Honda CR-Z Hybrid Car Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So this bugged me ever since I bought my first set of wheels long time ago - why is it common for OEM suspension on majority of mainstream Japanese and American cars to have a very high (negative) offset for the rear wheels?

Even the cheap FWD VW or Audi would have a much more refined looking rear end. Between the offset and wheel arch gap it just puzzles me what drives automotive designers to make decisions like that. Not like US and Japanese roads are horrible and require a lot of clearance. And it doesn't cost any more or less to manufacture a different offset wheel and to have an even wheel arch gap.

So if you have some insight in this, please share, but for now I'll be buying $150 spacers...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
i don't knwo the exact answer, but please clarify what you mean by very high (negative) offset?
Commonly known as tucked in wheels. Which usually is signified by a high offset (ET45 and higher).

Also I might be on crack saying that it's negative offset. It's not. So please ignore that part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
negative offset is the 'deep dish' look

negative - more towards brakes [ |]
positive - towards outside of car [| ]
zero - centerline with the wheel [ | ]

Most cars I see have a pretty large positive offset, such as the cr-z with the flat faced look. OEM will do this because it creates less pressure on the lugs and steering system.

negative offset moves the tire away from suspension/brake components and widens the stance, more pressure on lugs/steering, wider turning radius ... can allow wider tires, and some prefer the look.

Taken from memory of reading faq's and wikis :p

It would be beneficial to show/link some pictures ... 1000 words and all that :D

Hois's rims, for example, are positive offset and nearly flush with body of car


this would be an example of negitive offset

as well as



:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
This still doesn't address the main reason for this thread - why the hell do OEMs tend to have the tucked in rear wheels on the FWD cars?

Worst case they can move the hubs out if they want to avoid the stress on lug studs and such and still have the wheel more or less flush with the body of the car. (I tried really hard to avoid using the word flush since it became and abomination with the 'hellaflush' stuff).
 

·
Capt'n Jack
Joined
·
9,499 Posts
^Dunno, but was the first thing I fixed... Maybe it is an aftermarket conspiracy.. :blush:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
A few of reasons I can think of...


1) Wider track in the front induces understeer, aka makes a "safer" vehicle for the common driver in an emergency situation.

2) Keeping the unsprung weight closer to the pivot point of the suspension technically reduces the force of load on the spring and shock, and should produce a more reactive suspension.


3) ... I cant think of anything else, it truly does look hideous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Probably to make it easier for bad drivers to parallel park without curbing their rims lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,396 Posts
the reason that our car is designed this way is for handling characteristics.

I, as one of the few people on this forum, believe that FWD cars should have the same offset all around, and NEVER have a RWD staggered setup like what most people are doing with their CRZ's.

I dont mind the look of the way everything is, if you dont like it, lower it more.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top