224 square set up
- Thread starter IanJ
- Start date
North West Surrey
I nearly did it when I had my 3.0Si. I bought a set of 4 fronts but never got round to fitting them. :roll:
224 fronts are 8Jx18 ET42 so the fronts will sit 5mm further out than MV2, 108, etc. fronts, but on the rear they will probably only be 1 or 2mm further out than MV2, 108, etc. rears as those are 8.5Jx18. Depending how much further out you want them 5 or 10mm each end should work OK depending on whether your car is lowered.
Tyres wise I'd probably just stick with 225/40 all round, or maybe 235/40, but it's all personal preference at the end of the day.
I'd love to see how it looks once you've got them on though.
224 fronts are 8Jx18 ET42 so the fronts will sit 5mm further out than MV2, 108, etc. fronts, but on the rear they will probably only be 1 or 2mm further out than MV2, 108, etc. rears as those are 8.5Jx18. Depending how much further out you want them 5 or 10mm each end should work OK depending on whether your car is lowered.
Tyres wise I'd probably just stick with 225/40 all round, or maybe 235/40, but it's all personal preference at the end of the day.
I'd love to see how it looks once you've got them on though.
Thanks for the reply. I bought a normal staggered set from Neilson a few months ago (many thanks!) but the rears stick out a bit too much for my personal taste. Also they have M profile size tyres on and the rears were rubbing on the arches slightly. I was gonna switch the tyres over from my 108's but then Corona struck and I ended up just putting the 108's back on. I've had plenty of time to think which led to the idea of fronts on the rear, I would need source 2 front wheels before I can do it.
The rears would stick out given the 224s are 9Jx18 ET30 whereas 108 rears are 8.5Jx18 ET50, so that's 20mm further out due to the ET and about another 6mm for the extra width of the rim!
And I think the standard rear tyres on the M are 245/40 so a higher profile than the 255/35s normally fitted to 108s, but I just noticed see Neilson's wheels had 255/40 rear tyres.
I think 4 fronts would probably work pretty well, and you'd never know the difference by looking at them. I've also read somewhere that some people reckon BMWs handle better on a "square" set-up as there is a bit less understeer.
Shame I sold my set of 4 fronts a while ago, but good luck finding a pair.
Iain.
And I think the standard rear tyres on the M are 245/40 so a higher profile than the 255/35s normally fitted to 108s, but I just noticed see Neilson's wheels had 255/40 rear tyres.
I think 4 fronts would probably work pretty well, and you'd never know the difference by looking at them. I've also read somewhere that some people reckon BMWs handle better on a "square" set-up as there is a bit less understeer.
Shame I sold my set of 4 fronts a while ago, but good luck finding a pair.
Iain.
The rears would stick out given the 224s are 9Jx18 ET30 whereas 108 rears are 8.5Jx18 ET50, so that's 20mm further out due to the ET and about another 6mm for the extra width of the rim!
And I think the standard rear tyres on the M are 245/40 so a higher profile than the 255/35s normally fitted to 108s, but I just noticed see Neilson's wheels had 255/40 rear tyres.
I think 4 fronts would probably work pretty well, and you'd never know the difference by looking at them. I've also read somewhere that some people reckon BMWs handle better on a "square" set-up as there is a bit less understeer.
Shame I sold my set of 4 fronts a while ago, but good luck finding a pair.
Iain.
And I think the standard rear tyres on the M are 245/40 so a higher profile than the 255/35s normally fitted to 108s, but I just noticed see Neilson's wheels had 255/40 rear tyres.
I think 4 fronts would probably work pretty well, and you'd never know the difference by looking at them. I've also read somewhere that some people reckon BMWs handle better on a "square" set-up as there is a bit less understeer.
Shame I sold my set of 4 fronts a while ago, but good luck finding a pair.
Iain.