yea i was able to fit with it no problem.. thx again!!
67.8KVIEWS
175REPLIES
53APPRECIATES
08-23-2025LAST POST
gerikivan wroteThat looks great! 10.5 all around? Any reason you went with those tires?yea i was able to fit with it no problem.. thx again!!
nishfish87 wroteso far no rubbing and yea 10.5 all around..why go with federals or you meant why 275 all around? well federals is cheap and its good enough for me for its price... i wish i went 285 all around but it depends on the brand because some brands has thicker sidewalls..gerikivan wroteThat looks great! 10.5 all around? Any reason you went with those tires?yea i was able to fit with it no problem.. thx again!!
Reviving this thread again - have read through pros/cons of square vs. staggered setup but I'm struggling to figure out what to do for a track set. My street set is the ZCP's with stock tire sizes (245/265) and I liked the feel of the setup on my first DE in Sept. I plan to do 2-3 track days next year and will drive to/from the track with the track set.
Will a square setup (assuming square tires as well) feel noticeably different on track - i.e. will it introduce a lot more oversteer than the staggered setup and take a lot of getting used to on track, or is it a subtle change?
Will a square setup (assuming square tires as well) feel noticeably different on track - i.e. will it introduce a lot more oversteer than the staggered setup and take a lot of getting used to on track, or is it a subtle change?
It's not so much more oversteer as less understeer, better turnin and a frontend that can hang on for longer before the narrower stock tire gives up mid-corner. If you're on stock suspension the car will probably still eventually push unless you're really absurdly hamfisted
Richbot wroteLOL, yeah this makes sense. I did notice a bit of tendency for the front end to wash/give up a bit in the longer/slower turns - I just had to be careful with throttle modulation so as not to induce TTO.It's not so much more oversteer as less understeer, better turnin and a frontend that can hang on for longer before the narrower stock tire gives up mid-corner. If you're on stock suspension the car will probably still eventually push unless you're really absurdly hamfisted
Hey, does anyone drive 10x18 ET25 with 265/35/18 tires at the front and 11x18 ET25 with 295/30/18 tires at the rear? Do I need spacers at the front? Im using a ST XTA.
Greetings from Munich
BMW E92 M3
Greetings from Munich
BMW E92 M3
Since this got bumped 6 years later thought I might as well ask; will a OEM 220M square setup on stock suspension rub on an E90? Person who ran this on a lowered car says no, while some old posts I found say a definite yes from a few people.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
cleanest_m3 wroteI have 18x10 et20 265/35/18 front & 18x11 et25 285/35/18 rear. You can getaway with a 5mm spacer up front.Hey, does anyone drive 10x18 ET25 with 265/35/18 tires at the front and 11x18 ET25 with 295/30/18 tires at the rear? Do I need spacers at the front? Im using a ST XTA.
Greetings from Munich
BMW E92 M3
a5m wroteNope, no issue with the right spacers. I've run 19x10 (AG359) square for years now, on BC coilovers, on a not too aggressive drop. I love the fact i can rotate tires, and get more life out of them.Since this got bumped 6 years later thought I might as well ask; will a OEM 220M square setup on stock suspension rub on an E90? Person who ran this on a lowered car says no, while some old posts I found say a definite yes from a few people.
Thanks in advance.
220M 9.5" square with 275/30-19, 265/30-19, etc. - no problem
265/35-19 square or bigger - problem
265/35-19 square or bigger - problem
Richbot wroteThis is basically what I kept reading and needed confirmation on. Thanks. Looks like 265/35 is a no go, which is exactly what the set I'm looking at has220M 9.5" square with 275/30-19, 265/30-19, etc. - no problem
265/35-19 square or bigger - problem
a5m wroteI thought you were on 18s? He’s referring to 19s.This is basically what I kept reading and needed confirmation on. Thanks. Looks like 265/35 is a no go, which is exactly what the set I'm looking at has
DRLane wroteYup on stock 219Ms but was looking at a square 220M setup with 265/35 already mounted.I thought you were on 18s? He’s referring to 19s.
220M is a 19" wheel, you can tell because it's one more than the 219M, which is not a 19, but an 18. 20 is right out
Richbot wrotethis is all I heard when reading your post LOLit's one more than the 219M, which is not a 19, but an 18. 20 is right out
ApexWheels wroteAny issues running 285/35-18 on a 10.5” wheel (EDIT: ET22) in the rear on a stock ZCP/EDC car with track tires like the R-S4, which tends to have a wider tread width? Will it rub anything?I will continue to build out this post with more extensive notes on each fitment, but here is a quick reference guide to proven E9X M3 fitments with their respective tire sizes.
Recommended Staggered Fitments
F: 18x9" ET30/31 - 240/40-18 or 255/35-18
R: 18x10" ET25 - 275/35-18
^ This staggered fitment is 1/2" wider than the OEM 219/220 M wheels, mirroring the M3 ZCP/GTS wheel widths and offsets. This is a direct bolt on solution with no modifications required.
F: 18x9.5" ET22 - 265/35-18
R: 18x10.5 ET27/22 - 285/35-18
^ This is our most popular staggered fitment, used amongst performance street and weekend track warriors alike. This configuration is 1" wider in comparison to the standard 219/220 M wheels, and grip is substantially increased without going overboard on tire widths. This is a bolt on solution with no modifications required, and perfect for E9X M3's that have remained naturally aspirated.
F: 18x10" ET25 - 275/35-18
R: 18x11" ET25 - 295/35-18
^ This is another popular staggered fitment that is just a touch more aggressive than the fitment above. These wheel widths are about as wide as the front and rear fenders will take without extensive modifications. For enthusiasts looking for a little more tire, this is typically a bolt on fitment with no modifications required. For staggered fitments, we typically do not recommend exceeding a 295 tire in the rear unless the car has a substantial bump in power (supercharged / stroker) as anything wider will likely be counter productive. [...]
PACarGuy wrote285/35-18 works perfectly fine on a 10.5” wide wheel. However, the wheel offset is needed to determine whether the tire will rub on the outer fender or on the inner fuel filler neck. et27 will fit without issue. I’m running a 295/35 on a 10et17 which has a frontspacing that’s 0.05” less aggressive than the frontspacing of a 10.5et22. However, I could probably fit another 5 mm spacer with -2.2 deg of rear camber before I’d potentially run into an issue with rubbing the outer fender so a 285 RS-4 on an 18x10.5et22 wheel should be fine. The greater stretch of the 285 on a 10.5” wide wheel will also help with the fitment.Any issues running 285/35-18 on a 10.5” wheel in the rear on a stock ZCP/EDC car with track tires like the R-S4, which tends to have a wider tread width? Will it rub anything?
M3SQRD wroteThanks! And my bad - I meant to add ET22 to my post. So it sounds like I’m good to go.285/35-18 works perfectly fine on a 10.5” wide wheel. However, the wheel offset is needed to determine whether the tire will rub on the outer fender or on the inner fuel filler neck. et27 will fit without issue. I’m running a 295/35 on a 10et17 which has a frontspacing that’s 0.05” less aggressive than the frontspacing of a 10.5et22. However, I could probably fit another 5 mm spacer with -2.2 deg of rear camber before I’d potentially run into an issue with rubbing the outer fender so a 285 RS-4 on an 18x10.5et22 wheel should be fine. The greater stretch of the 285 on a 10.5” wide wheel will also help with the fitment.
PACarGuy wroteThis is the setup I have and have had no clearance issues yet with different 200 TW tires I’ve used.Thanks! And my bad - I meant to add ET22 to my post. So it sounds like I’m good to go.
One other thing I noticed is that the 18x9.5 et22 front and 18x10.5 et22 rear changes the track width slightly (from the stock ZCP wheels) and adds a net 0.4”/11mm to the front track width (track width slightly wider than the rear). Is this even noticeable on track, especially running staggered 265/35 and 285/35? Is it worth running 5mm spacers in the rear to even the track width out?
PAM3Guy wroteUpdate - don’t notice any significant difference in handling characteristics on track due to different track width. Still slight understeer, but predictable and controllable with throttle and brake.One other thing I noticed is that the 18x9.5 et22 front and 18x10.5 et22 rear changes the track width slightly (from the stock ZCP wheels) and adds a net 0.4”/11mm to the front track width (track width slightly wider than the rear). Is this even noticeable on track, especially running staggered 265/35 and 285/35? Is it worth running 5mm spacers in the rear to even the track width out?
