Posted by A.D. on October 08, 1997 at 00:25:20:
In Reply to: q45 posted by Tu on August 14, 1997 at 18:04:47:
I recently purchased Dunlop Sport 8000's in the 245/50-Z16 size, mounted on BBS RZ-II wheels, 16 x 8.0 inches. Actually, I agonized about this decision for a couple of months and finally decided on this combination for several reasons: (1) I felt that 17 inch wheels would make the car look too "trick" and most likely lose a good degree of ride comfort. (2) With 245/50-16, I almost exactly preserved the cross-sectional area obtained by multiplying the actual TIRE (i.e. rubber) height (mm) by the width (mm). For the 245/50-16, this yields 30,012 mm2, while stock (215/65-15) is 30,046 mm2. By comparison, 245/45-17 as recommended by Stillen Motorsports as well as Stefan yields 27,011 mm2 - a decrease of about 10%. This loss of cross-sectional area is indicative of loss of air cushion between the wheel and road, and likely contributes to rougher ride characteristics so commonly cited with low-profile, 17 " or higher wheels. I honestly cannot notice any sacrificed handling abilities with this combination, and feel that I have a ride that is actually MORE comfortable than stock. As an added benefit, I was able to pay only $130 ea for the wheels, and only $159 each for the tires, which is a bit cheaper than typical 17" prices. By the way, Stefan, I will soon receive the Eibach pro-kit springs, Tokico shocks, and strut tower brace from Stillen, so I was happy to hear that you like your ride. I apologize for the length of this posting, but I feel that people can achieve significant benefits with less expenditure and less radical looks by not always moving up to 17" or higher wheels. Let me know what you think. A.D. P.S. - I agree with many people on this site that the Michelin XGT V tires stink in wet weather - I will never buy them again.
Post a Followup