Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Im wondering what would be the largest width tyre i could fit on the 9.5 inch wide rims i have on the rear of my GTST.

The guards have been cut out completely.

At the moment I have 265's on there and there is heaps of room between the tyre and the arch. Not sure about on the inner side near the suspension etc.

anybody know the answer to this?

-and i want sizes that will get in there without rubbing on anything at any suspension travel point. (had tyres that rubbed on my old car and it shat me to tears...)

cheers

J

Edited by jjman

for the sake of it. Traction. Looks. bit of everything really.

the rim certainly has room for a wider tyre so it isnt sacrificing function over form..

why would you want to go any bigger than a 265 on a 9.5" wide rim anyway?
why would you want to go any bigger than a 265 on a 9.5" wide rim anyway?

This is true. A 9.5" wide rim is only a touch over 24cm wide, so anything wider than a 245 in reality is getting into overkill. The wider profile tyre you put on, the more the tyre is gonna balloon out over the rim and will probably have a negative effect on overall grip (cornering particularily, as the sidewall flexes). Hope that helps. :)

This is true. A 9.5" wide rim is only a touch over 24cm wide, so anything wider than a 245 in reality is getting into overkill. The wider profile tyre you put on, the more the tyre is gonna balloon out over the rim and will probably have a negative effect on overall grip (cornering particularily, as the sidewall flexes). Hope that helps. :)

?! The 255/40/17 tryres I bought are recommended for an 8-9inch rim, not a 9.5. 265mm are normally recommended for 9.5"

245/45 is probably not recommended by tyre manufacturers for a 9.5" rim.

yeah i think the prior post is a little out.

as per this guys post on a 255 on a 8-9 inch.

at the moment with the 265 (which was the recommended standard fitment from the supplier) the tyre sits pretty much flush with the rim. Perhaps curves in a bit (stretched). So def room for wider without ballooning.

?! The 255/40/17 tryres I bought are recommended for an 8-9inch rim, not a 9.5. 265mm are normally recommended for 9.5"

245/45 is probably not recommended by tyre manufacturers for a 9.5" rim.

This is true. A 9.5" wide rim is only a touch over 24cm wide, so anything wider than a 245 in reality is getting into overkill. The wider profile tyre you put on, the more the tyre is gonna balloon out over the rim and will probably have a negative effect on overall grip (cornering particularily, as the sidewall flexes). Hope that helps. :)

your saying that a 245 tyre has much more traction ability then a 275 or even 305 tyre? although it may balloon, under heavy acceleration there is a much bigger contact path and bigger sidewall. correct me if im wrong.

bigger is always better i thought?

your saying that a 245 tyre has much more traction ability then a 275 or even 305 tyre? although it may balloon, under heavy acceleration there is a much bigger contact path and bigger sidewall. correct me if im wrong.

bigger is always better i thought?

in a straight line yes

round corners those sidewalls are gonna flex more then a gym junkie

yeah i think it will happily take more width and improve performance of both straight line as its fatter, n corners cos it definately wont ballon at 275 or 285 methinks.

perhaps this is a better topic header

-does anybody know the biggest tyre for best best performance on a 9.5 inch rim...

interesting read. I had to get the local tyre shop to fit 235/45/17 tyres on my 9.5" rims 'off the books', due to the rims being half an inch too wide according to the manufacturer data. TBQH I havent noticed any loss of tractability compared to the old 255s. You could probably also say that buying better quality tyres in a thinner size would be more beneficial as well.

If u want more grip, look at your wheel alignment.

Sounds like what yoiu need is a set of wheel spacers to space the wheel out to fill the guards. Muffin topping tyres is not cool at all lol. U wouldn't want to run more than 265. It certainly won't look better, that's for sure!

I was running 265/30x19 on 9.5" rims with room to spare (they looked almost strectched) - I reckon a 275 or 285 would have fitted easy.

Now running 245/35x19 on the same rims because I saved $500 and actually prefer the 35 profile over the 30 profile. (looks, comfort, ride and grip). To be honest you cannot tell the difference looking at it between 245 & 265 except the 245/35 fills the wheel arch more than the 265/30 so looks better.

Another decision to go with the narrower tyre is tyre wear from running negative camber is more pronounced as you go wider...

P.s Falken FK452's are my tyre of choice - they are the best bang for buck out there!

i had 265/30 on a 10" rim fitted fine was a good look not stretched not ballooning... now i got 245 ona 10" still looks good.

275 or 285 on a 9.5" is ridiculous.

Actually 285 is still a recommended size for 9.5" rims. Only when you get up to 295 is a 10" rim the minimum rim width.

Nothing ridiculous about it....

In fact what you have there - 245 on a 10" rim is outside of manufacturer specs; a 245 should go on a 9.5" rim maximum. geek.gif

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...