What are auto makers thinking with all the 17"+ wheels?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by CapriRacer:
Don't forget that asbestos was removed from brake pads some time back and things haven't been the same since. I get the impression that the brake folks are still recovering from that and using bigger brakes is just one way of making it easier to make it all work.

I dont know... my saab stops pretty darn well with brakes sized to fit behing 15" wheels.

The 'larger' brakes (more sink area due to larger rotors, but same-size pads), sized to fit behind 16" and larger wheels stop phenomenally, according to the MT test I read, they stopped better than many a porsche and performance car, 107 ft 60-0 I believe it was.

JMH
 
quote:

Originally posted by slugsgomoo:
When i went from 205/55/16 to 235/45/17 my tires increased in width by 30mm, decreased in height significantly, and shaved nearly EIGHT POUNDS off their weight.

Are you saying that a 235/45/17 tire weighs 8 lbs less than a 205/55/16??
shocked.gif
Not a chance. Most 235/45/17 high perf. summer tires weigh about 24-27 lbs; 205/55/16 - 21-24 lbs. Best case scenario, your tire weight remained the same.

Low profile tires require more reinforcement materials plus they're generally wider (like in your case), hence the increased weight.

quote:

It also helped that my new wheels (17x8) weigh 19lbs, and my old 16x6 crapulences weighed 27lbs. Overall, that's an almost 16lb savings per corner.

Very lightweight (forged) rims are expensive and hence not used as OEM on most cars. You'll find most OEM 17x8 cast rims to weigh around 25-28 lbs. Now, if you know what you're doing, of course you can shave some weight, but this generally doesn't apply to most factory OEM setups.

FYI, I've got two setups currently:

winter:
205/55/16 (23 lbs) on 16x7 rims (21 lbs) = 44 lbs

summer:
225/45/17 (22 lbs) on 17x8 rims (17.5 lbs) = 39.5 lbs

But that's only because I picked my summer rims and tires based on weight.
smile.gif
An average 225/45/17x8 combo weighs about 45-50 lbs otherwise.
 
quote:

Originally posted by JHZR2:
Sure they look cool, but do you really want average non-PM driver types skimping out and going with balder, more worn tires than ever before? Do you want your tax dollars going to putting 18" wheels onto police cars? Isnt it generally accepted that little handling improvement is gained after you pass 17" wheels?

I love the 17's on my Mazda3 for handling, and the extra $25 or so a year over having 16's is a totally insignificant operating cost relative to fuel and insurance. If I can't afford tires, how would I ever afford fuel and insurance? If people have their priorities messed up and decide to drive around on bald tires, they probably would have done it with smaller wheel-diameter tires too.
Why are 16's the largest acceptable size, anyway? Why not 15's? Why not 14's?
I really doubt that the police cars will actually have 18's though. It doesn't make sense since they frequently have to drive over curbs at speed!
 
yeah but people say the same thing for any purchase. Take fuel. They figure they can buy a gas guzzler because 8mpg at $2.10 a gallon times how many ever miles they drive is still insignificant compared to the price of the vehicle.

It has to end somewhere...

As more and more expensive to replace stuff reaches the bunch who have less and less money to spend on ANYTHING, I fear the consequences.

JMH
 
10 years ago I had to buy (2) 225/50r16's for a 1987 Toyota Supra.

I called EVERY tire place in the yellow pages.

Cheapest was freaking Delta brand at $112 each.

Fast forward 10 years later when the dollar isn't worth jack and you can buy name brand in same size for $70-80!

It's all about economies of scale.

Back then, that size was almost a performance standard.

Now, its a very common and cheap size.

In the next couple of years 17"+ sizes wont be so bad in price.

It will be the fuel prices that drive up costs, not the increase in inches.
 
quote:

Originally posted by robbobster:
A big reason why larger brakes are the norm is because vehicle weight is increasing every year. Be it additional safety equipement or what have you, a sedan today weighs a lot more than a 10 or 20 year old sedan.

Vehicle weights have increased a little, but bigger brakes are also being used because they used to be too small. The 11.8" front/11.0" rear rotors with FF pads on my 2800lb car always provide good feel and don't fade at all even on a full ABS 70mph to 0 stop (dang deer!). I can't picture these brakes ever warping, and I don't plan on buying a car without modern brakes again.

I wish my '87 Grand Am had the extra weight and engineering that new vehicles do for safety. I probably wouldn't have even been hurt and I'd still be able to run if I had my current car when I got hit head-on.
 
quote:

I dont know... my saab stops pretty darn well with brakes sized to fit behing 15" wheels.

The 'larger' brakes (more sink area due to larger rotors, but same-size pads), sized to fit behind 16" and larger wheels stop phenomenally, according to the MT test I read, they stopped better than many a porsche and performance car, 107 ft 60-0 I believe it was.

JMH

my '87 MR2 would do 108ft 60-0 with 14" wheels... of course it only weighed 2200lbs.
 
my talon (1991) has teeny tiny brakes (of course they were redesigned in 1992). The thing was, the eclipse RS/TalonDL were several hundred pounds lighter, FWD, etc. Of course, those brakes are sufficient for a 98hp car. When you put those brakes on a 3270lb car, instead of a 2700lb car, and give it an extra 100hp (plus mod added horsepower) those brakes become woefully insufficient. A car that can do 145 stock should NOT have 10" rotors ANYWHERE.

I'm going to be moving to 13.2" fronts and 12.1" rears. More heatsink area = less fade, and bigger surface = more grab. With the super-stickies on the car, i don't have enough braking force to lock 'em up (not that it's ideal, but it's a good indicator).

I'm also going to go with dot 5.1 (not 5 though) for better heat resistance.
 
quote:

Originally posted by crossbow:
Larger rims do not offer greater performance vs a similar profiled tire on a smaller rim. This has been proven time and time again.

Only because the gearing gets shorter with a tire of smaller rolling diameter.
 
My 02 Cavalier with 205-55-16 tires has about 8'' drums in the rear, likely the same as my 81 Phoenix with 205-70-13 tires. The things are so small, the wheel flange covers most of the brake making it hard to service. And I still pay through the nose for hard riding tires the same as the 13'' ones except they have a bigger hole in them.
 
slugsgomoo,

Larger rims do not offer greater performance vs a similar profiled tire on a smaller rim. This has been proven time and time again.

The whole big rim thing is nothing more then extremely well thoughtout and executed marketing.

Whats the main reason people get better performance upsizing to a larger rim? They changed the tire.

Need some evidence of these theories? Here's some urls. Even SportsCarCompact, Turbo Magazine, and various magazines have articles on the falacy of larger rims when it comes to raw performance.

Smaller profile tire = more reinforcement to maintain the same load rating. This not only results in a heavier tire, but because the tire is pushed further away from the hub of the wheel, the rotational interia effect is increased, increasing the overall effect on the cars acceleration, handling, and braking. (All negatively).

Here's the links. Some of the SCCA forum links are broken, as they recently refreshed their forums. You'll also see many links talking about "if they aren't better, why do sports cars use them?" which seems to be the general defense of the GBOGH individuals (go big or go home).

Marketing, Marketing, Marketing. Its like propaganda, but for your pocketbook.

Also check the slip threads/articles, where they show going from a 18 inch rim to a 16 inch rim, even with inferior tires on the 16 inch rims, can make as much as a 0.3 to 0.6 difference in your 1/4 mile times (with 60 ft and reaction times the same). (SCC, SCCA, Mazda6tech)

Articles

Size Matters

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~greghess/sizematters.pdf

Finding Free Power
http://www.nerocam.com/SCC_TAPnew.asp

Bicycles and Unsprung Weight
http://www.softride.com/bike/cornering.pdf

Fixing the 350Z: Why Lawyers Want Everyone to Run Staggered Setups
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/projectcars/0404scc_350z/

Picking the Right Wheels For You
http://www.grmotorsports.com/wheels.html

Big Wheels, Big Trouble?
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/15/pf/autos/wednesday_big_wheels/

Wheel Weights Can Effect Your Vehicles Show and Go
http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/road_wheel_weights.jsp

Automobile Ride, Handling, and Suspension Design
http://www.rqriley.com/suspensn.htm

Do Wheels Cost More than Money?
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0106tur_wheels/


Threads

How much does wheel weight really matter?

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=7019&highlight=unsprung+and+weight

Are 18" wheels and tires bling bling or a performance advantage?
http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3661&highlight=wheel+and+weight

How much will 17" wheels slow you down
http://www.sccaforums.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/7/303?

Effect of Lighter Wheels?
http://www.sccaforums.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/7/301?

Bigger Wheels and Tires?
http://www.sccaforums.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/7/863#000004

Rotational Advice
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002795;p=1

If larger wheels are bad...why do sports cars have them?...
http://forum.miata.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005169

Wheel Weight, Who Cares?
http://forum.miata.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=007412

1 Lb of unsprung weight =?? Static weight
http://forum.miata.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=006390;p=

Wheel Weights....Can They Make a Difference?
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010655#000000

33.5 lbs/Corner Too Heavy??
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010570#000002

Don't Small Wheels Mean Heavier Tires?
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010479#000009

Whats With Huge Wheels?
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010436#000002

18" Wheels too big? Take a Look!
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=008412#000031

I'm Finally Completely Convinced About Lighter Wheels and Tires
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010379#000000

Do Wider Tires REALLY Provide More Traction?
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010206#000034

Unsprung Weight 101
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010206#000034

Unsprung Weight Effects Performance?
http://forum.miata.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=008986

WO! The Joy of Lightweight Wheels!!!!
http://forum.miata.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010108#000033

0-60 simplified wheel physics and garfield's wheel test
http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=279748&t=3730#post279748

Spreadsheet blows lid off lightweight wheel debate!!!
http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14738

Lightweight Wheels
http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58149&page=1&highlight=unsprung+weight

In Defense of 17's
http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10982&page=1&highlight=unsprung+weight

16 or 17 Inch Wheels?
http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63449&page=1&highlight=wheel+weight

18 or 19 Inch Wheels?
http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81973&page=1&highlight=wheel+weight

Effects of Wheel Size on Acceleration (TimeSlips)
http://forum.mazda6tech.com/viewtopic.php?t=1762&start=0

6tech Article
http://www.mazda6tech.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=32

Wheel Weight and Performance
http://forum.mazda6tech.com/viewtopic.php?t=563&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Some Wheel Weight Sites
http://www.wheelweights.net
http://www.wheelspecs.com
http://www.miata.net/garage/garagetires.html

I'm running 36 lb a corner rims+tire right now (14 lb rims) on 17x8 245/40/17, and dropping to a 16x8 with 245/45/16, just for the additional performance (another 4 lbs off a corner from the lighter tire, rim, and reduced diameter wheel).

Plus tires are hella cheaper
smile.gif
.
 
quote:

Originally posted by labman:
My 02 Cavalier with 205-55-16 tires has about 8'' drums in the rear, likely the same as my 81 Phoenix with 205-70-13 tires. The things are so small, the wheel flange covers most of the brake making it hard to service. And I still pay through the nose for hard riding tires the same as the 13'' ones except they have a bigger hole in them.

Most Chevy cars always did, probably always will have crap brakes.

I have 12" discs up front , 11" discs in the rear.. not too bad
smile.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by 04SpecV:

quote:

Originally posted by labman:
My 02 Cavalier with 205-55-16 tires has about 8'' drums in the rear, likely the same as my 81 Phoenix with 205-70-13 tires. The things are so small, the wheel flange covers most of the brake making it hard to service. And I still pay through the nose for hard riding tires the same as the 13'' ones except they have a bigger hole in them.

Most Chevy cars always did, probably always will have crap brakes.

I have 12" discs up front , 11" discs in the rear.. not too bad
smile.gif


I was driving a new malibu v6 rental car last week. The brakes stopped pretty well, but they were WAY overboosted. Sucked pretty bad for control and feel.

I was disapointed, as my saab shares the same platform. Granted there are HUGE differences between the two for braking, suspension and most other systems, but gee, youd think the cost of one brake system vs. another (given reasonable size) would be about the same. The saab brakes are EXCELLENT, too bad they couldnt have used the same or nearly the same setup on the malibu. Would be a huge improvement.

JMH
 
Give me a break. All GM brakes are a lot better the junk of the Ford F series. I hate having one of those over sized junk piles behand me.
 
that was random... I didnt even see a post about a f-series...

Never driven one; are they THAT bad?

JMH
 
quote:

Originally posted by labman:
My 02 Cavalier with 205-55-16 tires has about 8'' drums in the rear, likely the same as my 81 Phoenix with 205-70-13 tires. The things are so small, the wheel flange covers most of the brake making it hard to service. And I still pay through the nose for hard riding tires the same as the 13'' ones except they have a bigger hole in them.

If your 16 inch wheels are alloy wheels, it should be easy to trade them for some 13" wheels. maybe even make little money in the process.

Even if you have to buy them outright, 13 inch wheels are cheap.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
My 2003 Dodge truck has 17in wheels, evidently to clear the massive looking discs front and rear. When I had the tires rotated at Costco I heard one of the techs say to another 'OH MY, look at these', and I asked what was wrong; he said the brakes were huge :^)

But finding good 17in load range E tires has been like the search for the Holy Grail, especially snow rated ATs.


DO you NEED E range tires? That is really for weight loading, I dont think it effects handling characteristics the way a speed rating does on a passenger car tire.

WHat about BFG All terrains? I liked the old ones, and I am REALLY impressed with the new ones, especially in the snow (they carry the 'snow tire' official certification).

JMH
 
quote:

Originally posted by eljefino:
Right on! I don't think the pontiac vibe econo-wagon comes with less than 16" wheels. Wonder if 15s would fit for snow tires. With snows, one wants a tall skinny flexible sidewall and narrower tread width. They should list a set of steel wheels for winter tires in their accessories catalog just to reassure folks that it's possible.

I've got a Vibe GT with TRD springs and a bigger rear bar. I went with the stock 205/55/16s instead of the upgrade. Used them up(didn't take long with the oem Conti's) and put winters on those rims. My upgrade wheels are the same diameter but an inch wider with 225/50 RE 750s. I can drive it in Chicago without being careful and I'm not losing anything to 17's except bubbles. The Vibe can use 15" wheels. Look at Celica steelies. By the way, the brakes on my car are superb.
 
"DO you NEED E range tires? That is really for weight loading, I dont think it effects handling characteristics the way a speed rating does on a passenger car tire."

Actually, the 'load index'/maximum load is for the load rating, while load range seems to be for handling. The BFGs being used on the newer Dodges have similar maximum load capability but they're still all load range D tires. The load range seems to take into account sidewall stiffness for lateral deflection under load. The Dodges still have a solid front axle, which I like, but that also makes them more prone to handling problems with less than optimum tires. People running the bigger BFGs, espcially with lifts and lower tire pressures seem to be more prone to the 'Death Wobble' (speed wobble to the rest of us), and some can only get rid of it be using other tires.

"WHat about BFG All terrains? I liked the old ones, and I am REALLY impressed with the new ones, especially in the snow (they carry the 'snow tire' official certification)."

Good on snow, so so in heavy rain and poor on ice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top