Help me understand "wheel gap"

EvanR wrote: To me, a stock-height BMW looks just fine.

Perhaps because BMW is one of the best at making the wheel sit right in the fender. A stock height 99-04 Mustang looks as if it's going mudding.

ShadowSix wrote: While moderate lowering will always be around,the wheel gap kids are just another fad

I don't think you can really call it a fad. It has been going on since at least the 40's. Think of the "bombs" of the 50's, the early Kustoms, the lowriders of the 60's and 70's and the "euro" look of the 80's.

This corvair photo was taken in 1967. It would fit right in the current stance scene today. Camber and stretched tires? Check!

In reply to ditchdigger:

Agreed, lowered cars have been around for ever. Drifting on the other hand....

I think you are imagining that the car designers have way more control over what the final car looks like then they actually have. Barter they are done the engineers get ahold of it, laugh at the stupidity of designers, and then proceed to make changes. Then the death blow comes when the accountants get ahold of it.

Anti-stance wrote: In reply to ditchdigger: Agreed, lowered cars have been around for ever. Drifting on the other hand....

Never watched dukes of hazard? The only thing that changed is making it "competition"

my old Nova:

stockish Nova:

which one looks better? well, which looks if you ignore the custom 2 tone paint on my car?

i wish i would have taken some side by side pics of the 92 and 94 Caprice 9C1's that i owned at the same time. they were almost identical cars, except for a couple of minor details like the rear wheelwells and the shape of the quarter indows... the 94 sat a good 3" lower than the 92 and it just looked flat out meaner because of it.

the closest i have is this shot, with my Nova also in frame.. yes, i lived in an apartment and had this many cars. in fact, i think i might have also owned my 78 Ford LTD II at this time, too..

icaneat50eggs wrote: I think you are imagining that the car designers have way more control over what the final car looks like then they actually have. Barter they are done the engineers get ahold of it, laugh at the stupidity of designers, and then proceed to make changes. Then the death blow comes when the accountants get ahold of it.

see: Roger B. Smith, grandfather of bean counter/ automotive design

B430 wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: In reply to ditchdigger: Agreed, lowered cars have been around for ever. Drifting on the other hand....

Never watched dukes of hazard? The only thing that changed is making it "competition"

It's been in Japan since the 80's. It wasn't organized, but it certainly was a pastime.

EvanR wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Oh god, that blue Miata is teh sexxorz!

See, and I like the look of the targa car better. I guess I've solved my own problem here. It's theoretical. I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars *are* designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look. I wouldn't want car designers to tell me I do my job poorly. They don't know my craft. To me, lowering a car (solely for appearance purposes, mind you) is akin to telling the car designer that he/she did a crappy job. Since I don't know car design, I feel I couldn't say that.

Heh, I'm completely different...I don't see it as saying they did a crappy job. I see it as they designed the car to appeal to the generic population as an aggregate. If the general population of the world/country sees the car as "fine", then the designer did their job right.

But there's that problem: People have opinions, and opinions are subjective. I am not part of that "generic population" that the car designer is trying to please, since I am part of the minority. I generally seem to prefer a car that is a little lower than stock. Not talking "Hellaflush" or anything, just a little bit lower.

Perfect height, and solely for looks. I love it. And yes, the way stuff looks is important to me, otherwise, I'd be sweating that fat chick on the Food Network.

I like low cars in general. The lower the overall profile, the better it looks to me. That doesn't mean that it has to be scraping frame, or this hellaflush crap.

My MX6 is extremely low, but still has wheel gap i can almost stick my fist in. I do not like the way it looks.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I like low cars in general. The lower the overall profile, the better it looks to me. That doesn't mean that it has to be scraping frame, or this hellaflush crap. My MX6 is extremely low, but still has wheel gap i can almost stick my fist in. I do not like the way it looks.

Agreed!

Raise the lowered!

I'm crossposting this over from the hotlink thread because it is magnificent in every way.

Will wrote:

EvanR wrote: To me, a stock-height BMW looks just fine.

Perhaps because BMW is one of the best at making the wheel sit right in the fender. A stock height 99-04 Mustang looks as if it's going mudding.

Exhibit A - My old 1999 Cobra vert with 18" Cobra R wheels with 275/35ZR18 Kumhos. Stock suspension. Never did get around to lowering it. The wheel gap annoyed the berkeley out of me.

It's got almost as much wheel gap as my Pro-4X Frontier on 265/70/16s!!!

Anti-stance wrote:

RealMiniDriver wrote: Oh man, I can't wait to see Anti-Stance's response to this.

Here's my position(not that it matters), if you want to lower your car lower it. Do what you want to your car, you should do what you like, not to keep up with the Jones'. Personally, when I see a car lowered so much that it is nearly un-driveable without having to dodge speed bumps and road reflectors, I think it looks stupid. Wow, you are tucking wheel, cool, everyone else thinks you are an shiny happy person when you are holding up traffic at a railroad crossing trying to go over them as close to 45* as to not rip your oil pan off. With that said, That BMW looks FANTASTIC to me. Of course it looks a little better lower than stock. But the suspension geometry is still there, I am sure the a-arms are not statically inverted and probably doesn't suffer from bumpsteer issues. I am also willing to bet the owner of the BMW also doesn't go to car meets and criticize people for being "4x4 status yo". I still reserve the right to make fun of the stance kiddies, just as they reserve the right to rip their oil pans off.

About lowered E30's - there was an E30 M3 in our class in the Targa. Looked great. Finished one place ahead of us, too. But guess who damn near didn't make it back to service one day after holing their oil pan on a long, rough stage? It was a near thing. I was rooting for them to get home as nobody wants to win due to a mechanical problem. There's a photo from the race of them throwing sparks from under the car on one compression, while the Miata is coming through clean.

I was looking at our E39 M5 today. It has the perfect wheel placement. Lowered would look terrible. Now, what does look wicked is to put a set of rear 9.5" wheels on the front to replace the stock 8" ones. Helps the handling, too.

What's worse than wheel gap?

Massively disproportionate wheel gap. See E36 BMWs or 2002-2007 WRXs (stock). And about a billion other cars. I hate that the front wheel gap is about 3X that of the rear.

Also annoying: massively disproportionate track relative to the body. 1st gen Saturn sedans/wagons are a great example of this. There is room for about 1/2" more wheel width in the rear than up front. Looks goofy as hell, especially with the factory wheels/tires.

Back on topic though, I think I agree that some wheel gap is ok, as long as the wheel appears to be in the center of the arc. The mustang pictured above could be lowered like ~1-1.5" and the wheel gap would appear to be consistent around the perimeter of the wheel (180 degrees anyway), and I think that looks fine. Having a little less wheel gap on top vs. the sides is ok as well.

A ridiculous violation of this is the 2011 Outback. Like 1/2" clearance front/rear, and 4" vertical. My girlfriend's father has one of these, it looks way worse in person.

http://images.newcars.com/images/car-pictures/original/2011-Subaru-Outback-Wagon-2.5-i-4dr-All-wheel-Drive-Wagon-Photo-3.png

It seriously looks like someone was drunk and tried to cut the fenders with the wheel in the center. And missed.

You have to remember that the engineers/designers, etc., all have a lot of standards to meet. Sure, they could bring every car out with a roll cage, gutted, with track slicks, etc., but that wouldn't work. Some people want AC, heat, maybe a stereo, maybe some seats to sit in, sound deadening so they can carry on a conversation, suspension that doesn't rattle their fillings out, gas mileage that is respectable, and on and on. Production cars are the best compromise of performance, fuel efficiency, ergonomics, aesthetics. Not everyone is going to love everything about a new car, that's why the aftermarket is HUGE! And guess what the best part is? TO EACH HIS/HER OWN! We are free to do what we want with our cars (yes, even if you want to lift your Crown Vic, put 26's on it, paint it purple, and rattle the doors with a trunk full of woofers...)

I am in the lower is more appealing category, but that doesn't make it the right one. If you like your Scion xB at stock height, then more power to you! Enjoy it!

Remember, cars are very subjective (except I think we can all agree that the Pontiac Aztek is an automotive abomination). Even "ugly" guys and gals find boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses. God created us with an amazing variety of desires and preferences, so enjoy them-without them, the world would be a very boring place!

stanger_missle wrote: Exhibit A - My old 1999 Cobra vert with 18" Cobra R wheels with 275/35ZR18 Kumhos. Stock suspension. Never did get around to lowering it. The wheel gap annoyed the berkeley out of me.

Wow. That is bad. How did they get that so wrong?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

stanger_missle wrote: Exhibit A - My old 1999 Cobra vert with 18" Cobra R wheels with 275/35ZR18 Kumhos. Stock suspension. Never did get around to lowering it. The wheel gap annoyed the berkeley out of me.

Wow. That *is* bad. How did they get that so wrong?

Because of people who drive into parking blocks, into curbs, over speed bumps too fast, in the snow, etc...

Think "stupid general public"

My first car, stock height on stock 195/60/14 tires. Note the front wheel gap especially:

My current Prelude, lowered with H&R "Race" springs and on 215/40/17 tires.

The stock wheel gap on 3g Preludes is ridiculous and looks horrible. IMO the lower it gets, the better it looks.

Gap from hell! (Also: reverse rake)

You know, some cars are built to perform and have huge wheel gap. Can't believe I didn't think of this before, but these things look awesome.

the gaps on that Nova look bigger than the gaps on my Nova.. and i think he needs to get wheels with a tad bit more backspacing lest he be made fun of for having a car that looks like an RC car..