View Poll Results: M166 or M172?
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 97. You may not vote on this poll
The Final Test! M166 vs M172?
03-13-2008, 02:00 PM
#11
Contributors
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC , Canada
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2011, X6 Hybrid . Alpine White , every option. 20" Conti' NON runflats,OEM trunk spoiler , LUX V3 AE's , HP Thunder Fogs , custom front bumper reflector delete........
Come on guys vote for the 172's !! so I can sell him mine and stop bugging everyone 
03-13-2008, 02:30 PM
#15
Contributors
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cleaning the 172s is a pain in the backside 
172s are also prone to more damage because their surface is like a flat tire wall.
the 166s are easier to clean and only the edge can get damaged because the way the alloy is structured...
the offsets of the 166s are more aggresive (please take et 12 for the front and et 17 for the rear, and not et 28) than the 172s..
good luck
ps. have had 124, 135, 172, 167 and 166 on my two 5 series and i must admit, i love the 166....
172s are also prone to more damage because their surface is like a flat tire wall.
the 166s are easier to clean and only the edge can get damaged because the way the alloy is structured...
the offsets of the 166s are more aggresive (please take et 12 for the front and et 17 for the rear, and not et 28) than the 172s..
good luck
ps. have had 124, 135, 172, 167 and 166 on my two 5 series and i must admit, i love the 166....
03-13-2008, 02:52 PM
#16
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BANGLADESH
Posts: 1,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2005 530i Individual, DVD Package, HUD, Bluetooth, Comfort Seats, SR, etc
Originally Posted by rsyed' post='544389' date='Mar 14 2008, 04:30 AM
cleaning the 172s is a pain in the backside
172s are also prone to more damage because their surface is like a flat tire wall.
the 166s are easier to clean and only the edge can get damaged because the way the alloy is structured...
the offsets of the 166s are more aggresive (please take et 12 for the front and et 17 for the rear, and not et 28) than the 172s..
good luck
ps. have had 124, 135, 172, 167 and 166 on my two 5 series and i must admit, i love the 166....
172s are also prone to more damage because their surface is like a flat tire wall.
the 166s are easier to clean and only the edge can get damaged because the way the alloy is structured...
the offsets of the 166s are more aggresive (please take et 12 for the front and et 17 for the rear, and not et 28) than the 172s..
good luck
ps. have had 124, 135, 172, 167 and 166 on my two 5 series and i must admit, i love the 166....
Thanks syed bhai but what's et 12 , 17 , 28 ??? Dont I just put tires on em and install them?
?
03-13-2008, 03:01 PM
#17
Contributors
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: L.A. Burbs
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 08 535i, Platinum Gray, Sport Pkg
Originally Posted by snkpkp' post='544303' date='Mar 13 2008, 01:00 PM
I have been torn in half by these two wheel types, recently after looking at Lomag's car I just cant decide once again which one to get, as they will cost me a fortune getting them to Bangladesh then paying luxury tax on them blah blah bblah I just want to make the right decision. I like them both, so I will take a poll and decide..... FYI my car is a 2005 530i Non Sport...... also should i go 285/30/19 in the back? than 275/35/19 like Lomag?
Not even close. The 166's are more aggressive looking.
This is an old shot of member "delje08's" car, before he super modded it.
12mm spacers push the rear wheels to the fender...juuuuust right!
03-13-2008, 03:01 PM
#18
Contributors
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by snkpkp' post='544401' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:52 PM
Thanks syed bhai but what's et 12 , 17 , 28 ??? Dont I just put tires on em and install them?
?
?
In general, every alloy you buy has 3 variables:
* the size of hte alloy: 16", 17", 18, 19" - obviously, you are going for 19" alloys here
* the width of the alloy: 8", 8,5", 9", 9,5": in case of both 166 and 172, the front alloys are 8,5 inch wide and the rear are 9,5 inch wide. because the rear are one inch wider, you can put wider tires (275 as supposed to 245) on it. on the front, that are only 8,5 inch wide, you put tires that are 245mm (24,5 cm) wide.
* the offset of the alloy: this is the distance from the mounting point of the alloy relative to the middle of the alloy. In other words, the offset dictates how much teh alloys stick out. A good combination of offset and alloy width could save you the use of spacers.
So when i say the offset of the 166s are more aggressive than those of 172, i mean that hte wheels of the 172 are way inside of the car compared to those of the 166s that stick out more and are more aligned with the fenders.
My recommendation: take the 166s but also make sure you get the set that has an offset 12 for the front and offset 17 for the rear!
hope this was of some help...
khuda hafiz
03-13-2008, 03:17 PM
#19
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Newnan, Georgia
Posts: 1,769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2004 545i
Production date: 02/04
Color: Black Sapphire Metallic
Trim: Anthracite
Options: Sport package with STEPTRONIC, Premium Sound, Rear Sunshade, Xenon
The design of the 172's looks like a huge spider stuck to your wheels. The spokes looks like spider legs.
03-13-2008, 09:00 PM
#20
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BANGLADESH
Posts: 1,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2005 530i Individual, DVD Package, HUD, Bluetooth, Comfort Seats, SR, etc
I do like the spider effect , 166M only concern a lot of e60 here has the 135 wheels which looks similar to the 166 , hmmmmmmm