Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

The quest for wider wheels and tires, 295, 305 and beyond...

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
daaaaaaamn son...that's crazy close!!!
Found the lurker who didn't scroll through the thread ;)
I'm trying to get 315s to fit all around so have a teaser of my new upright (Scroll right to see clearance difference)

Hoping to finish the small parts needed this week to install one side and then I'll get picture of how clearance changes with the tires I have on hand.

Mmmmm, shiny car stuff. Must. Stay. In. EVX...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lindenwood
Some photos of the 20x11
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6694.jpeg
    IMG_6694.jpeg
    759.7 KB · Views: 69
  • IMG_6690.jpeg
    IMG_6690.jpeg
    305.1 KB · Views: 47
  • IMG_6687.jpeg
    IMG_6687.jpeg
    317.1 KB · Views: 50
I tried to get maximum clearance on the uprights for tires but ran into a major issue with the upper control arm. At full compression the upper control arm angles far more than I expected limiting just how much I could do there. These pictures are +1 to +1.5 deg of camber from OEM (depending on ride height) so actual clearance relative to OEM (and if you think of between upright and fender) is 7-12mm depending where the tire gets closest to the upright.

I made a version with super high offset that had 20-25mm more inboard clearance but I'll have to make a specific upper control arm for that.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3918.jpg
    IMG_3918.jpg
    478.6 KB · Views: 50
  • IMG_3913.jpg
    IMG_3913.jpg
    511.7 KB · Views: 47
I've just trawled through this thread start to finish for the umpteenth time and added a bunch of different confirmed(ish) fitments into a disorganised notepad document. I was in a bit of a scattered state of mind trying to put different brake, wheel, spacer and subjective fit outcomes so please dispute my maths if something looks wrong. Any figures noted below are for non-Performance brake spacing (i.e. factory cast rotors or aftermarket rotors with aluminium hats) so adjust by ~4mm to apply to M3P factory rotors. All offsets are effective offset including spacers if used. Below are some key figures for your dissection, confirmation and/or disagreement:

For inboard fitment (i.e. from the wheel-to-hub mounting plane to the nominal inboard extent of the wheel):
The furthest confirmed inboard fitment for 19" is the @MountainPass MegaMesh 19"x10.5" ET+33: 166.5mm mount to inner. MPP have a vertical inner lip so a tapered lip at 19" would have a spare millimetre or two.

User @The Other Dan posts here showing 18"x11" ET+27*: 166.7mm mount to inner. This corroborates the above; 18" has less clearance to the upright, but this wheel has a tapered inner lip and some mild shaving of the upright resulting in acceptable clerance. (*ET+40 minus 13mm effective spacing: 17mm spacer but stock M3P brake rotors)

Coincidentally in Australia we can't make the track more than 25mm wider than the widest factory option. Allowing for rounding and variability in aluminium rotor hat thickness, my offset limit for an 11" wide wheel is ET+27. The universe is whispering to me.

For outboard fitment (i.e. from the wheel-to-hub mounting plane to a variable and somewhat subjective clearance to the guards):
Note: Outboard fitment is affected heavily by tyre size. I'm going to refer to the outboard extent of the wheel, not the tyre, because we can't even count on two different 295s to be the same width. Thanks for your Goodyear epiphany @MasterC17. I'm only looking at use cases with adjustable FUCAs, I consider it unwise to run this wide with factory camber.

Looking at the fitment from The Other Dan again we get 112.7mm from mount to outer. His post states it clears with approximately three degrees of negative camber, which I consider to be very reasonable for this width.

Next wildest is from @gearchruncher in this post showing an 18"x10.5" ET+25, giving 108.5mm from mount to outer, with confirmed clerance on 295/30R18 Hoosiers with 2.3 degrees negative camber. I consider this to corroborate The Other Dan's fitment in general terms.

Notes:
- 18"x11" ET+27 is the widest confirmed fit inboard and outboard
- 18"x10.5" wide is a sensible option if you want to avoid irreversible mods (i.e. upright shaving or hand-pulling the guards).
- 18"x11" with a wide 305 or any 315+ will cause you to have clearance issues both inboard and outboard
- 19"x11" can avoid the need to shave the upright but does not change the tyre clearance limitation at all
- 20"x11" looks badass but same limitation and restricted tyre choice/pricing
- We've found the limit of what the factory panels support without rolling or a wide-body kit
 
Last edited:
1. There is way more room in the rear. Has anyone tried a staggered setup on an AWD car? What about different diameters? Fitting a 305, 315 or even 335 in the rear seems like it would be possible.
I have pondered over this too and upon studying every other car with a staggered setup, one thing was clear - they all have the same track width front and rear when you include the tire widths. The axle track width of the rear is shorter than the front to accommodate the wider tires on the rear.

The Tesla M3 unfortunately has equal track width front and rear, and putting on wider tires in the rear will certainly harm the handling.
 
Last edited:
The Tesla M3 unfortunately has equal track width front and rear, and putting on wider tires in the rear will certainly harm the handling.
The issue is not track width. It's that the car is a near 50/50 weight split, and is AWD, so there is not a clear reason you need more tire in the back if what you care about is overall lap times and handling. The car isn't traction limited in forward acceleration, so what is a bigger rear tire giving you? Having more grip in the rear than the front in a corner isn't all that useful.

In a lot of ways, an AWD car would want a bigger front tire since it can turn and accelerate on the same axle. The rear is never quite as stressed. This would change if the car had a lot more HP on the rear axle than it currently does.

The cars with really big staggers are things like the 911 or C8, which have a ton more weight over the rear axle, and are RWD as well.
 
The cars with really big staggers are things like the 911 or C8, which have a ton more weight over the rear axle, and are RWD as well.
and yet their track width is same front & rear when you include the tire widths. In other words, every such car is a square setup track width wise. It is an optical illusion that makes a viewer believe the rear is wider than the front.