2010 GT STANCE thread
11-23-2011, 08:12 PM
#21
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
Somehow I doubt that a mfr could ever get "stance" "right". There's too many other criteria that they HAVE to satisfy either legally or to suit corporate design standards. But forgetting about such things as headlamp height and tire chain clearance for the purposes of this thread . . .
I put "stance" in quotes because it's really a matter of subjective opinion that does not lend itself to accurate description (let alone measurement). Different people have different senses of proportion, or look at/ignore different features.
"Right" is in quotes because as soon as a mfr puts a car down into whatever the then-commonly-accepted definition of stance happens to be, it'll be time for the leading edge guys to take things still further (and the mfr's new entry won't be quite "right" any more). "Right" really can't ever become "mainstream" or stray much past the individual, the aftermarket, and custom fab businesses.
You'll find that there are a few of us that are much more function over form, and I think I'd better leave the rest of that train of thought right where it's at for now.
It is possible to overcome - or at least crutch - some of the chassis shortcomings that can come from aggressive lowering and/or playing games with the car's rake. Some are simple and not too pricy, others . . . aren't.
Offhand, I'd say you want to consider adjustable versions of many things if you truly want to maximize the combination of "stance" and function. The further you deviate from stock, the more likely it becomes that you will have to correct the suspension geometry or other things that affect the 'balance' of the car. I happen to have adjustable dampers (Konis) and stabilizer bars (Sam's), partly because I can see a need to be able to tweak those things if I change other things.
And there are a few things that are completely unnecessary from a functional point of view, such as panhard bar braces.
On edit - the best thing you can do right away is find a wheel and tire combination that you know you'll be happy with for as much of your time with this car as possible. Making sure that they will (still) fit will probably end up driving many of the other decisions that you'll be making.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 11-23-2011 at 08:17 PM.
11-24-2011, 04:58 AM
#23
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Palm Beach to South Carolina
Posts: 1,567
It's not the diameter of the wheel that determines how much gap there will be - it's the diameter of the tire that you put on the wheel..
Steeda Sports with 255/45/18s front and 285/40/18s rear would look great!
Steeda Sports with 255/45/18s front and 285/40/18s rear would look great!
Last edited by jdmcbride; 11-24-2011 at 08:31 AM.
11-24-2011, 06:44 AM
#24
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 142
Also take offset into consideration..
This car has FRPP wheels for a 2003 on it and they are only 24mm offset which brings them just to the edge of the wheel well.
The car also has Steeda sport springs which almost makes it level.
The car also has Steeda sport springs which almost makes it level.
