Hyundai Genesis Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey guys,

I've searched all over the site and Fitment Industries for some answers but am getting conflicting answers that are all over the place. My current setup is:
225/40 19 19x8.5 +35 with a 3/4 inch spacer
245/40 19 19x9.5 +45 with a 31/32 inch spacer

The previous owner had this setup and I've been running it for the past 5 years. I would like to get rid of the spacers but keep the relatively same offset. So roughly +16 in the front and +21 in the rear. There is not a lot of options for an 8.5 wheel with a low offset.

I see many people with 9.5 front and 10.5 rear with 245 and 275 wide tires. 275 seems too wide for me with only a 240hp car. Plus, I like having the backend kickout easily. I enjoy canyons and mountain roads so handling is very important to me rather than looks. I've looked in to square setups but can't really find a comparison of the handling vs a staggered setup (more/less understeer/oversteer, turn in etc).

I just want to see if anyone could provide some insight. Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
So you want to drive mountains and canyons and you like to have your back and kick out? The majority of people with a brain would like to improce the handling and have their tires stick when driving. Please, do us all a favor to protect other drivers and keep insurance costs lower....stop driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
I’m pretty sure he was only referring to having too much rear tire for a 240hp car.

As for balanced handling, the Genesis doesn’t benefit from increased stagger, so choose wheel sizes that allow tire sizes that will keep you under the 3% difference for TC, but get you as close to square as you can be. I’ve run 8.5f/10r with 245/275 on track, and while the grip is nice, the balance isn’t where it needs to be for quick lap times. I have Ace Alloys on the car now, and was able to pick my custom offsets to get what I wanted. For handling, I wouldn’t choose more than an inch of difference f/r in the wheels, but there aren’t a lot of choices available to suit. I’m going to use an OE 8.5” square setup for track use, and just keep the Ace wheels for street use. There are plenty of 9” or 9.5” wheels you could run square, but you’re likely going to still have to use some small spacers (5-7mm) to get it where you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I've seen a few people run 245/255. Is there any rubbing with a 245 in the front? If I did 245/255 with 9.5 all around would that be enough for TC to be fine? I've seen some people say square helped handling and other people say that square worsens handling because the car was designed to be staggered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
I commented only on exactly what thr OP said.

Squared setup should be kept for AWD cars. The RWD Gen should be kept staggered as factory delivered ...and since the car is stock, why change sizing that it came with? Just go with a quality tire that allows for best handling.

Oh yeah, if the rim's offset needs the 3/4" spacers to make it fit, get rims that fit properly and ditch that 3/4" spacer. If the spacers are there for $hits and giggles, ditch the spacers...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Yes, I was mainly talking about what L8Braker said. If the car had 275 in the back I feel it would understeer too much. So it's not that I want more oversteer, I just want less understeer. And there isn't a wide selection of aftermarket wheels for a 19x8 if I wanted to go back to the stock setup. Is the common setup 245/275 9.5/10/5 strictly for looks? Or do some do this because it improves their grip/handling?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Is the common setup 245/275 9.5/10/5 strictly for looks? Or do some do this because it improves their grip/handling?

The 245/275 setup is mostly to keep the TC in check while staying close to the OE tire specs. For handling, square would be OK but there’s much more room in the rear for something wider. If you can do 9s all around, I say go for it, but you should be able to work with a 9f/9.5r setup too, with a 255/265 tire stagger. Keeps TC happy and affords LOTS of grip with the right tire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
The few wheels I've had my eye on only come in 8.5, 9.5 and 10.5. What about 9.5 all around with 245/255 or 245/265? Or if I do 8.5/9.5 (like I already have) with maybe bigger tires? I like how my car handles now so I don't want to worsen it after I change the setup. I'm also fine with it being relatively the same but obviously if I can improve it then I will. I've also heard some people say that turn in won't be as quick or responsive the wider you go up front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
I’m running 8.5 up front with a 245 and there is a slight stretch in the tire. I don’t see the benefit of going to a 9.5 front while sticking with a 245 tire. Too much stretch in my opinion, and it will make your car handle worse, not better. Plus the added camber necessary to get the 9.5 front to fit will work against you with an overly stretched tire. 245/265 on 8.5/9.5 is just fine, but it may require add’l tuning elsewhere to get the handling dialed in. I’m already on adjustable coils, so I’m looking at sway bars next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I don’t see the benefit of going to a 9.5 front while sticking with a 245 tire. Too much stretch in my opinion, and it will make your car handle worse, not better.
That's the kind of answer I'm looking for. With the many people that have 245 9.5 in front, I've only seen questions and answers to how it fits and not if it worsens or improves handling/performance. Which makes me wonder why more people aren't worried about the performance aspect. The wheel I'm looking at only has a +30 for an 8.5 so I would either need to get another spacer or find another wheel. The 9.5 has a +22 so the rear would be fine. I got my got corner balanced a couple of years ago and it made a big difference so I'll probably do that again when I get these new wheels and tires. I don't want to go bigger than 9.5 in the rear so I'll just have to find an 8.5 or 9 that I like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
So, after much more research, I'm planning on going 19x8.5 +30 19x9.5 +22 with 235/35 255/35. I will most likely have to get some spacers for the front but I'll see after the wheels are on. I'm pretty set on the wheels but I'm not 100% on the tire sizes. I don't know if I should do the sizes above or do 235/40 255/40. I see more people doing 35 but haven't seen an explanation for why vs 40.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Most people are lowered. My pic is 8.5 +20 w/ a 245/35. I’m on coilovers.

You’re choice will have more stretch, but it will be less noticeable with a 40-series tire. Most tire stores are willing to mount one up for you if you’re buying locally.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,909 Posts
Contrary to what you might believe, having a narrower foot print is more ideal for a controlled slide.

The more square the foot print on a rwd car, the twitchier it is to control a slide in the corners.

Just wanted to point that out, but we're talking just inches in offset, so I don't think it would matter that much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I'm also lowered on coilovers. Here's what my setup looks like now 225/40 8.5, 245/40 9.5 (ignore the peeling plastidip). I'm just not sure if I should go .6" shorter with 35 or .3" taller with 40. AKGC, what sizes would you recommend?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
The more square the foot print on a rwd car, the twitchier it is to control a slide in the corners.

That’s an overly broad statement I can’t buy into. Too many things factor into the behavior of a car at the limit. Tire compound, alignment, shock valving, spring rates, sway bars, tire pressures, live axle or IRS, and suspension geometry.

While a smaller footprint will allow the driver to induce oversteer at a lower grip level, the twitchiness, which is to say the ability of the car to react/respond to inputs, isn’t static. It can be tuned in or out with changes to any or all of the items mentioned above.

I’ve raced RWD cars with square setups, FWD cars with square setups, and RWD cars with staggered setups. There’s no “bottom line” rule to any of them. Even driving style can alter the way a car behaves. Tires mostly dictate the level of grip, while the others dictate how the car responds to that level of grip.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,909 Posts
That’s an overly broad statement I can’t buy into. Too many things factor into the behavior of a car at the limit. Tire compound, alignment, shock valving, spring rates, sway bars, tire pressures, live axle or IRS, and suspension geometry.

While a smaller footprint will allow the driver to induce oversteer at a lower grip level, the twitchiness, which is to say the ability of the car to react/respond to inputs, isn’t static. It can be tuned in or out with changes to any or all of the items mentioned above.

I’ve raced RWD cars with square setups, FWD cars with square setups, and RWD cars with staggered setups. There’s no “bottom line” rule to any of them. Even driving style can alter the way a car behaves. Tires mostly dictate the level of grip, while the others dictate how the car responds to that level of grip.
Lancia strados, look up how that drove. And what I meant by square is wheel base, not tire sizes.
I also said in my previous post "rwd car"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Lancia strados, look up how that drove. And what I meant by square is wheel base, not tire sizes.

I also said in my previous post "rwd car"

That’s quite an obscure car choice to justify such an overly broad statement. A mid-70s, mid-engine car? OK. A rear-engined 911 is also twitchy at the limit, but that doesn’t help us much either.

Let’s get back to this century. The GC as delivered is decent at the limit but has too much understeer designed in so knuckleheads aren’t crashing themselves all over the canyons in CA. Simply going to a grippier tire doesn’t change that, it only raises the grip level. Something needs to be altered.

A square wheel setup with square, or nearly square, tire sizing is a start. 225/245 stock vs 245/255, 255/265, or something similar would help. Assuming the wheels will support the tire sizing, reducing the section width gap front to rear is a step in the right direction. Granted it’s incremental, but from there you can play with alignment settings and tire pressures to fine tune. Outside of that, you’re looking at alternatives in equipment, springs, shocks, sway bars, etc. It’s doable, but not necessarily cheap.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top