Any cars you feel "Need More Tire?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
1,499
Location
Newark NJ
Would there be any cars on list - old or new, any kind - that you would say "Need More Tire?" Let's discuss.

My first guess would be a Fox-body 5.0 Mustang from the 90s.
21.gif


Any else?
 
My Saturn Sl2 was a much different car with 205/60R15's.
Actually wanted to drive straight, no wandering.
The OEM 185/65R15's were ok, but skinny for fuel economy.
 
The tires provide a miniscule contact patch between the car and the road. There's always a need for more tire. Buy the best tire you can afford. All-weather tires can provide excellent performance in the winter but are a compromise. Nothing beats winter tires in cold, snow, and ice, and nothing beats summer tires for hot and wet traction.
 
Not a popular performance model, but I felt that the 4th generation Mopar minivans (2001-2007) needed more tire...perhaps a lot more tire. They all came with either 215/70R15 98S or 215/65R16 98T tires. These are up to 4200-4300 pound minivans with a full tank and more than just a driver, and they're riding on load range 98 tires. In fact, Chrysler's recommended inflation pressure is 36 psi on these vans -- which is at the highest achievable load capacity for Euro metric tires (as the OEM tires were). I do believe that Chrysler engineers knew they were getting all they could out of the tires. The 5th generation vans (2008+) remedied this to some degree.

I mean, heck, our 3,500 pound CR-V rides on load range 102 tires. And our MDX, which is a little heavier than the Mopar vans, but not by much, rides on load range 103 tires.
 
The late model GTO's did. Looked like there were riding on pizza cutters. Wheel offset looked terrible too. BMW's have some wheel lip, and it looks right.
 
My friends Acura NSX rides around on its stock 205/50-15 tires. I think a Civic has "more tire" now.

The reality is it does not need it as it is a light weight car with great handling as-is.
 
I test drove a 1973 BMW Bavaria on 175R14 tires. Yup, 175-80-14. (Incidentally, guy wouldn't sell it for asking price.) It drove superbly.

Suspension setup has more to do with it than we give credit. I had a 97 taurus I mounted 65 series walmart tires on and it cornered great.
 
The way I drive means, unfortunately, that every car I've ever driven sometimes needs "more tire."
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Pretty much any US car from the late 60's and early 70's. Not only were many mid-sizes sporting 14" rims, they had Bias Ply tires.


You know it's amazing we didn't kill ourselves as often as we should have considering the way most drove those 2-ton boats on those soft and tall-sidewalled tires !!
 
DOT regulations were implemented in the late 60s with regard to load capacity for passenger car tires. Prior to that it was up to the buyer and the option list. The major change was to require the OEM tires to be able to handle the fully loaded weight of the vehicle, which in the case of a wagon produced quite a change in tire sizes.
Gen 4 Camrys with 4 cylinder engines were, in my opinion, close to unsafe with the stock 195 70 14s . The V6 got 205 65 15s which made all the difference in handling. A 4 cyl with 205 65s
is quite pleasant to drive. In 2001 the 4 cylinder got 205 65 15 as the factory installation and the V6 went to 16s.
 
I would have to say one of the most famous that I can remember was the late 90's Acura Integra Type R. I believe those things rode on 195/50 15", horribly under-tired for what it was.
 
I'd argue that most cars today are far over-tired for fun driving on the street. Sure, slot car handling is great for winning races, but for just having fun on a public road, why not have less tire so you can play closer to the limits without going way beyond the speed limits?
One of the best street driving experiences I've had, was my 95 Neon on sandy wet twisty roads up in cottage country, on 155/80R13 snow tires. Hardly got to 50mph but you could use all the grip available without too much risk, and the soft gravel shoulder offered almost as much grip as bit of a safety margin(not that I used it).
In autocross, it is possible to over-tire a car as well, and if you go too wide, the car actually gets slower in many cases. You start to loose steering feel as well with an overly wide tire. 205/50R15's was the biggest R-comp I ran on the Neon and I appreciated the raw grip for climbing up the result sheet, but I think the car was the most fun on 195/60R13 performance street tires. It was just more precise and it was easier to get the car to do what you wanted.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
My friends Acura NSX rides around on its stock 205/50-15 tires. I think a Civic has "more tire" now.

The reality is it does not need it as it is a light weight car with great handling as-is.


That was the original size on the Shelby Charger and Omni GLH-S!
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
, but for just having fun on a public road,


Maybe I need to live where you do. The other drivers around here pretty much suck all the fun out of any driving. If cars' performance were matched to their drivers' abilities, desire for improvement, and attention to task they would mostly be driving 1985 Yugos.
 
Our Fit understeered something fierce with the narrow OEM 185/55-16's on it. +0 sizing to 205/50-16's corrected much of the understeer and made the car more stable on windy days. Our Cruze has noticeable understeer with its 215/55-17's. The factory +0 size 225/50-17 is supposed to handle better, but at the cost of a MPG or two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top