Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

had my 33 for roughly 2 weeks now. when i started off with it i was running stock rim and tyre specifiaction. now have upgraded 19's with perrrelli p zero's, which ive been told arent a bad tyre. anyway there 9.5's on the rear. now my delimea is obviously the title of the topic. am i feeling less power due to there being bigger tyre and rim diameter? or is it me just getting use to the car.? i mean this is not a big decrease or anything. it just seemed that my car went a bit harder with stock tyres and rims (still same performance mods). sorry i know the questions is kinda up in the air, just wondering if its my head or a fact /possibility. i mean i definetly know the tyres are quiet harder to spin than stock. but is there a power loss?

thanks

Jake

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/157478-does-more-tyre-width-less-power/
Share on other sites

Go weigh your Stock 16" rims and compared to your new 19" rims, your new rims are heavy/wider rubber hence better traction and grip and more friction on the ground so your car will run slower then it use(thats taking into account you don't have 300rwkw that has no traction with the 16" and you have traction with the nice wide 19" rubber)

From Experience, my car same power nothing else changed other then Rims

Previous 17" Sparco 255 wide dunlop tyres ran Consistent 14.2 and best 14.0 qtr mile

Stockies 16" 205 wide Toyo t1r's tyres ran consistent 13.6 and best of 13.5 qtr mile.

So as you can see there is quite a difference in my qtr mile time just by going back to my lighter stock rims.

yeah, seriously, it's the weight of the wheels.

the gtst wheels with tyres weight approximately 18-20kg give or take depending on what tyre.

I wouldn't be suprised if your 19 " wheels weighed 30-40kg.

Keep in mind that wheel weight is worse than static weight. It is rotational mass.

so that extra 40-80 kg overall could be the equivalent of having about 120-240 kg extra weight in your car

what rims u got? weight?

XIX exotic wheels (u.s company)

model: X-O5, 19x8.5 19x9.5

couldnt find the weight of the wheels.

what MANWHORE says makes a lot of sense.

post-35246-1172068242.jpg

Edited by jake33

An increase in rolling diameter gives you a taller overall gearing. This, in combination with heavier rims of larger diameter will result in you feeling less torque. (Seat of the pants dyno is working!)

Interesting thing on rotating mass...

Imagine two wheels that weigh exactly the same, but one is a 19" and the other is a 16" (very light 19" wheel, right?) fitted with tires that result in the same rolling diameter. The mass moment of inertia (I=mr²) of the 19" wheel will be 40% greater than the 16".

If the wheels are light enough, a 40% increase in 'effective mass' may be offset by benefits of stiffer sidewall or hawt looks :P, but directionaly you're making your car feel heavier.

I've read that the performance sweet spot for wheel diameter is around 17 or 18 inches. I suppose this would depend on your car, but this is one case of 'bigger is not always better.'

Cheers,

Dan

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...