17/17 and 17/18 Tire Choices - not much left.

Tangoman said:

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

What do I think?

I think it's smart to choose your wheel width after choosing your tire size, as you recommend.

I think you need to look up the wheel width specs for any size/make/model tire; you can't just base it on the width. For example, a 205/40-17 tire is typically approved for entirely different wheel widths from a 205/50-16.

I think it's often best to pick a wheel width in the middle of the approved range rather than either endpoint, but this is as much for looks as anything else. As long as the wheel width is in the approved range, I think you're fine, I think differences in wheel width are not going to have a lot of effect on performance or handling, and I think agonizing over endless analysis of wheel widths is pretty much a waste of time.

I think the NSX handling tends towards mild understeer but can be turned into oversteer (including snap oversteer) based on inputs with the throttle, wheel, etc.

I think the extreme performance tires in the most common NSX sizes offer superb handling:

205/50-15 and 225/50-16
205/45-16 and 245/40-17
215/45-16 and 245/40-17
215/45-16 and 255/40-17
215/40-17 and 255/35-18 ('95-05 NSX)
215/40-17 and 265/35-18 ('91-93 NSX)

I think what really matters to performance, grip, and handling is the make/model of the tire, as reflected in its design, including compound, tread pattern, etc. I think this is exactly 37.4 times more important than the width of the tire.

I don't think there's any need to "balance" the grip of the front vs. the rear. I think this is a silly idea. I think the staggered setup of the NSX is already well balanced, and the TCS as well as the size of the wheel wells require that the staggered setup be maintained.

I think it's impossible to scrape the front lip against the ground on a stock NSX with stock suspension in good condition and normal-sized tires. I think C&D never did this, and I think that nobody here can come up with an actual quote, with issue date and page, of any article in C&D saying that they did.

I think you're wrong in stating that it's impossible to induce oversteer with 8" front wheels and 9.5-10.5" rear wheels. I think you contradict this statement yourself by going on to state that you can induce snap oversteer with that setup.

That's what I think.

^^ I think the same thing. :biggrin:

nsxtasy said:

What do I think?

I think it's smart to choose your wheel width after choosing your tire size, as you recommend.

I think you need to look up the wheel width specs for any size/make/model tire; you can't just base it on the width. For example, a 205/40-17 tire is typically approved for entirely different wheel widths from a 205/50-16.

I think it's often best to pick a wheel width in the middle of the approved range rather than either endpoint, but this is as much for looks as anything else. As long as the wheel width is in the approved range, I think you're fine, I think differences in wheel width are not going to have a lot of effect on performance or handling, and I think agonizing over endless analysis of wheel widths is pretty much a waste of time.

I think the NSX handling tends towards mild understeer but can be turned into oversteer (including snap oversteer) based on inputs with the throttle, wheel, etc.

I think the extreme performance tires in the most common NSX sizes offer superb handling:

205/50-15 and 225/50-16
205/45-16 and 245/40-17
215/45-16 and 245/40-17
215/45-16 and 255/40-17
215/40-17 and 255/35-18 ('95-05 NSX)
215/40-17 and 265/35-18 ('91-93 NSX)

I think what really matters to performance, grip, and handling is the make/model of the tire, as reflected in its design, including compound, tread pattern, etc. I think this is exactly 37.4 times more important than the width of the tire.

I think it's impossible to scrape the front lip against the ground on a stock NSX with stock suspension in good condition and normal-sized tires. I think C&D never did this, and I think that nobody here can come up with an actual quote, with issue date and page, of any article in C&D saying that they did.

I think you're wrong in stating that it's impossible to induce oversteer with 8" front wheels and 9.5-10.5" rear wheels. I think you contradict this statement yourself by going on to state that you can induce snap oversteer with that setup.

That's what I think.

Click to expand...

Oh man - first off, let me say that yes, tire compound, make/model, tread design, etc is definitely important. But just as you can put too stiff of a suspension in your car and lose traction because of road imperfections, I believe a tire that is too stiff is also a problem.

I don't think I'm endlessly over analyzing it, it was pretty effortless (probably not a good thing though). My original post talks about (oversteer) progressive, controllable oversteer, not snap oversteer. I don't think you'll have a progressive oversteer with a super grippy tire on 10.5" wheels with a stock engine. When it lets go, it will snap and I would rather have complete control over it (perhaps that is not a common view?).

With that being said, I can no longer time the Edmunds long term tester comment about hitting the front lip at speed, so I will rescind that statement :smile:

Referring to your recommended 18" tire size for the rear of a 91 - That tire width is standard on the back of an E55 AMG (the 470 hp one), a car with double the horsepower & probably 1.5 times the weight of the NSX. No one thinks this is fundamentally overkill on the back of a car that only has 270 horsepower by comparison? Especially when you have grippier tires anyway?

Maybe I don't have the budget that you guys do, but I drive my car on the highway a lot to work. I have an iffy 3rd gear syncro so I won't be tracking it until I get that fixed. In the Chicago area, there aren't endless canyon roads to amuse myself with so my car is set up to have fun when I want to and be reasonable economical in terms of tire cost and tire wear when I take it to work 2-3 times a week.

Therefore, I think every tire anyone buys should be tailored to how they drive and what they will be using it for. Not just "get the grippiest tire you can in these normal NSX sizes and you're doing it right". Maybe you drive your NSX in sub 30 degree weather in November, you really aren't recommending an "extreme performance summer tire" in those conditions are you sir? That would not be DOT approved! Yea you could have another set of wheels, but lets assume that you want a more well-rounded car for this well-rounded weather we have in Chicago.

I think threads like this give people the impression that if you're not taking corners at 2x the speed you should and not tracking your car on the weekends, you aren't doing it right. I represent all the people out there that don't have any unlimited budget for tires (277 dollars for Dunlop Direzza IIs in 265/35/R18) and don't drive their cars like they stole it on their way to work in the morning.

And finally, Ken, if you hit up a Supercar Saturdays this year we'll continue this conversation :smile: You guys are awesome :biggrin:

I don't have much to add...I do remember that before I went FI, my setup on [215/40] 17x8f, 275/35] 18x10r could be induced to oversteer on occasion. That was on the infamous S03's. Now, I'm FI, with the same wheel and tire sizes, but using the Dunlop Z1 Star with an aggressive alignment, adjustable sways and Bilstein Yellows. I can take the car to the Mulholland Snake and have a great time, and no worry so much about oversteer, unless I purposely induce it. Snap oversteer is pretty rare to the experienced NSX driver. The setup works for me; you'll find one that works for you.</SPAN>

Tangoman said:

I don't think you'll have a progressive oversteer with a super grippy tire on 10.5" wheels with a stock engine. When it lets go, it will snap and I would rather have complete control over it (perhaps that is not a common view?).

Click to expand...

Want to make a bet on that? It's the driver and his inputs, not the size of the tire. This "snap oversteer" people complain about is a result of a nice smooth progressive oversteer that they wait too long to make a correction. By the time they recognize the car is sliding it's too late and the back end is already on it's way around. That's not really snap oversteer, that's poor driving.

Tangoman said:

Referring to your recommended 18" tire size for the rear of a 91 - That tire width is standard on the back of an E55 AMG (the 470 hp one), a car with double the horsepower & probably 1.5 times the weight of the NSX. No one thinks this is fundamentally overkill on the back of a car that only has 270 horsepower by comparison? Especially when you have grippier tires anyway?

Click to expand...

The diameter (18") has very little to do with how much hp or the weight of the car.

Tangoman said:

Maybe I don't have the budget that you guys do, but I drive my car on the highway a lot to work. I have an iffy 3rd gear syncro so I won't be tracking it until I get that fixed. In the Chicago area, there aren't endless canyon roads to amuse myself with so my car is set up to have fun when I want to and be reasonable economical in terms of tire cost and tire wear when I take it to work 2-3 times a week.

Therefore, I think every tire anyone buys should be tailored to how they drive and what they will be using it for. Not just "get the grippiest tire you can in these normal NSX sizes and you're doing it right". Maybe you drive your NSX in sub 30 degree weather in November, you really aren't recommending an "extreme performance summer tire" in those conditions are you sir? That would not be DOT approved! Yea you could have another set of wheels, but lets assume that you want a more well-rounded car for this well-rounded weather we have in Chicago.

I think threads like this give people the impression that if you're not taking corners at 2x the speed you should and not tracking your car on the weekends, you aren't doing it right. I represent all the people out there that don't have any unlimited budget for tires (277 dollars for Dunlop Direzza IIs in 265/35/R18) and don't drive their cars like they stole it on their way to work in the morning.

And finally, Ken, if you hit up a Supercar Saturdays this year we'll continue this conversation :smile: You guys are awesome :biggrin:

Click to expand...

I agree with in reason. If you never plan on tracking the car then R-Compound tires are a waist. Extreme tires such as the Dunlop ZII or Yokohama AD08 are also probably a little overkill on a street only car. These tires were designed for someone who wants to autocross or track their car occasionally and still drive on the street.

What you are looking for is something that has good grip, but trades off ultimate grip for longevity and wet performance. But you don't want to go too far to the opposite extreme as it is a sports car after all.

A nice MAX PERFORMANCE category tire is a good compromise tire and they are generally cheaper too! The Khunmo Ecsta LE Sport is in this category as well as a few others that would do well on a NSX.

Tangoman said:

Referring to your recommended 18" tire size for the rear of a 91 - That tire width is standard on the back of an E55 AMG (the 470 hp one), a car with double the horsepower & probably 1.5 times the weight of the NSX. No one thinks this is fundamentally overkill on the back of a car that only has 270 horsepower by comparison? Especially when you have grippier tires anyway?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Many, many NSX owners have been happy with that 265/35-18 rear size. The handling is fine, and it's not overkill at all. It's the most common rear tire size for those with NSX's with aftermarket wheels.

Tangoman said:

Maybe I don't have the budget that you guys do, but I drive my car on the highway a lot to work. I have an iffy 3rd gear syncro so I won't be tracking it until I get that fixed. In the Chicago area, there aren't endless canyon roads to amuse myself with so my car is set up to have fun when I want to and be reasonable economical in terms of tire cost and tire wear when I take it to work 2-3 times a week.

Therefore, I think every tire anyone buys should be tailored to how they drive and what they will be using it for. Not just "get the grippiest tire you can in these normal NSX sizes and you're doing it right".

Click to expand...

I agree with that too. But you were talking about how to get optimal handling, and you get optimal handling with the grippiest tires. If you only daily drive your NSX and you never take it for a brisk drive with some reasonably hard cornering, then the entire discussion worrying about wheel widths and tire sizes is irrelevant. You're suddenly shifting gears and making your previous post irrelevant; you're the one guilty of the post that doesn't take into account those whose priorites lean towards daily driving rather than track driving or canyon curving!

There are plenty of NSX owners who are looking for a combination of performance and value, who prefer tires that last significantly longer than the extreme performance tires, and don't mind accepting slightly less ultimate grip in exchange. The maximum performance tire category is a great choice for such owners, and I frequently recommend those to folks who are looking for that blend. As Jim notes above, the Kumho Ecsta LE Sport is a great choice in this category, as it's available in most of the common NSX sizes.

As for that third gear problem, it might be the synchro, or it might be the hub selector. Either way, the fix is to open up the tranny, see which parts have worn teeth, and replace them. Ted at Woodfield Acura has done this for many of us.

Tangoman said:

Maybe you drive your NSX in sub 30 degree weather in November, you really aren't recommending an "extreme performance summer tire" in those conditions are you sir? That would not be DOT approved! Yea you could have another set of wheels, but lets assume that you want a more well-rounded car for this well-rounded weather we have in Chicago.

Click to expand...

Please don't put words in my mouth, and then argue against things that I never said. ANY summer tire is not a good idea for winter use in Chicago. You need all-seasons or winter tires - either of which involves a huge degradation in performance when used the other nine months of the year. Almost all of the NSX owners I know don't drive their cars in winter, and the few that do, have a second set of wheels with winter tires.

Tangoman said:

I think threads like this give people the impression that if you're not taking corners at 2x the speed you should and not tracking your car on the weekends, you aren't doing it right. I represent all the people out there that don't have any unlimited budget for tires (277 dollars for Dunlop Direzza IIs in 265/35/R18) and don't drive their cars like they stole it on their way to work in the morning.

Click to expand...

No you aren't. Not in your previous post obsessing over wheel widths and oversteer, anyway!

CL65 Captain said:

Want to make a bet on that? It's the driver and his inputs, not the size of the tire. This "snap oversteer" people complain about is a result of a nice smooth progressive oversteer that they wait too long to make a correction. By the time they recognize the car is sliding it's too late and the back end is already on it's way around. That's not really snap oversteer, that's poor driving.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you. I don't think I described it correctly and I'm wrong on this one. So I guess I won't be taking the bet!

CL65 Captain said:

The diameter (18") has very little to do with how much hp or the weight of the car.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I was referring to the 265/35/R18 recommended tire size for 91-93 cars Ken talked about.

CL65 Captain said:

I agree with in reason. If you never plan on tracking the car then R-Compound tires are a waist. Extreme tires such as the Dunlop ZII or Yokohama AD08 are also probably a little overkill on a street only car. These tires were designed for someone who wants to autocross or track their car occasionally and still drive on the street.

What you are looking for is something that has good grip, but trades off ultimate grip for longevity and wet performance. But you don't want to go too far to the opposite extreme as it is a sports car after all.

A nice MAX PERFORMANCE category tire is a good compromise tire and they are generally cheaper too! The Khunmo Ecsta LE Sport is in this category as well as a few others that would do well on a NSX.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think Max Performance tires are appropriate. I just don't think you'll need it in 265 widths if you run an 18" wheel, that's all. I still think that is overkill. Once again, I go back to my E55 AMG comment.

- - - Updated - - -

nsxtasy said:

Absolutely not. Many, many NSX owners have been happy with that 265/35-18 rear size. The handling is fine, and it's not overkill at all. It's the most common rear tire size for those with NSX's with aftermarket wheels.

Click to expand...

I still think it is, I have no traction problems with my 235s. The E55 AMG has 265 tires, you're saying an NSX "needs" that? I don't think so. No tire roasting 400 ft-lbs of torque or 470 hp. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, its a sports car, its exotic, put on wide tires it looks good and it grips more. Okay, but you have to make a conscience decision that the level of grip you have with the stock wheel/tire width "isn't enough" and I think that is a hard one for most people to sign on to, especially when you can increase it so easily by using higher performance tires as you suggest without changing sizes.

nsxtasy said:

I agree with that too. But you were talking about how to get optimal handling, and you get optimal handling with the grippiest tires. If you only daily drive your NSX and you never take it for a brisk drive with some reasonably hard cornering, then the entire discussion worrying about wheel widths and tire sizes is irrelevant. You're suddenly shifting gears and making your previous post irrelevant; you're the one guilty of the post that doesn't take into account those whose priorites lean towards daily driving rather than track driving or canyon curving!

Click to expand...

Highest lateral G limit is not "optimal handling", especially for a car driven primarily on the street. Optimal handling is a balance between many things. Just like you can put "the stiffest roll-bars you can find" on the NSX and lose outside wheel load transfer during cornering and induce understeer. Or if you put springs in the front that are too stiff and you lose travel and bounce around the track because the shocks never see any stroke to work correctly. Everything is a balance, and I think tires are the exact same way.

nsxtasy said:

There are plenty of NSX owners who are looking for a combination of performance and value, who prefer tires that last significantly longer than the extreme performance tires, and don't mind accepting slightly less ultimate grip in exchange. The maximum performance tire category is a great choice for such owners, and I frequently recommend those to folks who are looking for that blend. As Jim notes above, the Kumho Ecsta LE Sport is a great choice in this category, as it's available in most of the common NSX sizes.

As for that third gear problem, it might be the synchro, or it might be the hub selector. Either way, the fix is to open up the tranny, see which parts have worn teeth, and replace them. Ted at Woodfield Acura has done this for many of us.

Click to expand...

I'm glad there are other owners out there like then, but I don't think they post here as often as you guys!

As for the 3rd gear issue, yes, I understand. But I won't know until I take out the transmission, which won't happen for a couple of years. Ted at Woodfield Acura wants 2400 dollars to replace my timing belt and water pump. He even wants to charge me separately for the pump and cover (600 dollars) even though there is another part number that comes with the pump and cover for 1/3 of that cost at oemacuraparts.com (Larry G helped me with this already). I think I will do it myself for 900 (with the help of a friend). I don't see myself bringing my car to him ever, as his NSX master skills are out of my price range.

In the end, my main point is - why go wider than the stock wheels... the next set of aftermarket wheels I get will probably match one of the OEM setups for width but have a more aggressive offset for looks (and 18s on the back). In my opinion, the vast majority of drivers don't need the extra traction, and it will keep the car balanced, affordable, and looking good. I won't have much more rotating mass than the stock car, but it will look more modern and up-to-date than the stock car. That is the optimum setup for me (and hopefully I am not alone). I just don't see many other people doing this though, they go 9.5-10.5" wide on the back and I still think it isn't needed. Perhaps they go that wide because that is what the wheel they like the looks of comes in? I don't want to accept that, but I guess it could be that simple in the end.

Hopefully that clears up any confusion on my opinion.

You guys are awesome by the way, at 25k posts over 12 years, NSXTASY has an average posts per day of 5.7 - respect. That is some dedication for sure and its appreciated.

Either way, I learned my lesson gentlemen. Don't start a fight with forum members who have 25k posts, it doesn't get anyone anywhere :smile:

do whatever you want,but if you ask for suggestions and then point by point try to rebutt/rebuke/support your own opinions in response to said help,well you will alienate yourself from those trying to help.Btw you are overthinking the whole less is more/balance thing with tire sizes...in the end Honda settled on a 255 oem tire size for the rear.What you do to the car during driving ie inputs..and tire model have much more to do with performance/balance than anything else we are talking about.

I wasn't trying to alienate anyone, I apologize if I did.

Like I said in my last post, I appreciate the community and I appreciate the guys who put the time in respond and answer questions. Have a good weekend gentlemen!

Tangoman said:

I wasn't trying to alienate anyone, I apologize if I did.

Like I said in my last post, I appreciate the community and I appreciate the guys who put the time in respond and answer questions. Have a good weekend gentlemen!

Click to expand...

The gist of your point is valid, there are a lot of NSX's that are over-tired and over-wheeled for their tires. It's numbers and so "more" often sounds "better". But when you get to a certain skill level on the track the car is now under-tired. Very high skill level and speeds though... There are maybe 3-4 guys on this forum with that level of skill besides stuntman. Other than stuntman and me I mean...

In 25,000+ posts, this is the first time I've been accused of recommending tires that are larger/wider than necessary!

nsxtasy said:

In 25,000+ posts, this is the first time I've been accused of recommending tires that are larger/wider than necessary!

Click to expand...

that is actualy very lol funny.......now we have saxoflush.....:biggrin:

Great post.
I've learned a lot from reading it.
It sounds like the NSX engineers knew their business when it came to handling, tire and wheel size and if the NSX needed larger wheels and tires they would have put them on at the factory.
Jim

docjohn said:

that is actualy very lol funny.......now we have saxoflush.....:biggrin:

Click to expand...

lol...

- - - Updated - - -

JD Cross said:

Great post.
I've learned a lot from reading it.
It sounds like the NSX engineers knew their business when it came to handling, tire and wheel size and if the NSX needed larger wheels and tires they would have put them on at the factory.
Jim

Click to expand...

LOL... there's Jim with "stock is best" again.... Haha....

Well the engineers don't know what each individual will do with their car, how they will use it and under what circumstances. I agree with you for the most part but they would have probably made slight variances if they could for individual applications. It is why I try not to veer too far off stock... But billy has said often that it's the lack of wheel and tire that keeps the nsx from being much faster than it is on the track... Does that apply to 97% of people here? No... Not at all. It applies to someone at least close to his skill level where grip with the grippiest of tires is now still the bottleneck of him being faster.

Lets face it... For most people's skill level, including myself, modifying this car for more performance is just silly. But some people take that as Cart Blanche to do things that really hurt and hamper the car. I personally try to be conscious of that at least... If you're going to install something that's beyond you skill level anyway, at least don't make the car worse. And you can do that without being OEM. It just requires some thought and threads like this that are at least civil and you can extract some good information out of.

- - - Updated - - -

nsxtasy said:

In 25,000+ posts, this is the first time I've been accused of recommending tires that are larger/wider than necessary!

Click to expand...

That's funny, but frankly a little different and refreshing.... LOL

TURBO2GO said:

LOL... there's Jim with "stock is best" again.... Haha....

Click to expand...

Oh no, - you're on to me and my campaign to save the stock NSX's from extinction

JD Cross said:

Oh no, - you're on to me and my campaign to save the stock NSX's from extinction

Click to expand...

It's a lonely campaign.... You're like Galileo trying to convince the church.... LOL

TURBO2GO said:

It's a lonely campaign.... You're like Galileo trying to convince the church.... LOL

Click to expand...

Alas, how true. However Just this week I found another original 91 owner and in Vancouver too so there are a few of us left

I have just ordered the new Dunlop Z11in the sizes 215-40-17 and 265-35-18 as recommended, they should be here in two weeks has anyone else had them on yet and any initial thoughts?
Also why do you recommend to go to 255 in the rear after the 93 model i am about to put on the 97+ rear brake system to match the fronts that i have done is it because of that do they have different offsets or is the TCS callibrated different?
cheers

scammy said:

Also why do you recommend to go to 255 in the rear after the 93 model i am about to put on the 97+ rear brake system to match the fronts that i have done is it because of that do they have different offsets or is the TCS callibrated different?

Click to expand...

Because the TCS is calibrated differently. (Switching to the '97 rear brakes won't change the TCS calibration.)

scammy said:

I have just ordered the new Dunlop Z11in the sizes 215-40-17 and 265-35-18 as recommended, they should be here in two weeks has anyone else had them on yet and any initial thoughts?
Also why do you recommend to go to 255 in the rear after the 93 model i am about to put on the 97+ rear brake system to match the fronts that i have done is it because of that do they have different offsets or is the TCS callibrated different?
cheers

Click to expand...

Just to be clear though, you are fine with the 265. The only brake issue with OEM is that the NA1 calipers are slightly thicker, and so they won't clear newer wheels, where you need a 5mm spacer up front.

TURBO2GO said:

Just to be clear though, you are fine with the 265.

Click to expand...

Especially since your car is a '91.

TURBO2GO said:

The only brake issue with OEM is that the NA1 calipers are slightly thicker, and so they won't clear newer wheels, where you need a 5mm spacer up front.

Click to expand...

Only if the newer wheels are from an '02-05 NSX.

And, of course, there's no such thing as "NA1 calipers", only '91-96 calipers and '97-05 calipers. :biggrin:

I have OZ racing rims and they clear the front callipers i have upgraded the fronts but havent got around to the rears as DBA had to make them in the 97+ size (they didnt have any in stock).
I have read enough of Ken's posts to not call them NA2 brakes, but thought i should check whether it would change things once i went to the larger rotors alround.
Cant wait for the new tyres and glad i dont have to order 255's once i change the rear rotors.
thanks for the input.
Cam

OK so i have been trolling through speedhunters again and came across this article so looks like there is a new tyre for us for street use but getting closer to a track spec tyre
http://www.speedhunters.com/2013/04/its-all-about-rubber-neova-ad08r-time-attack/

why not this, I run that

Potenza RE050A 215/40/17
Potenza RE050A 255/40/17

ultra high performer!

austrian type-R said:

why not this

Click to expand...

The Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position has been discontinued. Its replacement as the general-fitment maximum performance summer tire in their lineup, the Bridgestone Potenza S-04 Pole Position, is not available in 215/40-17.