VR6 - 16s Vs 17s!

**Smeeeb** · 01-12-2013, 10:55 PM

My body is ready.

**Tubbs76** · 02-12-2013, 09:11 AM

I went 17s recently and havent looked back. car looks great and funnily enough rides better than with the 15's how that works...i have no idea. Fills out guards nice and i have no rubbing . makes the car look 10 years younger!

**dylan8** · 02-12-2013, 09:29 AM

plenty of mk3s can pull off 17s, all depends on the look you are going for
recent stand outs for me would have to be golfmans VR on ABT V1s, and Zales VR on the Gen 2 TT multispokes.

I know ill be rocking both 16s and 17s on the vento, 15s will be reserved for track use

**Jarred** · 02-12-2013, 09:46 AM

rubbing is all about tyre size, more so than wheel size.

17's means you can have a nice fitment (arch to tyre clearance) while still giving the car some nice overall clearance. the smaller the wheel/tyre, the lower the whole car will be (keeping the tyre/arch gap consistent)

I think 16's are the right size for the mk 3. (I've ran a few sets of 16's now), 15's are too small IMO, unless matched by beefy rubber. but 17's so often work as well, needs to be matched by a proper ride height and the right tyre size though.

out of the montreals and the bora sports, I think the bora sports look the best, however they do weigh a ton. if you're looking for performance/handling, go for the lighter wheels. Hence why I've got OZ ultralegerrras on my mk 2 VR, in 17's.

**KI11Z** · 02-12-2013, 12:00 PM

performance-wise and appearance-wise, personally smaller the better..... if you're planning on hill climbing, think smaller, there's more performance rubber choices for your 15's and 16's and not only but also they'll be cheaper. Also, pending wheel choice of course, smaller= lighter= better performance.

Although this isn't your question but guys have responded so, Aesthetically, i've run 17's, 16's and most recenlty 15's and personally, 17's can look good from some angles, you can't go wide without looking like a 4wd and if not "stanced" with licorice strips as rubber and lows, the car looks silly.... 16's are a sweet spot for our mk3's and 15's can definitely look too small depending on wheel design and rubber choice....

**Smeeeb** · 02-12-2013, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by KI11Z

performance-wise and appearance-wise, personally smaller the better..... if you're planning on hill climbing, think smaller, there's more performance rubber choices for your 15's and 16's and not only but also they'll be cheaper. Also, pending wheel choice of course, smaller= lighter= better performance.

Although this isn't your question but guys have responded so, Aesthetically, i've run 17's, 16's and most recenlty 15's and personally, 17's can look good from some angles, you can't go wide without looking like a 4wd and if not "stanced" with licorice strips as rubber and lows, the car looks silly.... 16's are a sweet spot for our mk3's and 15's can definitely look too small depending on wheel design and rubber choice....

I reckon you just hit the nail on the head.

It's all really a personal perspective of what you want to acheive out of your car, looks and performance wise.

**mb1907953** · 03-12-2013, 07:30 PM

Thanks for all the replies guys. I'm pretty much set on the Montreal 2 16s now. Love the OEM+ look and the way it makes the car a little bit more modern without sacrificing performance or practicality wise. Just gotta keep my eye out for a clean set now!