Two part numbers for 16x9 Fuchs????

RT73S · 08:20 AM

Does anybody know the difference between P/N:
911.362.118.00 and
911.362.119.00 ?

diy83sc · 12-04-2003, 02:37 PM

RT,

FWIW, I quickly did a serach for the .118 part on Waynes OEM Search and the rest of the board. Only your mail came up...

Tony

80sctarga · 12-04-2003, 02:40 PM

Interesting........
Didnt know there was a 118.00
http://members.rennlist.org/911pcars/WheelWts.html

KTL · 12-04-2003, 03:01 PM

Where'd you get .118.00?

Only 16x9 Fuchs listed are 911.362.119.00 and 911.362.119.90

The .90 is listed as a "unvarnished, rim flange polished" wheel. I assume that means polished rim outers instead of the standard anodized finish.

A part number search for the 911.362.118.00 returns a ! Part Number Unknown ! response.

RT73S · 12-04-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KTL
Where'd you get .118.00?

Only 16x9 Fuchs listed are 911.362.119.00 and 911.362.119.90

The .90 is listed as a "unvarnished, rim flange polished" wheel. I assume that means polished rim outers instead of the standard anodized finish.

A part number search for the 911.362.118.00 returns a ! Part Number Unknown ! response.

Thanks for all the responses!
I got the .118 number off this chart that's been floating around

but could only find ref to the .119 else where so I thought I'd ask the question.

KLT, how do you do a "part number search"?

real550A · real550A's Garage

I believe that was identified as a misprint a while back.

911pcars · 12-04-2003, 04:02 PM

I put together the chart at: http://members.rennlist.org/911pcars/WheelWts.html

from various sources; hopefully reputable.

If I've made any mistakes, I'd like to correct the data.

Thanks,
Sherwood

KTL · 10:35 PM

RT,

You can do a parts search at the top of the Pelican page in the "Search The Pelican Parts Catalog: Description or OEM Part Number" box.

The search I did is with a parts reference software.

And yes, that excellent diagram has a misprint for the 16x9 part #.

911pcars · 12-05-2003, 12:25 AM

Alfred Tan's post in this thread shows the part number on the back of his 9x16s.

Do 9" Fuchs stick out more then 8" Fuchs?

Sherwood

teardrop · 12-05-2003, 05:54 AM

Yes definately a misprint. I did the chart and got the part number wrong.

Sorry.

Andy

RT73S · 12-05-2003, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 911pcars
I put together the chart at: http://members.rennlist.org/911pcars/WheelWts.html

from various sources; hopefully reputable.

If I've made any mistakes, I'd like to correct the data.

Thanks,
Sherwood

Sherwood, nice chart.
Question, for the 16x7 Fuchs, you got the same offset listed for the 944 & 911 wheel but different backspacing numbers........ how does that work?

Thanks,
RT

RT73S · 12-05-2003, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KTL
RT,

You can do a parts search at the top of the Pelican page in the "Search The Pelican Parts Catalog: Description or OEM Part Number" box.

The search I did is with a parts reference software.

And yes, that excellent diagram has a misprint for the 16x9 part #.

Thanks KTL!

911pcars · 12-05-2003, 08:44 AM

RT,
Damn numbers. Thanks for the observation. I'll check.

Sherwood

KTL · 09:24 AM

The backspacing numbers for the two different 16x7's should be the same. By definition, offset is the distance from the wheel centerline to the wheel hub mounting surface. In this case both wheels have the same +23.3 mm o/s. The backspacing is the distance from the wheel hub mounting surface to the rear/inboard rim flange which is the same as saying

backspacing = 1/2 overall rim width + offset (whether positive or negative, it doesn't matter)

Both wheels are "7 inches wide" (quotes because they're not actually 7 in. overall- it's more) so the 1/2 rim width measurement is the same and therefore backspacing is not going to change.

You may think frontspacing would change? It doesn't.

The way the two wheels are different is the depth of the wheel hub. The 944T has a "deeper" hub and countersunk lug holes. The location of the hub mounting surface is the same as the 911 16x7 (+23.3mm outboard of the wheel centerline), but the wheel face gets pushed further to the outboard side of the wheel with the added hub depth and this is where you get the added brake clearance.

Backspacing and frontspacing don't "see" the location of the wheel face.

My guess is that the lug holes are countersunk so the wheel studs then do not have to be longer. Seems to me it's cheaper and less inventory/part numbers for Porsche to drill the holes in the wheel deeper instead of paying for another different wheel stud from their supplier (they can use the existing studs).

See how the 944 16x7 Fuchs looks like a 911 16x6?

The similarity comes from the added hub depth which changes the location of the wheel face/spokes within the wheel. I dislike the looks of the 16x6-looking wheels. Wheels with more "depth" in the face look cool. Disk wheels like the 928 dinner plates look awful IMO.

KTL · 12-05-2003, 09:23 AM

Here's a diagram to help with the description of all that crap I said.

911pcars · 12-05-2003, 09:34 AM

KTL,
Because I'm especially lazy today, how does your description play out in terms of actual BS (backspacing) and offset numbers?

Thanks for shortening my research time.

Sherwood

KTL · 12-05-2003, 09:54 AM

Sherwood,

I could answer that question if I actually had a 944T 16x7 Fuchs wheel, but I don't . I've never even touched one. No wait, maybe I did grab one at the Hershey rainfest this year..........

I do have a 944T 16x7 phone dial I could measure. Would be a good comparison, but not good practice for comparing apples to apples (Fuchs to Fuchs)

Those numbers would be in this topic:

Bill Verburg's Wheel Info Topic

RT73S · 12-05-2003, 10:41 AM

In all this discussion it important to point out the published rim with is between the beads while the backspacing is to the clear point width.
Kevin did state this fact but I thought it was worth mentioning a second time

911pcars · 12-05-2003, 11:23 AM

I'd like to digress if I may. In my cross-referencing between existing charts and my notes from past posts, I have some conflicting numbers as theyu relate to the 8x16 Fuchs as supplied on 944s (951.362.111.07, or thereabouts)

My chart currently lists a backspacing dimension of 135 mm.

89911 measured/contributed b.s. at 133 mm
Ray911S measured/contributed b.s. at 135 mm

Bill. The dimension on your text chart (offsets1_small1062545989.jpg) is different. It lists b.s. at 133 mm

However, your linear line art comparison chart (WhlWidth&Offsets.php) shows b.s. at 125 mm

So I'm a little confused. Does anyone wish to add to my confusion?

Thanks,
Sherwood