New Tires
#1
New Tires
Picked up some Hankook Ventus V12 's on sale from Discount Tire, righht at @$110 each. Got 255/40-17 (25.03" dia) for the back, 245/45-17 (25.68" dia) for the front. I hope it is an optical illusion because the sidewall is an inch less than the 245/50-16's (25.64" dia)I had on before. Almost looks like the tires are too small. What you think? Or is the body kit adding to the illusion?
Just seems like the 245/50-16'S filled out the wheel wells a little more. Probably because I got less tire and more rim now with the 17's.
Just seems like the 245/50-16'S filled out the wheel wells a little more. Probably because I got less tire and more rim now with the 17's.
#2
My opinion is that you should went with 45 sidewall front and back. That 40 aspect ratio looks small with that sidewall. I have a 3rd gen with 245/45/17's ft & rear.
Last edited by blackz87; 09-07-2012 at 05:04 PM.
#6
Yeah. I agree. I did all the research. Figured oh its only .6" difference...makes a heck of a difference in real life. May cost me some but I'm exchanging them.
Last edited by jkeaton; 09-10-2012 at 07:54 AM. Reason: wrong word
#10
I remember something about that, discount is much better than most other places about returns. You might be fine.
I remember reading about the +1 width and -1 aspect ratio = same height rule, it is definitely not right, and a lot of lesser-experienced tire sales guys will just follow that rule and you can see how that worked out...
IME it is usually +2 or 3 width and -1 aspect ratio, so if you want the same height, you'd pair a 245/45/17 with a 275/40/17 or even a 265/40/17 if they even make that size
I paired up 205/55/16s with 225/50/16s on my old 240Z and that worked fine. Worked well to replace the original 195/70/14s.
Also a popular width upgrade for the 235/75/15 was the 255/70/15 or even the 265/70/15 which is a bit more rare. 10 years ago, you could find a LOT of tires in 255/70/15 although no vehicle came stock in that size (at the time). That's because it was so popular for trucks and SUVs as a width upgrade. NOT the 245/70/15....
Another interesting example is the 70's vettes. They came stock with either a 225/70/15 or a 255/60/15. I have to believe that switching from the 225/70 to the 255/60 caused some speedometer error.
I could go on and on...
I remember reading about the +1 width and -1 aspect ratio = same height rule, it is definitely not right, and a lot of lesser-experienced tire sales guys will just follow that rule and you can see how that worked out...
IME it is usually +2 or 3 width and -1 aspect ratio, so if you want the same height, you'd pair a 245/45/17 with a 275/40/17 or even a 265/40/17 if they even make that size
I paired up 205/55/16s with 225/50/16s on my old 240Z and that worked fine. Worked well to replace the original 195/70/14s.
Also a popular width upgrade for the 235/75/15 was the 255/70/15 or even the 265/70/15 which is a bit more rare. 10 years ago, you could find a LOT of tires in 255/70/15 although no vehicle came stock in that size (at the time). That's because it was so popular for trucks and SUVs as a width upgrade. NOT the 245/70/15....
Another interesting example is the 70's vettes. They came stock with either a 225/70/15 or a 255/60/15. I have to believe that switching from the 225/70 to the 255/60 caused some speedometer error.
I could go on and on...
Last edited by AboveTheLogic; 09-09-2012 at 01:28 AM.