[Move_Over]

The poke isn’t too bad with some camber dialed in anyway

[Move_Over]

F’n A cotton sorry about the upside down photo.

[Bluebarchetta]

Originally Posted by Move_Over

F’n A cotton sorry about the upside down photo.

Thanks for the Pic anyway, can’t believe this forum has such a problem with iPhone and iPad.

2 questions

1. Is that the +22 with 305’s squared? tried zoom, but couldn’t read sidewall
2. Is your decision (and anyone else for that matter) running the EC7 vs SM10 strictly a cost differential issue? Sounds stupid, but after years of tracking, I tend to look at ease of brake dust removal. Not concerned about cosmetics, just keeping corrosive pad material off. Wheels get enough abuse as it is

[Move_Over]

Originally Posted by Bluebarchetta

Thanks for the Pic anyway, can’t believe this forum has such a problem with iPhone and iPad.

2 questions

1. Is that the +22 with 305’s squared? tried zoom, but couldn’t read sidewall
2. Is your decision (and anyone else for that matter) running the EC7 vs SM10 strictly a cost differential issue? Sounds stupid, but after years of tracking, I tend to look at ease of brake dust removal. Not concerned about cosmetics, just keeping corrosive pad material off. Wheels get enough abuse as it is

Hi, yes it’s a 305/30/19 setup.

For the 19” I really liked the EC7, always have loved that wheel. But in my 18” setup i went with an SM10 after seeing them on mustangs/camaros.

[pbsinternet1le]

Originally Posted by FNxR3DNECK

^^^What he said^^^

I didn't realize that the offset was 35 on the "Camaro" 19x10.5s. I have to agree 100% that you would be better off with the "BMW" ones that are 22 offset. The rear poke is negligible, and personally I think it gives the car an even better looking stance with the slight poke in the rear.

Tough I agree with Alex about running spacer not being as "scary/sketchy" as a lot of people make it out to be, I'd rather run the hub rings on the BMW spec wheels and a 5mm spacer than no hub ring and a 20mm space on the Camaro spec wheels.

I really don't understand why people would have voted for 35 offset on the square setup.

Also as Provoste said somewhere in here the "poke" in the rear widens the track widths and makes it more stable and the rear feels absolutely planted!

I have been waiting for the release for Camaro specific and have to say i am disappointed by the offset choices offered..i guess the BMW set is still the best option...

[pbsinternet1le]

Seems to me like they should have made a 17et offset to solve that issue..

[carguy55]

I asked Apex why they didn't have the ET22 in the group by. Answer was:

To run a rotatable 305 square setup, you will want to use our 19x10.5" ET35 wheel with extended studs and a spacer up front on your SS 1LE. 19x10.5" ET22, while it does fit up front with less spacer than the ET35, pokes out substantially in the rear. 19x10.5" ET35 actually fits the rear of the vehicle, and since both offsets require a front spacer, ET35 is the way to go.

[carguy55]

Since you have to run spacers no matter what, you can always get custom spacers made to avoid having to use rings on the BMW wheels.

For example custom 5mm spacers from these guys are about $35 each

http://www.motorsport-tech.com/wheel_spacers.html

[Move_Over]

Originally Posted by pbsinternet1le

Seems to me like they should have made a 17et offset to solve that issue..

ET17 would be pretty pokey in the rear. Mexiflush!

[pbsinternet1le]

Originally Posted by Move_Over

ET17 would be pretty pokey in the rear. Mexiflush!

Aye carumba!

[Provoste]

Originally Posted by carguy55

I asked Apex why they didn't have the ET22 in the group by. Answer was:

To run a rotatable 305 square setup, you will want to use our 19x10.5" ET35 wheel with extended studs and a spacer up front on your SS 1LE. 19x10.5" ET22, while it does fit up front with less spacer than the ET35, pokes out substantially in the rear. 19x10.5" ET35 actually fits the rear of the vehicle, and since both offsets require a front spacer, ET35 is the way to go.

I don’t think Apex fully realizes how agressive OE offsets were from GM. The 10.5 et22 rear is no more aggressive than the ‘12 wide ZL1 1LE. Remember, the ZL1 has the same rear quarters an an SS, only the front fenders are wider. The 10.5 with et22 on the rear is a “flush” fit, with only -1.7 rear camber. It looks perfect if you ask me. And YES, wider rear track only aids stability.

[pbsinternet1le]

Originally Posted by Provoste

I don’t think Apex fully realizes how agressive OE offsets were from GM. The 10.5 et22 rear is no more aggressive than the ‘12 wide ZL1 1LE. Remember, the ZL1 has the same rear quarters an an SS, only the front fenders are wider. The 10.5 with et22 on the rear is a “flush” fit, with only -1.7 rear camber. It looks perfect if you ask me. And YES, wider rear track only aids stability.

For a track use square setup would a 17 et be perfect? Seems like the et 22 with rings and 5mm spacer is still the best choice? No?

[Chevy1LE]

Seeing a lot of pictures of cars on track with MRR wheels. They seem to make a direct knock off of the OEM 1LE wheels. Can anyone comment on the quality/durability in using them for track?

[Jimbeau11]

Originally Posted by Chevy1LE

Seeing a lot of pictures of cars on track with MRR wheels. They seem to make a direct knock off of the OEM 1LE wheels. Can anyone comment on the quality/durability in using them for track?

No personal experience but multiple comments in various FB track-focused Camaro groups about these wheels getting bent at the track.