logan1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Like everyone else on the forum I want to stuff the widest possible rim under my car with the widest possible tire on it. But this got me thinking are wider tires always the best way? And how do the effect the handling, fuel economy, safety, etc etc…. Since i started this thread; I'd like to use my car as the example: 1970 240z with ZG flares and coil over suspension(No camber). L24 motor with racing cam Borg warner T5 R200 4.11 diff No power steering I am looking into putting a set of 15x10 rims with -44 offset on the car with 245/50/15 on the fronts and 275 or 295/50/15 on the rear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Assuming the following: 1. You're "better" means the highest lateral grip 2. The tires have the same tread compound, sidewall, etc. 3. The tires can get up to operating temp. 4. The car be be aligned to work best with the different tire widths. 5. The driver can get the most out of whatever tires are on the car. Then yes, a wider tire will be "better." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mxgsfmdpx Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Wouldn't a -44 offset be tucked into the fenders pretty far? Since you have the ZG flare I assume you could go with something more aggressive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan1 Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 Wouldn't a -44 offset be tucked into the fenders pretty far? Since you have the ZG flare I assume you could go with something more aggressive? I think -44 is a very aggressive offset. Below are pictures of the wheels: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer Z Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Are wider tires better? Not always. More unsprung weight. More rolling resistance. More wind resistance. More moving (spinning) mass to wind up as you try to accelerate. More moving (spinning) mass to slow down as you try to brake. More money to spend when they wear out. Edited February 24, 2011 by Racer Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zack_280 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I agree with Racer Z. Unless you really need them all of the above is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad-ManQ45 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Don't forget the tendency to hydroplane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer Z Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Don't forget the tendency to hydroplane. Good call. And that makes me think about rough, uneven roads where wide tires will have a hard time finding a full footprint. It ends up being a compromise. At some point the extra width becomes unusable. Not every car or driver needs the same width. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamikaZeS30 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I would think that 255s would be the widest tire that you could really make use of in a Z. Ultimately, I think you gain more by using a lighter, "grippier" tread pattern and compound on a narrower width tire than you would from using something like a Porsche or Corvette fitment tire. The early S30s were pretty light, so saving unsprung weight would be important and because the car is lighter overall its inertial properties (during cornering) wouldn't necessitate as much lateral resistance as a heavier car like the Corvette. I have 225s on all fours, now, and that seems to be a good width, just from personal experiences. I had problems with traction in some situations with the 195s it used to have, both lateral grip and acceleration. Haven't experienced any of that with the 225s. That may change once I complete the V8 swap. The only problem I have with my current tires is weight, they're a 50 profile 16" so I might be better off trying to find a 17" in the same width and running a lower profile tire. I think having fat-ass tires on a Z looks wicked, though. Or even maybe using wheels with odd-ball measurements (i.e. 15x8 -45 or something) to widen the car's track, but you start putting a lot of stress on the bearings when you do that (I think the general idea is to keep the center-line of the wheel in the same position relative to the hub). I'm not a track veteran or a professional, though. These are just my opinions based on a general understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) In terms of lateral acceleration, the wider the better. In terms of longitudinal acceleration you're running a compromise of traction and weight. In terms of wet traction, narrower is better. In terms of top speed, less drag is best. One tire can't do it all and you should fit the tire to its intended usage. If you have a weak motor and you add 20 lbs per corner in wheel weight, you will be able to feel it if you're sensitive to how the car usually drives. All that said If I ran 15x10s I'd be inclined to run the same tires front and back. I don't think you'll gain any handling benefit from running wider rears with your setup as described (you won't be looking for traction with an L24 in all likelihood). Edited February 25, 2011 by JMortensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.