Aftermarket Wheels - 17" or 16"?
 

Hi everyone,

I am looking to get some aftermarket wheels for my stock 2013 FRS. I have done quite a bit of research and need some guidance to reach a decision. To start, let me outline what I am trying to achieve with the new wheels:

-Improve stock handling via grippier tires and reduction of unsprung mass

-Improve acceleration via reduction of weight and rotational inertia of wheels

Potentially relevant future plans for the car – I would like to turbo it and lower it by about 1-1.5”.

I am strongly considering 16” wheels for the weight/rotational inertia reduction. The wheels I’ve selected are the Enkei RPF1s (16”x7”, 35mm offset). However, I have found the following potential issues with doing this:

-Very limited tire selection – all I have been able to find are the Dunlop Direzza DZ102s and Kumho Ecsta ASXs. On Tire Rack, the Dunlops have a 4/5 rating and the Kumhos have a 3.5/5. Not sure how indicative that is of their actual quality, but it is something I have been considering.

- The offset of these wheels is 35mm as opposed to the 48mm stock offset. I should note that the 17” diameter version of these wheels have a 42mm offset (anyone know why this may be?). I DO like the look of lower offset wheels, however, maintaining stock feel takes precedence. Based on what I have read from other people who went with significantly lower than stock offset (at least 10mm difference), the change in handling was noticeable. I also want to avoid putting excess stress on the suspension.

-Smaller wheel = higher tire sidewalls = worse handling. However from what I was able to find during my research, it seemed that the 1” smaller diameter had a negligible impact on handling. I would appreciate if anyone could confirm or refute this.

Based on all this information, I am curious to hear cases both for and against 16” wheels, as well as any possible ramifications resulting from having the lower offset on the 16” wheels. In addition, information about any corrections that could be made to the suspension to account for the lower offset would be appreciated (to my knowledge, greater positive camber would “correct” this, at the expensive of more uneven tire wear and different handling characteristics).

For anyone who made it through this whole post, thanks for reading and I appreciate any help.

TL;DR – Want to upgrade wheels, not sure if 16” or 17” is the right choice.

I'm currently running Motegi Forged Tracklites in 16x7 +40 - very light - and well worn Kumho Ecsta XS in 225/50 -16. I have a set of RT615K+ in the basement as well, waiting to get put on. I personally think the 16" wheel looks better than the 17s on stock height suspension, and the 12.5 lb weight of the wheels is definitely noticeable. Not night and day transformation of the car, overall, but enough to make the suspension feel more nimble and quick to respond..it's nicer to drive. And even with a tire with a MUCH stiffer sidewall than the OEM Bridgestones, the ride quality from the taller profile is also a nice bonus, given the deplorable road conditions around here.

In theory, the slightly taller profile will lose a little steering response, but the tire brand/model you choose has FAR more influence on that than the simple numbers. I've lost no steering response compared to the stock setup, that I can notice. Additionally, the right alignment can offset any theoretical slower response.

If I had a choice, I'd probably have a 7.5 wide rim for a 225/50, but the tire's specs are taken when mounted to a 7" rim, so I don't think I'm giving much up. Keep searching for 225/50...there are a few options out there...certainly not like with 17s, but there are a working selection.

Once my Tracklites are eventually/inevitably damaged somehow, I'll probably be replacing them with the heavier, but still available and affordable RPF1s in the same size you mention above. There are lighter wheels than the Enkeis in that size, but they start getting ridiculously expensive very quickly.

There is your answer.

What size are you looking for? TireRack has 62 hits for 225/50-16...

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/TireS...earDiameter=17

A 225/50-16 tire is ~3lbs heavier than a 205/45-17 size tire (which is the most appropriate size for a 7"-7.5" width 17" wheel) and is .3" larger in diameter than stock spec. A 205/45-17 tire is .3" smaller in diameter than stock. Any given model of wheel in 16x7 verses same model in 17x7 size is usually within a 1lb to 2lb difference... so that 16" setup is overall heavier and larger in diameter than a 17" option that makes the car a much sharper and quicker scalpel. The main issues in 16" tires for an FR-S is proper sizes, they are either a little taller (205/55-16 or 225/50-16), or WAY too short (everything else) ... there is no little shorter selection available.

Advantage goes to a proper matched lightweight 17" wheel/tire combo...

There is only ~1lb difference between a 16x7+35mm and 17x7+42mm RPF1. Tires however are a 2-3lb difference in favor of 17". Not to mention all 2 most suitable 16" sizes are a taller tire. So you have more weight, further out...tires have more impact on handling than wheels. I'd highly recommend 205/45-17 Continental ExtremeContact Sport tires on lightweight 17x7 or 17x7.5 wheels if you want your FR-S to be more agile and responsive daily driver that also rides great and yet is more stable and planted at the same time due to free CoG drop from .3 shorter diameter and light weight tires. If you could swing it (over double cost of RPF1's), BBS RF forged in 17x7.5"+48mm weigh ~14lbs and look gorgeous. BBS RF's + ExtremeContact Sports is a wheel/tire combo that would come in ~ 33lbs...

I'm on 17x7.5+40mm Enkei Fujin wheels (17lbs) and 205/45-17 Continental ExtremeContact DW's (19lbs) and would never go back to a bigger/wider wheel setup. Had 17x8+36mm Kosei K4R (15.6lb) and 215/45-17 Kumho Ecsta XS (21lbs) before... and it was just not as good or as fun to drive on.

Why not compare like vs. like? 205/50-16 RE71R tire is the same weight as a 205/45-17 and is only another 0.2" shorter.

Personally I'd probably go 16x7.5 or 16x8 and run 225/50-16s. Like-width vs. like-width: 225/50-16 is 0.2" taller than OEM, 225/45-17 is 0.3" taller, and they are the same weight.

So if you wanna run 225s, 16s do not have any weight or height penalty vs. 17s.

There's a great selection of extreme perf tires in 205/55-16 and 225/50-16, which are usually only 0.2" taller than OEM. Options in 205/50-16 and 225/45-16 are very limited, but still the best performance street tires available (RE71R, ZII StarSpec)

On 16x7" wheel, I'd run 205, but again I'd probably go 16x7.5 or preferably 16x8" and run 225s.

That's a pretty general statement, and will vary from tire to tire, depending on make/model. For example, the difference between an RT615K+ in 225/50-16 and 215/45-17 is just one pound. A 205/45-17 doesn't even exist in that model. The bigger question is: why would you want less rubber on the ground rather than more?







Totally untrue. A 205/45 is fine on any rim width between 6.5 and 7.5 inches.







So you're saying the difference between the two setups was the measly .6lb, and that you're actually able to feel it? I respectfully call BS on that, and suggest instead the difference is almost entirely in tire brand and model itself. We won't even bring up that you've gone from a wider grippier tire to a narrower, less sticky one... And the .3 difference in height is barely 1% different...again, I'm calling BS on this being a detectable change under the most rigid testing conditions, let alone from the driver's seat.






Why you'd want to go to a shorter, narrower overall tire is beyond me. Besides looking terrible (just my personal opinion), you're giving up mechanical grip and losing sidewall, which is one of the appealing factors in going to 16s. The car becomes a much more dynamic and involving ride with 16s, especially when on stock or close to stock suspension.

Weren't AD08R also available in R16 sizes? MPSS IIRC not, but MPS4 might be.

Generally you can get all or most of the good Extreme Performance tires in 16", but not Max Performance tires. Screw Michelin anyway, MPSS tires on my FD were initially OK but turned to garbage in less than two years, with half tread depth still remaining. Haven't experienced such a radical loss in grip in a street tire ever before, except a set of B'stone S03s I heat-cycled to death at the track.

Do you mainly street drive the car, or will you be doing any autox/track events?

Personally, I'd go for 17x8 or 17x9 RPF1s. 17x8 with 225s seem to be the sweet spot for NA track cars according to many people, or 17x9 with 245s or 255s for higher power boosted cars and STX classed autox cars.

17" RPF1s in either width will still be significantly lighter than the stock wheels. I probably wouldn't go to 16s for better performance, because of the negative effect on handling that a taller sidewall can create, as you noted. There are also quite a few other quality lightweight wheel options in the 17x7-17x9 range. The newer TRD wheels are 17x7.5 and forged, that weigh around 17lbs I believe. Not the lightest things out there, but a brand new set of forged wheels for ~$1,400 is a pretty solid deal.

I'd say that said negative effect is arguable. Yes, turnin might be less sharp due more sidewall flex, but not by much with modern tires with stiff sidewall. Also some may prefer more comfort, cheaper price they get in return, if used on daily rides, and some may prefer more mass transfer on track. Weren't gazoo racing series wheels 16x7 TWS-F66? Weren't trend in real sport to get smallest possible wheels, that still clear brakes?

Fair enough. Not sure on the TWS-66F on the Gazoo car. All of the pictures of their car that I can see, and can remember, have it on 17s. Couldn't even find any pics with the TWS-66Fs, but of course I could just be missing it.

Pretty much every other professionally raced 86 I've seen though, including all the TMG Cup cars, have 17s. With rally cars being the one exception, although many still look to use 17s for tarmac courses.

For rally cars IIRC 15" is most common size for gravel/mud/ice/snow. As many parts of twins comes from Subaru parts bin, sometimes i wish for our brakes to better clear smaller wheels, not just one VW 15" of confirmed fitment listed in wheel directory, but something like for WRXes.
As for mentioned gazoo series wheels, i meant these. IIRC for T66-F wheels in sizing chart they also have 'gazoo' mentioned. Enkei also has 16x7 RS05 for gazoo racing. As those are cast, then of course noticeably heavier then TWS offering.
IIRC rally gt86 CS-R3 in gravel setup had OZ 15"x6 (17x7 for tarmac), but i doubt it still having stock brakes.

Interesting, looks like they are using 16" for the Gazoo Series. http://toyotagazooracing.com/jp/86br...2017.html#cars

For most tires it's a 2-3lb difference. A 205/45-17 tire will usually have the same tread width as a 215/45-17 tire...so same contact patch shape and size on the ground. Size of contact patch does not inidicate grip, and a larger contact patch can negatively affect wet handling depending on its shape (i.e. wider band).

Picture time, OEM 215/45-17 tires VS different 205/45-17 tires on the exact same wheels:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cars/Stil...7/O/5315-3.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/Cars/Stil.../6-17-15_3.jpg


May be fine, but there is a difference between 'fine' and 'optimal' in wheel widths for a given tire size. For myself, optimal is matching tread width to wheel width for best balance in responsiveness and ride quality. A 7-7.5" wheel width lines up with the tread width of 205/45-17 tires.


Combination of Recaro Sportster CS seat that ties you into the chassis like a racing seat so you can really precisely feel what the car is doing (not flopping around like in stock seat and getting a more vague interpretation), the reduction in tire diameter netting a near .2" CoG drop, and changes in track width really gave very different feel between the two setups. The 205/45-17 DW setup is more playful on the street, yet more precise in movement and absolutely planted in hard cornering, much more so than the 215/45-17 XS setup. The 215/45-17 XS setup had overall higher grip level (dry only, wet is nothing comoared to the DW's, which are one of the best wet tires made) but was also more skittish and upset at the limits. A wider wheel with wider track is not what I consider an improvement because what I value and want out of the FR-S is honing the reflexes and making it more transitionally responsive/light on its feet while also improving ride quality. A wider/heavier wheel/tire setup does not align with those goals.


Smoother ride and less weight because of specific tire chosen... and zero mechanical grip is given up because, as always, tire compound determines grip not tire width. I chose the tire size first and then based the wheel size off it. 205/45-17 makes the most sense to me for a daily driver that I wanted to enhance ride yet increase its quickness - stock contact patch shape/area, slightly smaller diameter (for better respinsiveness and lower CoG), and large selection of Max Performance category tires that aren't too expensive. I did look into 16" tires, even have an old set of 16X7+42 Enkei RS5's with 225/45-16 Hankook RS2 that I ran on my Tacoma that I tried on my FR-S for a lityle while. Besides the RS2 having zero grip from being so old, DIDN'T like the ride quality with them. Was thinking of trying to find lighter 16" tires sizes but options are severely limited and sometimes more expensive than the 17"s. And then I thought about future brake upgrades - 16" wheels will be a much more difficult fitment with an upgrade front brake system. So 17's it is for me, 16's will be a lot more difficult to be made to work.

Have you driven on 205/45-17 Continental ExtremeContact DW's mounted on lightweight 17x7.5 +40mm offset wheels with stock suspension to be able to say it's not an incredibly dynamic ride? Much more dynamic than the stock wheel/tire configuation...stock is 2 dimensional one-trick pony handling in comparison.

Are you still comparing a 225 16" vs. a 205 17"? WHY?
Compare 225/50-16 vs. 225/45-17, and compare 205/45-17 vs. 205/50-16, and 205/50-17 vs. 205/55-16.
Similar width/diameter 16" tires weigh about the same as 17". Sometimes the 17" is 1 lb. heavier, sometimes it's 1 lb. lighter.

I pulled up three tires in these sizes and lo, 215 tread is wider for all 3:
Conti ExtremeContact Sport 205 = 7", 215 = 7.3"
Bridgestone RE71R 205 = 7", 215 = 7.2"
Dunlop ZII StarSpec 205 = 7.6", 215 = 8"

I do agree that width isn't everything. But a wider wheel/wider tire/wider contact patch will give greater lateral grip in general. But it's not as huge a difference as most people think... But a wider/shorter contact patch doesn't deform as much under hard lateral load and doesn't overload the outside edge as much vs. narrower/longer contact patch. On the street, though, IMO there's little to nothing to it...

For 16s, you pretty much get all the important Extreme Performance tires, but a lower percentage of the Max Performance tires. 16s pretty much always cheaper for same make/model of tires...

Personally, I like to stick with the smallest diameter wheels I can and still run the tire widths I want and fit over brakes. I've never needed to upgrade the s2000's brakes so I went with wider 16s for my track wheels instead of going to 17s.

For sure there are many options, so to each his/her own, I say...

I had considered the very same thing for when the OEM tires on my BRZ are finally worn out. That would present an opportunity for a wheel upgrade.

I really like the OEM 16 inch wheels from overseas, but here in the states they seem to be unobtainium. And the minimalist in me really likes the idea of 16s on this car.

But after careful consideration and research, I concluded I'd stick with 17s due to:

* Tire selection seems to be better in 17 inch sizes
* While 16 inch wheels tend to be lighter, to achieve the same overall diameter you need more tire, which tends to weigh more; this of course varies and you can find tires that do not sacrifice on this front, but some research on tirerack seems to indicate a trend of the 16 inch size of a given tire is 1-2 lbs heavier than equivalent 17 inch sizes; this seemed to be true at least in the stockish sizes I was interested in; this nullifies most or all of the 16 inch weight advantage for reasonably priced wheels
* You are potentially locking yourself out of BBK upgrades later (many of which can save a surprising amount of weight)

When the time comes, I'll likely go with the el cheapo motegi traklite mr131 in 17x7 if they are still available and there are no better alternatives. They have a very agreeable price point, close to stock offset, around 17 lbs, and have a very clean classic five spoke design.

I'd love some rpf1s, but those motegis are so much nicer to my wallet.

Best Extreme Perf tires available in 16", tho...

I'm just not seeing it. For same/similar/close-as-possible width and diameter, 17" and 16" tire weights are pretty equal, at least for the tires I would be considering:
RE71R:
205/45-17: 21 lb
205/50-16: 21 lb

225/45-17: 23 lb
225/50-16: 23 lb

ZII StarSpec
205/45-17: 20 lb
205/50-16: 21 lb (+1 lb)

225/45-17: 25 lb
225/50-16: 24 lb (- 1 lb)

Hankook RS4
225/45-17: 24 lb
225/50-16: 25 lb (+1 lb)

Toyo R1R
225/45-17: 23 lb
225/50-16: 23 lb

Yok AD08R
205/50-17: 22 lb
205/55-16: 21 lb (-1 lb)

225/45-17: 24 lb
225/50-16: 23 lb (-1 lb)

For any tire purchase (for the FR-S or a performance car) I will not really consider any that has a larger diameter than the stock specification, only stock diameter or smaller - within reason (trucks would be different because I would actually want taller tire for offroad clearance reasons). Reason is two-fold; first I rather the speedometer error show me going faster than actual speed rather than slower than actual speed, and second, is it automatically comes with a minor CG drop and less rotational inertia/more responsiveness. 16" tires mostly are either slightly too large or WAY too small, The 205/50-16 is probably the size I would choose though it's kind of getting close to being too small a diameter, but I'd have to drop down from Max performance category to Ultra High performance category, which is second best for wet performance (Max being first). There are ZERO Max Performance tires in that size. They are also heavier than 205/45-17 size. Nice prices though.

Yes, I miss-spoke on the 215 and 205 widths being the same, thought for sure they were within .1 inch of each other from the last two times I've purchased tires. I know the tread on the 205/45-17 Kumho Sport LE's is .2" wider than the stock Michelins.

I don't want Extreme Performance category for a road car, Max Performance are a better daily tire because of their wet performance. I live in a subtropical coastal climate region, heat showers/downpours are a thing in the summer time. Continental ExtremeContact DW is a near perfect daily tire, wet performance is right up there with the dry...meaning you can drive in the wet like you can in the dry...incredible wet performance for a decent price, along with being one of the lightest tires you can get.

My plan is to upgrade the brakes to ESSEX upcoming Radi-CAL based kit, which is probably going to have slightly larger diameter rotors than the Sprint Kit. Will keep with 17x7.5 +40mm to +42mm wheel size for track and use 205/45-17 Direzza ZII tires most likely unless can find a DOT-R in that size (like say a Nitto NT01 that I have had good experience with on other vehicles) but they don't seem to exist.

Wheels and tires are indeed a personal preference and like so many things in life, there is often more than one solution to a problem... everyone has a way to solve issues.

Vracer111: speedo error importance is overrated. After all, on reasonably new cars (IIRC by manufacturer agreement) it lies even with stock sized wheels/tires (around 8% on mine vs gps, more then advised to keep within 3% wheel/tire circumference changes), so fitting larger wheels will only get speedo to lie less :).
Though i'd also would keep overall wheel+tires circumference close, like you, but for reasons to not worsen acceleration too much, due taller overall gearing ratio change.
P.S.
regarding truck wheel size/ground clearance ratio .. there is also option of using same wheel/tire size but with lift spacers.

Remember - the difference between a 24.7" tire and a 25" tire is barely 1%. You are NOT going to feel that.

IMO, odd thing to be so specifically fixated on. Small differences +/- are going to be undetectable.

In my experience, Extreme Performance tires don't give anything at all away to Max Perf tires in wet grip. They will generally hydroplane sooner in standing water, but driving reasonably in torrential downpours and replacing before getting to the treadwear indicators, I've never had any issues.

UHP tires, 16" vs. 17" weights (not cherry-picked, just selected the tires I would consider in this category that come in both these sizes):
Firehawk Indy 500
205/45-17: 20 lb
205/50-16: 21 lb (+1 lb)

Yok S.Drive
205/45-17: 22 lb
205/50-16: 22 lb

B'stone RE760 Sport
205/45-17: 22 lb
205/50-16: 21 lb (-1 lb)

BFG G-Force Sport Comp-2
205/45-17: 21 lb
205/50-16: 22 lb (+1 lb)

[edit]For completeness I'll add in the other two that appear when selecting both 205/45-17 and 205/50-16 tires in UHP Summer category at Tire Rack:
Riken Raptor ZR
205/45-17: 23 lb
205/50-16: 22 lb (-1 lb)

Kumho Ecsta PS31
205/45-17: 20 lb
205/50-16: 20 lb

I *used* to run Max Perf tires on the street, but I've found that I would miss the responsiveness and trackworthiness of Extreme Perf tires.

I wouldn't go strictly by performance category to judge wet grip, for sure there are some in the Max category that suck in the wet. Most good Extreme Perf tires have fantastic wet grip. And the reduced hydroplaning resistance is not an issue for me, and I DD on Extreme Perfs in torrential rains as well.

As I went from Max Perf to Extreme Perf on my DD S2000, I also went from Extreme Perf to DOT-R as "street" tires for my FD. NT01s do make great street tires! Again, wet grip is actually good, but drastically reduced water-channeling for standing water...

Agreed!

DOT-R as "street"? With their wear rate isn't it getting a bit on expensive side, if driving normal daily driving distances? Also will they grip well if you won't get heat in them (if driving within legal limits)?

Wow, did not expect this to get so much attention! I really appreciate all the input from everyone. Due to time constraints, I can't reply to all comments, but I think I've settled on 17" diameter. I'm now trying to figure out wheel/tire width. Because I want to go FI eventually, I found that 245mm seems to be the lower limit of tire width people recommend for that application.

Mainly street driving, but I have considered trying autox. It's not a strong enough consideration to be a significant factor in my decision, however.

What would be the problem, if any, with going 17x8 with 245s? 8" wheel width is the low limit of what the 245mm width tires I'm looking at require.

That is exactly what I am doing haha. OEM tires were at 3/32" last oil change (in January) so the clock is definitely ticking...

Also:

I was actually considering those earlier - I love how they look. The price is definitely an advantage over the RPF1s haha.

The Enkei wheels have a good price. In fact they are a bit cheaper than 2 years ago and Subaru won a few races with them. TWS exactly double the price? :lol:

TWS are forged and VERY light (10.63lbs 4.82kg, half the weight of stock wheels). Enkeis probably are much heavier. Price? I'm sure that during season team spends many many times more money then even those expensive forged wheels cost.

I tried RE71Rs on the 550hp FD, rears were to the treadwear indicators after 800 miles and one track day. Replaced with NT01s and I've done over 2000 street miles and four track days (2 at Mosport and 2 at Palmer MA), and now rears are at treadwear indicators. So for my usage the NT01s live longer...

They also have great grip even stone cold :) To tell the truth they behave like normal street tires on the street. But careful over standing water...

It's not a problem, it's just that you won't get full use of 245s on an 8" wheel. It is possible that 225/45-17 would outhandle 245/40-17 on 8".

If you really want to fully utilize 245s, get 8.5" minimum, or 9", or even 9.5" wheels.

Could you please elaborate on how wheel width affects how much use one gets from a given tire width?

The only real thing you might notice would be less responsiveness from having a wider tire stuffed onto a smaller width wheel. If you're set on 245s, I'd go with a 9" wheel.

As for autox, you should come out and try it. Might change your motivations a bit. ;) There's one on Sunday the 28th in Joliet with the Chicago Region SCCA group. I'll be out there, along with a good number of other Toyobaru guys.

Also, if you aren't already a member I'd recommend joining the Midwest 86 and Chi-Town 86 groups on FB. Best way to learn about track days, autox, rallyx, drift days, meets, and cruises that everyone in the area is going to.

Well, they don't sell them just to teams. I am just saying that the double cost is not justified. Construction method is important, but not the only important factor. Enkeis method is not inferior to the forged ones and they provided evidence many times. If all the teams/winners used only forged wheels, then I agree that it would be different.

I'd argue that forged is worth the extra money, particularly with the weight savings you see with something like the TWS. However, it's only worth the money if the costs balance properly. For a lot of enthusiasts, they aren't likely going to spend the extra money on forged wheels like TWS. A strong cast wheel will suffice for most grassroots uses. Same for some lower budget racing teams, and sponsorships/contingency programs definitely play a role in that decision. However, if there's money in the budget for it, I'd always go for the forged option over a comparable cast.

And my understanding is that 225s are good for 8", but would be too narrow for FI...in what situations would I notice the difference (using 225s with a turbo)? I've read that 9" detracts from the feel of the car. This all may be so minor that it doesn't matter, but the main issue is that it's a significant financial investment, so I want to be sure I'm making the right choice.

I actually won't be in town that weekend, but I will definitely join those Facebook groups so that I can go to an event if the opportunity arises. Thanks for the tip. :)

On a narrow wheel, the tire will be pinched a bit, will have a narrower contact patch, and will be able to roll/move around more under lateral load.

Same tire on a wider wheel will give more stability and provide a wider contact patch, won't roll over onto shoulder as readily at a given amount of negative camber.

Tire make/model is going to be way way WAY more important for putting power down and handling than 225 vs. 245.

I don't think that's accurate, a 245 on a 9" wheel should feel better (more responsive) vs. 245 on an 8" wheel. However a lighter-weight wheel/tire setup with 225s on 8" wheels should feel lighter-handling and maybe even more responsive up to a certain percentage of ultimate grip. But that ultimate grip will be lower vs. 245 on 9"...

IMO no right or wrong choice. You can certainly run 245s on 8" wheels, but you might enjoy the handling and feel of the car more with 225/8" or 245/9" over 245/8".

I wouldn't worry too too much about it though. Tire choice is WAY more important anyway.

9" with grippy 245s will change the feel of the car, but if you add the extra power through FI then it will be a good match.

ZDan is right about compound being more important, but 17x9s and 245s seem to be more preferential for FI cars. 17x8 with 225 seems to be the sweet spot for NA cars, at least that track.

As far as making the right choice, just do LOTS of research before making any purchases. There are plenty of guys in the Chicagloand area that'll be happy to give you rides so you can see how different setups feel.

Thanks. I found a post from someone who had 17x9 +45 RPF1s, and he said they rubbed the tie rod at full lock. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that they have these with a lower offset. If I still wanted to go this route, is my only option to get spacers? I read that with 9", +50 offset is flush, so without spacers, these wheels would already be sticking out 5mm, if I'm not mistaken.

If you have coilovers +45 RPF1s will fit, but won't clear BBKs. They do also make them in +35, just harder to find. Other good lightweight 17x9 options to look at would be 949Racing 6ULs and WedsSport TC105Ns