Why not to fit 17's to your 300

Post by **mefistofeles** » 30 Mar 2007 07:28 am

17" look nice with som lowering:

Post by **SteveP** » 30 Mar 2007 10:28 am

Hmm still too big imo... 15's look 'right' sometimes 16's do too..

Defeats the object of lowering when the body of the car is still the same height, with only the arch gaps closer

Post by **jtbo** » 30 Mar 2007 10:33 am

SteveP wrote:Hmm still too big imo... 15's look 'right' sometimes 16's do too..

Defeats the object of lowering when the body of the car is still the same height, with only the arch gaps closer

Yes, those look too big to my eye too. I have never liked this fashion of big wheels or boobs either

Post by **Chris_C** » 30 Mar 2007 10:56 am

jtbo wrote: or boobs either

Well someones got to say it....(Mick

) you don't like boobs?

Post by **jtbo** » 30 Mar 2007 11:21 am

Chris_C wrote:
jtbo wrote: or boobs either
Well someones got to say it....(Mick ) you don't like boobs?

Umm, big is ugly and bad almost in anything where as balanced is/are very nice indeed

I don't like to sound nasty, but typically liking from big things seem to have quite direct relation to how clever/educated one is, that is just what I have observed, perhaps completely wrong, but there seem to be quite strong relation

Post by **redline** » 30 Mar 2007 11:38 am

jtbo wrote: I don't like to sound nasty, but typically liking from big things seem to have quite direct relation to how clever/educated one is, P

I'm educated thats why I cant stand Katie Price ( Jordan )

Post by **jtbo** » 30 Mar 2007 11:52 am

redline wrote:
jtbo wrote: I don't like to sound nasty, but typically liking from big things seem to have quite direct relation to how clever/educated one is, P
I'm educated thats why I cant stand Katie Price ( Jordan )

Never heard of her, but more I think it is actually not so related to education or how clever one is, but more like how much persons relies on his feelings instead of reason, which probably reflects to other things in life too than choosing bigger and shinier wheels

But wouldn't say that is bad thing, just different I guess.

Post by **Chris_C** » 30 Mar 2007 12:59 pm

I have a feeling whether I had a good education or not i couldn't stand Jordon

I'm in the liking the well proprtioned camp myself too tbh, I just read the way you had originally posted as different to how you ment it Jani!

Post by **jtbo** » 30 Mar 2007 01:42 pm

Chris_C wrote:I have a feeling whether I had a good education or not i couldn't stand Jordon I'm in the liking the well proprtioned camp myself too tbh, I just read the way you had originally posted as different to how you ment it Jani!

Yes could be, one more word 'big' should been made it more clear I believe?

Post by **redline** » 30 Mar 2007 02:52 pm

jtbo wrote:[Never heard of her,

just for you

Post by **Stavros** » 30 Mar 2007 04:15 pm

looks stupid IMO regardless of ride height.

not so much that its 17s, but thats its skinny wheels. skinny wheels suck on any car.

wide and low offset is the way forward, choose your own diameter.

like 10x13 ET minus 32 like mine

Post by **jtbo** » 30 Mar 2007 04:48 pm

Also weight and performance gains with larger contact patch must be considered, certainly bigger has more surface area to grip, but is it needed and does that help outcome negative effects of added weight and unsprung masses when we are talking from our cars and power levels?

Volk CE28 at 13" or 14" size with good performance tires with low and wide profile should be more than capable to outperform any big bling bling nonsense, imo

Post by **Stavros** » 30 Mar 2007 04:53 pm

Indeed, on cars with such low power and low weight things like that really do have an effect.

Shame a single CE28 is worth more than an entire 300series Volvo tho, lol.
14inch+ only on Volks BTW

Post by **foggyjames** » 30 Mar 2007 08:53 pm

Al had 17s on his 360....and yes, they just didn't look right. I think where the wheel is placed in the arch just doesn't suit "oem sized" large wheel / small tyre combos.

A set of 16" Volk TE37s tucked right up to the edges of the arches would be a good look, IMO.

cheers

James

Post by MJ » 30 Mar 2007 09:01 pm

Best laugh in ages! Read the two posts after Micks, in relation to Jordon, not the 300...

looks stupid IMO regardless of ride height

wide and low offset is the way forward, choose your own diameter

Also weight and performance gains with larger contact patch must be considered, certainly bigger has more surface area to grip, but is it needed and does that help outcome negative effects of added weight and unsprung masses

Hahaha