I'm considering purchasing a set of 99 oem wheels with tires for my 91. The tire sizes on the wheels are front 225/50/16 and rears 275/40/17. After reading the F.A.Q. I am concerned that I could have TCS problems and a decrease in acceleration. Has anyone had this combo on their car? Any feedback is appreciated.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
tire size
- Thread starter mick
- Start date
I don't know where you got those sizes but they are to wide. Check here, sorry FAQ NAZI I beat you to it.
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/tiretech.htm
[This message has been edited by PUREVIL (edited 07 May 2001).]
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/tiretech.htm
[This message has been edited by PUREVIL (edited 07 May 2001).]
W
weiku
Guest
I'll save you the LIT(F)FAQ...
OEM 1994+ wheel and tire sizes are the same, 215/45-16 front and 245/40-17 rear. You can put up to a 225/45-16 front and 255/40-17 rear on the OEM sizes and still be within generally accepted tire/wheel size/width combinations.
Go do a tire size search on www.tirerack.com to find the tires you want.
I don't know who popped 275's on the OEM rears, but that shouldn't even fit, and if it does, it's not safe. The fronts are too tall by far; 215/50-16 is a full 5.3% larger diameter than OEM. I think you're asking for TCS issues and overall unsafe handling and reliability with the tires that come on the wheels you are looking at.
Andie
OEM 1994+ wheel and tire sizes are the same, 215/45-16 front and 245/40-17 rear. You can put up to a 225/45-16 front and 255/40-17 rear on the OEM sizes and still be within generally accepted tire/wheel size/width combinations.
Go do a tire size search on www.tirerack.com to find the tires you want.
I don't know who popped 275's on the OEM rears, but that shouldn't even fit, and if it does, it's not safe. The fronts are too tall by far; 215/50-16 is a full 5.3% larger diameter than OEM. I think you're asking for TCS issues and overall unsafe handling and reliability with the tires that come on the wheels you are looking at.
Andie
I am currently running 225/45/16 with 265/40/17 Toyo's on my 2000 OEM rims. The 265's fit perfectly and I believe the rims could handle 275's but no larger. 225/50's are WAY to large in diameter for the front and potentially could cause TCS prob's.
AS far as acceleration - slower. 0-60 times (G-tech) dropped from 5.2 to 5.5. Since I was launching OK w/o much wheelspin I assume the difference was the change in effective gearing due to the larger diameter tires. I wish there was a decent 265/35/17 or 274/35/17 for the rears so that the gearing would not change. Next set I will drop to stock sizes or 225/40/16 F 245/40/17 R.
------------------
BobsYT
2000 Red/Black #81
Well, not necessarily. The 225/50 front is taller than the OEM, but so is the 275/40 rear, and it’s the ratio between them that matters. I don’t have time to do the math right now, but check the FAQ for allowable ratios and how to calculate approximate diameter. You can also get a decent guess of mounted diameter from the Toyo chart or others like it. Don't forget that a wider rim than listed will stretch the tire and make it slightly shorter, and narrower one will make it taller.
Later...
I took a quick look after all, and based on the revs/mile in the FAQ it appears that the late model OEM ratio (1.078) is significantly different than on the early sizes (1.047). This combo would be slightly further still from the early configuration, (~1.040) so it may be pushing your luck, but a closer look with more accurate values on the tires in question might be warranted.
Is the TCS set differently on the late models to accommodate the difference?
[This message has been edited by sjs (edited 09 May 2001).]
Well, not necessarily. The 225/50 front is taller than the OEM, but so is the 275/40 rear, and it’s the ratio between them that matters. I don’t have time to do the math right now, but check the FAQ for allowable ratios and how to calculate approximate diameter.
The rule of thumb is to keep the back-to-front ratio within roughly 5 percent of stock.
The proposed sizes are 7.7 percent bigger than stock in the front, 3.2 percent bigger than stock in the rear. Thus the ratio is changing by about 4.5 percent. This is really borderline, probably not a good idea.
The rule of thumb is to keep the back-to-front ratio within roughly 5 percent of stock.
The proposed sizes are 7.7 percent bigger than stock in the front, 3.2 percent bigger than stock in the rear. Thus the ratio is changing by about 4.5 percent. This is really borderline, probably not a good idea.
Similar threads
