT and Harvey Mudd engineering geeks) is 1 pound more at the surface of the tire tread contributes to inertia as if it were 2 pounds in the cabin, contrary to the old racer's myth. If you're talking about the wheel itself, the farthest out the weight can be added is the rim, again as you said. So, for an 18" rim with a 25" tire, the "bonus" weight drops from a maximum of 1 pound per pound to about 1/2 pound per pound. The bonus weight is less than that if it's not all concentrated at the lip.

So if you want a realistic estimate of how much weight savings you're going to realize for your money, multiply the weight loss from wheels by about 1.3-1.4. This is based on data that I've been given by true propeller heads and I'm talking about rotational mass (not unsprung weight), which is what is going to effect acceleration and braking, per the original post. I don't disagree, at all, that there are significant benefits in wheel control to be had in lowering unsprung weight...but even that benefit is muted on super smooth surfaces. btw, the only other really credible estimate I've ever seen regarding reduction in rotational mass vs. "cabin weight" is in Herb Adams' book, where he gives a 1:3 ratio, at the axle...which needs to be corrected for rim diameter and distance of total mass from axis, I believe.


For competition use, at the highest levels, it is an advantage and, like you said, you have to do everything you can...We did quite a bit of testing on the Z06, using both oem and CCW wheels (about 4lbs corner) and couldn't find any time that was consistent and repeatable, but that was autocrossing, where we only had 60 seconds per sample, not multiple minutes, like road racing.


btw, the Cobra R, I've been told by those that actually run them scale at 22#, so the weight difference is actually 6#. (edit: oops, that's for the 17X9" iirc)

And, finally, the butt dyno is the most inaccurate form of measurement...at least mine is, maybe some of you guys are more sensitive

So, yeah, you're absolutely right, imho, there's a reason why competitive race teams run the lightest wheels that provide sufficient strength. But, in the "real world", going with superzoomy, super light wheels isn't worth the money...again, imho. If you think about it, in terms of acceleration and braking, the weight of tires is actually more important.

Last edited by tigerdrvr; 03-01-2009 at 02:29 PM.
tigerdrvr is offline  
post #18 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 08:46 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (19)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 1,488
You're confusing two different concepts. When you add wheel diameter, your tire overall diameter is the same. But you just moved that weight further to the outside (like the crust on the pizza). We're talking about the forces of inertia in this case.

When we talk about the wheel's weight, we're talking about reducing unsprung weight and how that compares to sprung weight. The 1:8 ratio has to do with how removing unsprung mass minimizes the load placed on the controlling motion of the wheels and tires. When you ditch interior, you lose weight. When you ditch unsprung weight, you not only get the weight savings, you allow the suspension to do its job more easily. The suspension directly has to overcome the unsprung weight of the car to make any changes...the less unsprung weight you have, the less resistance the suspension has, and the quicker and more accurate adjustments it can make.

98 Cobra - the same junk everyone else and their mother have
95PGTTech is offline  
post #19 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 09:00 PM
Registered User
 
BULLITT1992's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (12)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ocean Springs, MS
Posts: 3,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95PGTTech View Post

We can throw out some other adages - every 100lbs removed is equal to 100hp, 1" of brake rotor and 1" of tire width...
I thought it was 100# = 10hp as a general rule. Of course it has to be adjusted for the weight and power of the given car.

2001 Mustang Bullitt #01992
BULLITT1992 is offline  
post #20 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 10:23 PM
Registered User
 
tigerdrvr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95PGTTech View Post
You're confusing two different concepts. When you add wheel diameter, your tire overall diameter is the same. But you just moved that weight further to the outside (like the crust on the pizza). We're talking about the forces of inertia in this case.

When we talk about the wheel's weight, we're talking about reducing unsprung weight and how that compares to sprung weight. The 1:8 ratio has to do with how removing unsprung mass minimizes the load placed on the controlling motion of the wheels and tires. When you ditch interior, you lose weight. When you ditch unsprung weight, you not only get the weight savings, you allow the suspension to do its job more easily. The suspension directly has to overcome the unsprung weight of the car to make any changes...the less unsprung weight you have, the less resistance the suspension has, and the quicker and more accurate adjustments it can make.
No, I'm not confusing anything. The original question was relating to the benefit of lower rotational mass in terms of acceleration and deceleration. No mention was made of changing any of the variables that would effect the moment of inertia.

You've chosen to introduce some ratio, which I have no idea how you've arrived at (1:8), to attempt to quantify some type of overall "weight savings" attributed to reducing unsprung weight...which does confuse the hell out of me, because I have no idea what you're trying to say. f you're saying that less unsprung weight is beneficial to controlling wheel movement, I'd agree...but, that wasn't the question.

Last edited by tigerdrvr; 03-01-2009 at 10:33 PM.
tigerdrvr is offline  
post #21 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 10:41 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (19)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 1,488
It's an accepted road racer's saying, I'm not sure who came up with it, or how they came up with it. Essentially, removing unsprung weight is eight times as effective as removing sprung weight.

Again, the key difference is not the lower rotational weight. It's the lower unsprung weight. If he stayed with the same diameter and same weight distributed wheel just lighter, he would have the added benefit of lower rotational weight.

98 Cobra - the same junk everyone else and their mother have
95PGTTech is offline  
post #22 of 49 Old 03-01-2009, 11:12 PM
Registered User
 
tigerdrvr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95PGTTech View Post
It's an accepted road racer's saying, I'm not sure who came up with it, or how they came up with it. Essentially, removing unsprung weight is eight times as effective as removing sprung weight.

Again, the key difference is not the lower rotational weight. It's the lower unsprung weight. If he stayed with the same diameter and same weight distributed wheel just lighter, he would have the added benefit of lower rotational weight.
"Effective" at what? I'm guessing in terms of the suspension's ability to return a wheel to equilibrium from jounce or rebound force? That makes sense, but I've never heard that idea expressed as any kind of ratio or formula...I learned a new "rule of thumb" to explore.

Again, I'm not arguing that lighter weight wheels aren't a "good" thing...whether most users have the competitive need or consistency in driving to benefit from the last 2-3lbs a corner? That's another question...

btw, I think you're right about running as small a diameter as brakes/suspension components allow. Besides lower moment of inertia, lower overall weight, etc etc tires are also a hell of a lot cheaper!
tigerdrvr is offline  
post #23 of 49 Old 03-02-2009, 04:12 AM
Registered User
 
WhiteLightnin'LSC's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 94
Just an FYI, my 17"x9" Bullitt replicas fit over my Cobra R Brembo set-up with room to spare.

1987 Lincoln Mark VII LSC | 1995 Ford Mustang GT | 1999 Ford Mustang Roush Cobra | 2003 Ford Focus SVT | 1994 Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 Diesel
WhiteLightnin'LSC is offline  
post #24 of 49 Old 03-02-2009, 04:46 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: .
Posts: 10,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysch302 View Post
also thought about wedsport sa70 and gramlight wheels bu not sure how to know if any of these will clear brembo calipers
those wedsports sure are nice on an SN95 such as your own, I'm not so sure on a fox though...

.
Cellos88gt is offline  
post #25 of 49 Old 03-02-2009, 08:12 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
jaysch302's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteLightnin'LSC View Post
Just an FYI, my 17"x9" Bullitt replicas fit over my Cobra R Brembo set-up with room to spare.
i thought 17 x9 bullits would not clear without a spacer

95 GT 331ci, T-76 770whp/675tq [email protected]
2015 C7 Stingray 7spd manual
2012 Mustang GT [email protected] sold
http://jaysch302.hollosite.com Youtube: Steelankles
jaysch302 is offline  
post #26 of 49 Old 03-02-2009, 09:43 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: At the apex, blocking your pass.
Posts: 2,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95PGTTech View Post
I disagree with this statement - if he's saving 9 lbs per wheel, using the widely accepted adage that one pound of unsprung weight is roughly equivalent of eight pounds of sprung weight, that would be the same as removing 288lbs from the interior.
Yes and no. Reducing unsprung weight will have a net positive effect on the car's grip but making a blanket statement like removing X lbs of unsprung weight is like removing Y lbs of sprung weight is misleading at best.

Quote:
If at all possible run the smallest rims you can. This will offset some of his gain from the weight savings, but certainly not all of it.
It would be better to say "run the smallest rim that will clear the biggest brakes you need." The benefits in running sufficiently large brakes more than compensate in the reduction in unsprung weight that the bigger brakes represent. No one runs 10.8" brakes because they want to reduce their unsprung weight.

Quote:
Lightweight wheels were one of the modifications I found most beneficial on my cars.
This depends a lot on the car's state of tune. If you're talking about a stock Mustang, there are so many problems with the car's setup that simply running lighter wheels/tires will hardly be noticable. On a well-sorted car generating tons of grip, lighter wheels/tires will become more noticable.

It also depends on the track. Less unsprung weight will be more beneficial on a bumpy track than on a glass-smooth one.

Another thing to consider when making the decision to run a lighter wheel is that lightweight components tend to be weaker and will need more frequent inspections for cracks/damage, and will have a much shorter fatigue life (yes, even for forged wheels.) I've seen race teams discard lightweight wheels after only a handfull of races due to fatigue concerns.

I don't think many of us want to replace our wheels every year.

For 90% of us (myself included,) it makes more sense to run a slightly heavier wheel, like the OEM Cobra R's. They're cheaper, and more durable. The slight reduction in lap times is a small price for us to pay, especially when our own inconsistancy represents a lot larger increase in lap times than an extra 6# per wheel does.

If you want to reduce your race car's weight, you'd be much better off from a practical perspective, getting anal about gutting the car first. You'd be surprised at what you can get the car down to. A fellow AI competitor has gotten his car down to 2700# and now had to run 100# of ballast just to get it up to minimum weight for a V8 AI car (2800#).

-- Robert King
NASA AI #42, Texas
Instructor, NASA Texas Region
Instructor, TWS Perf. Driving School
gt40mkII is offline  
post #27 of 49 Old 03-02-2009, 02:04 PM
Registered User
 
WhiteLightnin'LSC's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysch302 View Post
i thought 17 x9 bullits would not clear without a spacer
So did I, until I tried it with mine. They are close, but they fit, and the contour of the spokes seems as if it was meant for Brembo brakes. The brand on my wheels is Pro-Line, so I can't speak for the other manufacturers, but these ones work.

1987 Lincoln Mark VII LSC | 1995 Ford Mustang GT | 1999 Ford Mustang Roush Cobra | 2003 Ford Focus SVT | 1994 Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 Diesel
WhiteLightnin'LSC is offline  
post #28 of 49 Old 03-02-2009, 04:01 PM
Registered User
 
BULLITT1992's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (12)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ocean Springs, MS
Posts: 3,363
Anyone want to highlight the benefit of Cobra R's over standard Cobra/Bullitt/Mach 1 brakes or point me in the right direction?

2001 Mustang Bullitt #01992
BULLITT1992 is offline  
post #29 of 49 Old 03-03-2009, 10:38 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
jaysch302's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 705
Cobra Rs' have more brake clearance than any other 17x9.

I have 4 orginal Cobra R's i thought about using but they ar 17x9's i either need to sell them and buy replica with 10.5" rears

I really like the enkei wheels but it seems that no one make a 17x10.5 or 11 inch wide wheel.

will a 17x9.5 fit on the front or does it have to be a 18x9.5

here is another debatable question
is it worth running wider wheels
ex.
17x9 17x10.5
vs
17x9.5 17x11 ?

I believe this would make more difference than the weight of the wheel as far as perfomance gains

95 GT 331ci, T-76 770whp/675tq [email protected]
2015 C7 Stingray 7spd manual
2012 Mustang GT [email protected] sold
http://jaysch302.hollosite.com Youtube: Steelankles
jaysch302 is offline  
post #30 of 49 Old 03-03-2009, 02:24 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (19)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 1,488
It depends - I started open tracking with 03-04 AFS replicas...the standard 17x9 and 17x10.5.

Even at the point I am at now, on street tires (BFG), I notice no real difference running 17x9 at all four corners or 17x10.5. On my race rubber (BFG R1), the 10.5 tire in the rear gives too much grip and upsets the car, so I run 17x9 wheels all around.

98 Cobra - the same junk everyone else and their mother have
95PGTTech is offline  
post #31 of 49 Old 03-03-2009, 10:53 PM
Registered User
 
BULLITT1992's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (12)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ocean Springs, MS
Posts: 3,363
The RPF1's seem to be a pretty good deal. Very lightweight it seems and the price is pretty good considering the the weight. Any idea on their durability?

2001 Mustang Bullitt #01992
BULLITT1992 is offline  
post #32 of 49 Old 03-03-2009, 11:51 PM
Registered User
 
tigerdrvr's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by BULLITT1992 View Post
The RPF1's seem to be a pretty good deal. Very lightweight it seems and the price is pretty good considering the the weight. Any idea on their durability?
I've never run the RPF1 wheel (specifically), so I have no firsthand knowledge. But, I do know that they are made with their MAT tech, which is kind of a hybrid process and is used on their high performance oem wheels, like the Mitsu Evo, and their "racing series" wheels. I've also never heard of any failing or other durability issues, which is not to say it hasn't happened, just that I've never heard about it or seen it...and I have seen, literally, hundreds of the Enkeis being run on various open track and autocross cars, they're pretty darn common. On the other hand, I have experienced, seen, heard about, etc problems with rim sealing, true, dinging wheel halves and other stuff with some of the "trick" three piece wheels...

I do run TR Motorsports (made by Enkei, MAT wheel) wheels for autocross on my Mustang. They are right at 18# (18X8), true and balance easily, but other than that, I can't say much because I've only run them for about six months. I have no worries about breaking one. Yeah, they're not as good (or light) as the Volks, but I can live with that...

Here's a link to the "party line" on Enkei and MAT...
http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/enkei...ing-wheels.jsp

Last edited by tigerdrvr; 03-04-2009 at 12:07 AM.
tigerdrvr is offline  
post #33 of 49 Old 03-04-2009, 08:32 AM
Registered User
 
huesmann's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC burbs, MD side
Posts: 6,894
No one seems to have mentioned the Konig Villains which are 21 lb in 17x9.
huesmann is offline  
post #34 of 49 Old 03-15-2009, 07:33 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
jaysch302's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 705
I just installed the Brembo Cobra R Front Brakes the Black 17x9 bullit did not clear caliper.

So i sold the black bullits 17x9 17x10.5 Wheels

I have my Chrome cobra R's on the car now until i sell those to because they are 17x9 on front and rear

Debating on either gray or black replica cobra r's 17x9 17x10.5 or
ssr type c 17x9.5 17x10.5 not sure if they will clear calipers either though

95 GT 331ci, T-76 770whp/675tq [email protected]
2015 C7 Stingray 7spd manual
2012 Mustang GT [email protected] sold
http://jaysch302.hollosite.com Youtube: Steelankles
jaysch302 is offline  
post #35 of 49 Old 03-15-2009, 11:29 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: north central Kansas
Posts: 617
Maybe you already know this but 17x9s on all four corners are great when it comes to being able to rotate tires. Sticky tires will last much longer if theyre rotated between front and rear. This isnt possible with 17x9s and 17x10.5s, so bottom line is you'll be buying a new set of tires sooner than if you ran 17x9s all around.

1999 Cobra Coupe
'00 Mustang GT
#28 NASA AMERICAN IRON
www.drivenasacentral.com
ramnstang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome