18 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHTurbo Look II (ET 47) - anybody runs them?
Leading reported evidence
Run stock 18x10
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I ran my stock 18x10 with a 15mm spacer (65-15mm spacer= +50 offset), 275 NT01 (about as wide as most 285 street tires), -2 deg camber, no roll and pretty low.
Leading evidence: 'Run stock 18x10' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check 10" wheels instead' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
Yeah, that is the loook i'm trying to avoid actually, hence checking the 10" wheels instead
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
Makes sense, i just remembered , that me too, I ran 10"et65 + 15mm spacer in the rear on my previous NB with ROW M030 on it, so I get the idea what it would look like.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
If your running 265s at stock height your probably fine but I'm not sure how an aggressive offset at stock height would look?
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I believe he was running rolled fenders and a bit more negative camber to make it work on his ride.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
Makes sense, i just remembered , that me too, I ran 10"et65 + 15mm spacer in the rear on my previous NB with ROW M030 on it, so I get the idea what it would look like.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I ran my stock 18x10 with a 15mm spacer (65-15mm spacer= +50 offset), 275 NT01 (about as wide as most 285 street tires), -2 deg camber, no roll and pretty low.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
18 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T120458Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hello,
Yesterday I stumbled upon a set of Turbo Look II wheels with 10" rears and 47 offset, part number 996.362.140.02. Seems like a rare bird, isnt' it?
Anybody got them on MK1 NB? Would love see how they fit in the back and some general thoughts.
Are they worth picking up?
Thanks!
Your car is beautiful, and all my respect to you for what you did, been there, done that, I know the feeling.
But....you got C4s there with 11" on them, not what i'm looking for
I'm with Slakker, because of the 47 offset, I think you wouldn't be happy with them because they'd stick out too far. They'd work perfectly on AWDGuy's car because it's a wide body.
Worst case scenario is you could roll the fenders if it rubbed.
I think this is a picture of 10" et 47 where they just extended the fender out a bit: :P
Yes, I got that part. Still, the 18x10 ET47 would look fine on his car, but the narrow bodies are designed for a rear offset of 65mm. There is quite a bit of wiggle room, but I'm afraid going 18mm out would be too far and look weird in my opinion; plus, risk having the tires hit the fender's edge.
I ran my stock 18x10 with a 15mm spacer (65-15mm spacer= +50 offset), 275 NT01 (about as wide as most 285 street tires), -2 deg camber, no roll and pretty low. I never rubbed but you'll be 3mm more aggressive. I'd say they would fit fine but ultimately depends on alignment/ ride height and tire size. If your running 285s hardly any camber and are lowered you will need to message the rear fender lip a bit. If your running 265s at stock height your probably fine but I'm not sure how an aggressive offset at stock height would look? Maybe a little goofy.
Best I can tell I have 21mm of clearance between my tires and fender with 10" et65. But I also have -2.5 degrees of camber which is adding at least a couple of mm's.
Makes sense, i just remembered , that me too, I ran 10"et65 + 15mm spacer in the rear on my previous NB with ROW M030 on it, so I get the idea what it would look like. I also remember that even with ROW springs in the back the car still had a lot of gap, but ride was nice and stiff.
One thing I know is that I hate how 265s look on 10" rears on our cars. Depends on tire I guess but some 265s look skinny and skewed.
Still would love to see picture of the real thing
Here is White Out's old car with widebody turbo rims:
P1S_zpsed5dba10.jpg
P5S_zpsd1605e76.jpg
I believe he was running rolled fenders and a bit more negative camber to make it work on his ride.
Personally, I think it's slightly too much poke, little tire, slight stretch for my tastes. YMMV
