Tire replacement 1993 NA1 16/17

[Sultan1NSX]

Dear gents
I am new to the forum I just bought a 1993 Acura NSX with upgraded 16/17 wheels
but I can’t find the proper sizes (OEM) for it in my country
I need you help on choice of sizes as the previous owner has replaced with
195/45/16 and 245/45/17 but those trigger the ASR light

what would ur recommendations be ? Regardless of the brand ,
Am not tracking or racing this car , it’s more of a weekend cruiser and canyon craver
thank you in advance
yours truly
sultan hamdi
Jeddah Saudi Arabia

 

[solidol]

Go for 215/45/16 front and 255/40/17 rear. There are few good options, check Tirerack and such.

 

[SFNSXguy]

Go for 215/45/16 front and 255/40/17 rear. There are few good options, check Tirerack and such.

What Solidol said ^
I'm using Falken Azenis RT615K and like them alot.
H-

 

[solidol]

I'm using Falken Azenis RT615K and like them alot.

Coincidentally(or not), I'm on the same rubber at the moment.

 

[ajmr2]

Ditto on the Falkens, an excellent choice. Just make sure you look at the "RT615K+" for proper sizing.

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Falken&tireModel=Azenis+RT615K+

 

[Old Guy]

Going for 205/45/16 on the front will open up a number of tires that have matching 245/40/17 tires (not 245/45/17) that were used on the rear with the OEM 16/17 rim combination. The slightly smaller 205 cross section on the front will not trigger the TCS when used with the 245/40/17 tire size, at least on the 1994 and later cars which were equipped with the 16/17 rims. I use this combination on my 2000 and it has not presented any problems.

The allowable mismatch programmed into the TCS / ABS between front and back varied from year to year. There is a table (either in the Prime Wiki or in a post from long ago) which tallied the allowable mismatch in rolling radius between front and back. If you use the search function I am sure you can find it and use it to figure out whether you will have a mismatch problem with whatever tires you use.

Finally, since you are in a hot dry climate, consider that Goodyear offers the G Force Rival in the correct original sizes for the 1994 - 2001 cars with the 16/17 wheel sizes. The G Force Rival is an extreme performance tire which works wonders on hot dry pavement; but, will probably put you in the ditch if you try going fast if it is wet or cold (the reason I passed on it as a tire choice). The tire life of the G Force Rival is a bit on the short side; but, not nearly as short as the original equipment Bridgestone RE010 tires that came on the 16/17 rims.

 

[BAVARIA]

Apologies if I am wrong here but I think that the G Force Rivals (latest iteration has a 1.5 suffix if memory serves me correctly) and actually BF Goodrich, not Goodyear. Again, no offense meant to Old Guy if I am wrong on this. Have been looking for a new set for my /94 on OEM 16/17 wheels and looked at G Force Rivals on Tire Rack website recently.

Best,
Jeff

 

[Old Guy]

Apologies if I am wrong here but I think that the G Force Rivals (latest iteration has a 1.5 suffix if memory serves me correctly) and actually BF Goodrich, not Goodyear. Again, no offense meant to Old Guy if I am wrong on this. Have been looking for a new set for my /94 on OEM 16/17 wheels and looked at G Force Rivals on Tire Rack website recently.

Best,
Jeff

You are correct. Goodrich not Goodyear. Clearly, fingers went into autopilot once I got past the Good part.

 

[BAVARIA]

You are correct. Goodrich not Goodyear. Clearly, fingers went into autopilot once I got past the Good part.

The question I'd like answered is "are they [the BFGs] and good." Anyone here running the BFG G Force Rivals, 1.5 or prior iteration? Impressions? As I may have said in a prior post in this thread or elsewhere on Prime, my RE010s wore out and I tried Conti Extreme Sports -- made car ride much better but at the expense of handling to the extent that although I don't push hard on the street I have much less confidence in the car's limits and where those limits lie. In making the ride much more tolerable over our crap MI roads, I've sacrificed too much in way of handling which is the raison d'etre for the NSX. I wish the RE010s were still available.

Best,
Jeff

 

[Old Guy]

The Conti Extreme Contact Sports has a tread wear rating of 340 and is categorized as a max performance summer tire. Same category of tire as I use on my car because of the cool and sometimes wet conditions I deal with. The G Force Rivals are extreme performance tires and will definitely restore the rough ride and noise associated with those types of tires, including the shorter tread life.

I have no experience with the G Force Rivals and the NSX. However, if you search Prime you will find at least a couple of users with older versions of the tires. My observations were based upon the fact that a couple of years ago they seemed to be the go-to tire for the Auto X set. Granted, most Auto X people seem to worship at the alter of front mid engine / rear wheel drive with a large dollop of power induced oversteer. Not exactly NSX territory.

 

[BAVARIA]

There is no question that the Contis eliminated the noise and rough ride of the stiff as a hockey puck (from one Canadian to another) RE010s. While I don't relish resurrecting the noise and nasty ride I miss the handling capabilities of the car. For the few miles I drive the NSX in any given year I want it to handle the way it came from the factory. I thought I would be happy with a more compliant ride and less noise but the tradeoff hasn't been worth it for me. Purely personal preference. The car almost never is out to play in the rain so I'm not concerned about that. Similarly I rarely use it when it is cold out so no concerns there.

Given the age of the NSX and suspension/chassis design limitations of 25+ years ago, as great as the NSX was for the time, it seems to me that you can't have it both ways with this car. Either go to max performance tires and degrade the handling or stick with extreme performance tires and suffer the nasty ride/noise but have the great handling. The solution (gasp) is spelled 911. A friend of mine has a 2013 911 -- base car, manual transmission and "only" 350 hp. He left it with me for a couple of weeks while he was out of town. This is a car that has both amazing handling and a very civilized ride even over the crap roads here in MI. I know, it is an apples to oranges comparison and unfair given the age of the NSX. I'm no fan of VAG products (for very good reason but that is another story) and have no plans to bid the NSX adieu for a P-car but the fact that the 911 handled as it did while delivering such a civilized ride was an object lesson in how much progress has been made over the last 25-30 years. The new NSX rides very nicely as well.......... I could see myself in one of those!

Again, if anyone reading this has any direct experience with the BFG G Force Rival 1.5 I'd much appreciate your impressions. Thanks.


Best,
Jeff

 

[biggrumble]

I was also wondering about using a stronger stagger than the stock 16/17 tires on a 1992 NSX. My back of the envelope calculation is that the 1991' stock tires (on the fat five rims) have sizes:

205/50R15: 23.07"
225/50R16: 24.86"

which gives a ratio for the TCS of 1.0776. If one shrank the front tires and widened the rear tires on the 16/17 wheels to:

205/45R16: 23.26"
255/40R17: 25.03"

one would get a TCS ratio of 1.0761, much closer to the 1991 ratio than the 16/17 tire size, with way more tire options. Would there be any disadvantage to this setup aside from slightly biasing the car towards understeer and slightly increasing the effective gearing?

 

[TomCat]

So, will a 215/45-16 set off TCS with 245/40-17 on a 1991 NSX?
Never mind...I see this was OEM with 16/17 wheels