JDM Baller

After reading through some of the posts in the sticky, I am not thoroughly convinced that 245/45/16 is the best for stock rear tire... No one (granted, I have not read the ENTIRE thread) seems to be posting LAP TIMES to PROVE that 245/45/16 is better... People are basing the discussion based on tread width alone.

How about we take a tire like the Bridgestone Potenza S-03. They make that tire in 225/50/16 as well as 245/45/16. How about someone run back to back tests on a track.. this will ensure that the only variable is change of width of rear tire... front tire will be 205/55/16 S-03. All this on a stock car of course.

Let's see some 1/4 times, lap times, slalom times, braking distances... any an all technical data.. not just "because the tread width is not the same as stock S02". I think the reason this is still a debate is because data other than tread width has not been given. There has not been definitive track tests used to prove this.

Swifty1638

ok..lemme see if i can shed some light on this. I work at a tire shop, and have much experience with this area, so I gotta try and get my thoughts in order..

besides the wider tire advantage, u also gotta look at one other thing..lateral grip. the second tire has a smaller sidewall. in order for a tire company to make a reliable tire, that won't fall apart, yet have a low aspect ratio (sidewall) they need to make the rubber on the sides thicker, to support the vehicle, and whatnot. As a result, the ride is stiffer, but it is also more stable..lateral grip improves. when cornering, your tire flexes..this flexing can take away the contact patch of the tire, that you want to be running on. A stiffer tire won't flex half as badly, and it will keep the contact patch where it needs to be..on the road. this stiffer tire, allows for a much more stable vehicle..try cornering with it. I am guessing that with this you could notice anywhere from a .5-2 second laptime improvement at your local autox track, within reason (track length, corners, etc). if u are really concerned, then get some other wheels too..lighter ones..afterall, there is dead weight there..called unsprung weight..rotational mass..etc. anything outside the hub is hindering performance. get that wheel as light as possible, and with the right tire..it will make the biggest difference. tires and wheels are not just a look-good thing..but, they are the most important upgrade anyone could do to a vehicle..no matter what you put under the hood..it doesn't mean squat if u can't get ahold of that power, to the ground..

-A. Swift

mosesbotbol

I've read posts where members put 225's in the rear and the car drove real twitchy, unplanted, and had a tendency to fishtail more. The difference was quite apparent; it's an issue of controlling the car and putting the power down to the tarmac.

I don

TubeDriver

You want hard facts? Every single competative autoX in BS runs 245 in the rear. Every single one. No one runs 225s in the back. This has been going on for years. Period. You think you know something that Jason S. for example does not know? There is No good reason to put a narrower 225 on the rear (and remember that the OEM 225 is pretty close to a non OEM 245).

Elistan

I would be one of those people. My second set of tires, installed fall of '00, were the Boxster spec S02s. Same advertised size as the S2000 spec tires, but very different in reality. The handling balance sucked big time. Very twitchy rear end. I currently have 205 front and 245 rear Kumho ECSTA 712 tires on the car - ultimate grip is way down of course, but the balance is the same as OEM S02.

And for what it's worth, I get the typical inside edge wear you'd expect from running the UK spec rear camber. No evidence of center wear induced from suposed crowning.

pantyraider

Let me join the chorus. I had 205 front and 225 rear S03's, and the car was just unpredictable. It just didn't have the grip it did after I put 245's in the rear. I can't give you any lap times or hard facts, but I'll put it this way, I spun the car 3 times on the street (on deserted roads), without (in my mind) pushing it very hard.

It doesn't make logical sense why removing an 1" of tread in the rear would give you a better handling car.

Swifty1638

at the same time...go autocrossing..adding or removed 2 pis of air in your tires can make a BIG difference..who woulda guessed? the width of your tire is that same way..every little bit can make the biggest difference..

-A. Swift

ProV1

ive been driving on non oem 225/50/16 in the back and i'm absolutely ecstatic about the setup. car is glued to the road and handling is superb.

if anything the slightly narrower rears will reduce the understeer bias of staggered tires and make the car more neutral.

ymmv

JDM Baller

How is it possible that you got signficantly worse handling with 225/50/16 S03's? They are nearly identical tread width to the S02's, if you are going to use that as a comparison.... in fact, 245/45/16 has MORE tread width than stock S02's.

What if someone were to get a grippier tire than S02's and use them in the 225/50/16 size. I doubt that you would get less lateral traction simply because of tire size. If you want to compare tread width look at the Goodyear Eagle F1-GSD3's.. they have the narrowest tread width I have ever seen on such a high performance tire, yet they have superb handling.

And what about the person who posted stating that he is using 225/50/16 and he LOVES them?.... and what about the other people in the world that have S2k's but do NOT come on this board... I doubt everyone running 225/50/16 is having all this "twitchy" behavior and spinning out left and right.

I myself am running 245/45/16 because so many people on this board have said its "best".. however prior to getting on this board, I ran 225/50/16 on non OEM and I really did not notice any adverse effects.

And to the person that said "Every single one. No one runs 225s in the back. This has been going on for years. Period. You think you know something that Jason S. for example does not know?".... that's a bold statement to say NO ONE runs 225's on the rear... I bet I can inspect all the rear wheels of everyone in my town that has an S and lets see how many of them are running 225's on non-OEM tires.... also when did I say I knew more than Jason S? I don't even know who that is... am I supposed to or something?

At any rate, its common sense that bigger tires, bigger wheels, etc will give you more traction. What I'm talking about is saying that every single tire in the world in 225/50/16 is inferior to the S02 and that every single tire you ever buy for the rear of a stock AP1 needs to be 245/45/16 or you will lose traction like crazy and get an unpredictable car and pretty much drive like you are on 2 dollar tires.... just because S02's are good does not mean they are the best tire in its size.... lets take the Kumho MX for example. Even Jim said that 225/50/16 is FINE for the rear... if it was absolutely dangerous and your traction would suffer dramatically, I'm sure he would not say it was OK.. I'm sure he would say "choose another tire that is 245/45/16 only, and never consider 225/50/16 ever again".

I think people just need to chill out and examine all of the information and quit making such bold outrageous statements and learn to have a technical discussion....what some people call "twitchy" is not considered twitchy by everybody. If S02's were no longer available do you think Honda would issue a statement to every tire store saying that they need to change their systems to reflect 245/45/16? I highly doubt it.

Hate Me

^^Obviously, you didn't read the second response in this thread.