Running 17s up front and 18s in the back?
02-28-2014, 10:58 PM
#31
Surely you meant *low* front wheel arches, boostd92! Beautiful FD and MR2! My somewhat ratty-looking cars are jealous...
I am running 24.7" 245/40-17 fronts with 25.6" 275/35-18 rears for streets on my FD (track wheels 17s all around). No noticeable ill effects on street or track with that .9" diameter stagger. Pic from Texas Mile 2012:
S2000 in particular has very low front fenders and much higher rears, so lookswise it certainly works. It would seem to me that it should make VSA less intrusive as rears would be rotating slower than fronts and would have to spin up more relative to same-diameter setup to cause VSA to intrude and cut power. But this is the opposite of what Estukay reports. Weird... At least it is turn-offable...
I have run a bigger disparity in front/rear tire diameters on my '01 S: 23.2" 205/45-16 fronts with 24.9" 225/50-16 rears, 1.7" diameter stagger. Not my size choice, tires were never-used R-comps that were *given* to me! Here's what that looked like under hard braking (static = HUGE fender gap):
There was a noticeable change in brake bias to the front at the track. This is more stable but not ideal. Rears did less braking prior to ABS, had to continue to apply effort at pedal past point of invoking ABS up front to get maximum total braking. It wasn't a problem, just less than ideal and probably was increasing my braking distances.
Anyway that's my experience with running pretty extreme 1.7" tire diameter stagger on the S (too much front brake bias), and less extreme .9" stagger on the FD (no discernable issues).
Even if you have 18s all around, if you want to run 275 rears with 245 fronts, you're forced to either run close to 1" of tire diameter stagger with 245/35-17 275/35-17 OR run tall 25.8" 245/40-18 fronts which will give clearance issues. If you want to run 255 fronts and 275 rears on 18s all around, forced to have .6" stagger either way (taller rears with 255/35-17 and 275/35-18, or WORSE supertall 26.1" 255/40-18 fronts which would be a bad idea).
Have to choose your poison...
I am running 24.7" 245/40-17 fronts with 25.6" 275/35-18 rears for streets on my FD (track wheels 17s all around). No noticeable ill effects on street or track with that .9" diameter stagger. Pic from Texas Mile 2012:
S2000 in particular has very low front fenders and much higher rears, so lookswise it certainly works. It would seem to me that it should make VSA less intrusive as rears would be rotating slower than fronts and would have to spin up more relative to same-diameter setup to cause VSA to intrude and cut power. But this is the opposite of what Estukay reports. Weird... At least it is turn-offable...
I have run a bigger disparity in front/rear tire diameters on my '01 S: 23.2" 205/45-16 fronts with 24.9" 225/50-16 rears, 1.7" diameter stagger. Not my size choice, tires were never-used R-comps that were *given* to me! Here's what that looked like under hard braking (static = HUGE fender gap):
There was a noticeable change in brake bias to the front at the track. This is more stable but not ideal. Rears did less braking prior to ABS, had to continue to apply effort at pedal past point of invoking ABS up front to get maximum total braking. It wasn't a problem, just less than ideal and probably was increasing my braking distances.
Anyway that's my experience with running pretty extreme 1.7" tire diameter stagger on the S (too much front brake bias), and less extreme .9" stagger on the FD (no discernable issues).
Even if you have 18s all around, if you want to run 275 rears with 245 fronts, you're forced to either run close to 1" of tire diameter stagger with 245/35-17 275/35-17 OR run tall 25.8" 245/40-18 fronts which will give clearance issues. If you want to run 255 fronts and 275 rears on 18s all around, forced to have .6" stagger either way (taller rears with 255/35-17 and 275/35-18, or WORSE supertall 26.1" 255/40-18 fronts which would be a bad idea).
Have to choose your poison...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post