33 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHmk1 vs mk2 rear track measurement.
Reported or suspected cause
law of diminishing returns
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
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 report identifying a cause
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.
Leading evidence: 'law of diminishing returns' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'law of diminishing returns' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Run 10" wheel the max you want' (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 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 have a well developed MK1 and at one point ran 265 front on a 9.5 and a 315 rear (still do in fact).
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.
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
To give you a data point, I ran the fastest time on track in my GT3 with a 280 rear!
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 run the OEM GT3 wheels on my CAB and it sits at the same place it does on the GT3 and in my opinion the absolute furthest you want to go out without getting crazy aggressive with rear camber to accommodate more.
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 run the OEM GT3 wheels on my CAB and it sits at the same place it does on the GT3 and in my opinion the absolute furthest you want to go out without getting crazy aggressive with rear camber to accommodate more.
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.
33 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: 20261026T165820Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Does anyone know the exact width of the rear track for both the mk1 and mk2?
The mk2 definitely has a wider track like 20mm or so, but would really like to know the exact measurements.
Thanks.
The internet. LOL I need to stop listening to it.
Anyway I have a mk1 and just measured rear hub to hub and I got 1620mm. I didn't take the wheels off and set camber to 0, but it was pretty accurate +/- 5mm I would say. I will take the wheels off at some point and get a more precise measurement.
So this 1620mm is a lot different from the 1765mm.
Can someone with a mk2 measure rear hub to hub? I would really be interested in what it is. With another person it takes 5 seconds.
When I say hub I mean the flat surface that the wheel mounts to. I made a quick picture to describe the measurement I am looking for. The red line is the measurement I am looking for.
Thanks!
Track is center of tire to center of tire on the same axle. Sometimes measured as outside of tire to inside of tire on same axle. Track has nothing to do with width at hubs but the distance between centers of wheels or tires which should be the same. Wider wheels usually means wider track unless the offset is decreased.
Ok so I could careless about track as everyone is running different size and offset wheels and tires.
What is the hub to hub measurement called? That is what I am looking for.
Thanks for the clarification!
I don't think it has a name. Just call it hub to hub, but you must clairify which part of the hub you are refering to, such as "outside of wheel mounting flanges on rotor hats" or "rotor hat mounting flanges on hubs" etc.
To get that number for each car you would need to physically measure each car. SO the question begs, what are you looking to do with these numbers?
By the way, not sure I agree with your measurement difference being only 145mm (1765-1620). That equates to less than 6 inches.....or just under 3 inches per side. There is more than 3 inches from the flat surafce of the hat to the measure point of the car that I gave you.
I am using this to determine the different offset needed on the rear between the mk1 and mk2. My guess is it's more than 2.5mm.
Later today I will measure center of wheel to center of wheel which is easier to measure and post what I get. This is a mk1 car with 255 40 on a 8" +55 OE wheel. Again though I really just want hub to hub on mk1 and mk2 to determine offset differences.
There is very LITTLE difference in offset between the two. Having all three cars (MkI CAB, MkII GT3, MkII Turbo) I can tell you I have experimented with all the combinations. I run the OEM GT3 wheels on my CAB and it sits at the same place it does on the GT3 and in my opinion the absolute furthest you want to go out without getting crazy aggressive with rear camber to accommodate more.
On the narrow body cars if you are running an 11" wheel then the MAX you want to run is the et63 that the GT3 wheels come in. If you are going to run a 10" wheel the max you want to run is no more than et50.
Measuring center of wheel to center of wheel won't be nearly as accurate as measuring face of the wheel rotor hat where the wheels mount.
Again, what is it you are trying to do? Is there a set of wheels you have your heart set on that you are trying to fit?
Plan is to run 11.5 in the back so every mm counts. 11" 55 even 11 52 I have seen fit an mk1. I plan on rolling the rear lips which will gain +10mm.
Again just curious on the difference between the two, and when trying to squeeze 315 every mm counts.
So my question is........why in the world do you want to run an 11.5" rear wheel? Between the weight of the wheel and the rubber slapped on, the MkI just doesn't have the power to push that or get enough heat in it.
If it's just for show or the bling factor then sure, you can run that setup. To run that 11.5 wheel you will need to push that offset up to almost 70 (69.35) to be exact.
Why do you want to run that setup?
p.s. no f'in way did you see an 11et52 fit on a MkI without modification. And if that's the case, then the rest of the argument is moot.
It will be for track days. An equal offset to a 11 +55 for a 11.5 is +61.
The mk1 can definitely run a more aggressive offset in the back the question is how much and that is all I am trying to determine. Feel like I am going in circles. Will find a picture of a 11 +52 when I get home. Need to get back to work lol.
Sure, a 12" et 35 would "fit" with enough modifications. But your question was based on stock width not modifying it.
I can tell you that running a 315 in the rear of a MkI will absolutely be the worst decision you could make for the track. To give you a data point, I ran the fastest time on track in my GT3 with a 280 rear! I would suggest sticking with either 285 on a 10" wheel or 295 on an 11" wheel with the proper offsets.
Take it from those of us that have run every tire, tire size, wheel, wheel size, etc, than you could imagine. What you are trying to do is not optimal for your car.
So, to follow up my first question now that I know you want to run it for the track, I would ask WHY you want to run that size (i.e., what are you trying to get from it)???
I would agree with Dell on this one. I track my mkII pretty seriously with 295 MPSC rears on 11" wheels and 235s on 8.5" front wheels. Already the front-to-rear grip ratio is on the verge of being sub-optimal at certain tracks that bring out understeer (my sig pic notwithstanding). Going with an even wider rear wheel/tire would only make it worse. If anything, next step for my car would be to try to fund a way to run a wider front tire to reduce understeer.
So, what size fronts are you hoping to run? And critically, have you found any rear track tires (with matching fronts) that can take advantage of that extra 1/2 of rear wheel you are trying to achieve? No point in getting creative ($$) with the 11.5" wheel if nobody makes a set of track tires that need that last 1/2" of width, right?
That's a great plan. But even so, I would stick with 11" rears. You can run 295's or even 305's back there on the 11's and it will be well-balanced with the 265's up front. I would run that setup.
Again, ask yourself what's the extra .5" of rear wheel actually going to accomplish for you? ...and is that worth the hassle?
That setup is going to be a speed killer for you since you just don't have the power to work those tires properly. But, if you want to run it, nobody but you gets to decide that
That's probably true at some tracks, but not every track. Yes, the wider combo will suffer from increased weight, drag and rolling friction, but at some tracks this could be a worthwhile trade-off for increased average speed through turns. (assuming lowest laptime is the objective rather than feel or fun). At other tracks you will be correct.
Also, minor point, but it's not solely a matter of having or not having "the power to work those tires properly", but also of vehicle weight. Assuming this is a relatively normal 996, I would guess it does have sufficient weight to get heat into a 265/295 combo if driven well (i.e. speed carried into and through the corners consistently).
Just sayin'
The problem is the law of diminishing returns. And in some cases, to the detriment. In this case, running those sizes (265/315) will be a detriment to the underpowered MkI 996. The two main tracks I run are VIR and CMP. VIR is a very high speed, large attachments track but on the other hand, CMP is very technical and not many places to open up the car. At CMP I can promise you I would be faster on a 235/295 setup than I would on the 265/315. Not if he wants to auto-x the car, then that is a killer setup!
Just sayin'
I'll just tentatively chime in as I hardly post anymore. I have a well developed MK1 and at one point ran 265 front on a 9.5 and a 315 rear (still do in fact). The car turns in incredibly.
Depending on the driver's talent it is not too much tire for the car. And all temp targets were attained for the camber that I run. 3ish front and high 2s in the back.
I did drop the 265 down to a 245 on the same wheel to pick up some straight line speed but kept the 315s as the rears.
I am wearing the rears now 2x as fast as the fronts on this setup where as with the 265s I was pretty even front to back. However, I am driving the car more on the edge so that may be a contributor.
Dunno if this helps.
I would give the offset and size for my rear but I can't honestly remember as this car has been stored the last 6 months. I think it is a 10.5 ET60 and that is maybe 2mm inside the horizontal plane of the fender. Yes the lips are rolled.
Have a Turbo and a MkI CAB as well as a GT3 from a local guy that is coming over to do brakes. Not sure if the measurement from the GT3 would be the same as a MkII non GT car.
Awesome! I am actually more interested in a mk2 GT3 measurement then a C2 so this is perfect. Wonder if they are going to be the same or different......
Thanks!
