Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

225/50/16 is the stock size.  Im sure there is room for something bigger like 245/40/16 in there :(

so was this all the way round std?

on a gtr, just so I know when mine arrives, do you need to keep the tyres even all the way round? or do you get 1 size bigger at the back

like 225 all the way round?

or can you have 235 on the front, 245 on the back? mine will be arriving with Volk Gram lights on it in 17's

cheers

mark

Mr R32 M-Spec: unless you have an adjustable torque splitter, the rolling diameter must be the same at all four wheels. Obviously the easiest way to achieve that is to get the exact same tyre for each corner.

I have decided to go with the Falken in 225/50/R16. Nathan said that 245/45 would have a little too much flex.

At the end of the day, if they are crap, I will just replace them :(

LW.

cheers lucien

That little gismo may be on the cards in the future but not right now. other stuff I want.

so what is the best size to get, 225 all the way round? that seems a bit enimic

on 17's I was thinking 235 all the way round, or will that throw something out, or too heavy on the steering.

I basically like going to the track, and just got my cams license today so I plan to ,. planning more suspension in the near future, like adjustable arms and stuff

cheers

mark

fulken real sports (not the st115 road stuff im talking about the massive tread block thing) are about 250 for a 16 just get them.. they are a semi slik

then when your volks turn up you suddenly have a set of track rubber to burn up large

they normaly last 15000km if you drive very slowely

can't be sure till it arrives I guess

but for arguments sake, lets say it can support 235's all the way round, are they too wide for the front? would they make the steering heavy?

btw, LW, hows the car going for compliance? do you know when it will be ready?

Duncan: I appreciate your advice, however I spoke to Leewah and one or two other people that run/have run ST-115s and you seem to be the odd one out. (That's not to discount what you are saying, however).

Much as I would like to wait for them to order in 451s, I can't have my car sitting around for the two or three weeks it might take: I need tyres now ;) Besides which, I am sick of tyres. Worse comes to worse and they prove to be terrible, I will replace them.

LW.

real sport jesus they dont cost that umuch more

jesus

Fatz: they are about $75 a tyre more; 4 x $75 is not an insignificant amount.

Anyway, tyres are on now. Thanks all for your help :)

Please don't feel like I have ignored your advise: I have taken it all onboard.

Cheers,

Lucien.

you on the raod yet mate  

number plates

Not quite. My dad is doing all the running around today (he has the week off; I have Uni essays to write :D) and hopefully it will be registered later today.

Edit: It will still be at Nathan's till Saturday morning when my dad is able to pick it up :)

LW.

Geez Falkens have gone up in price. I paid $150 per corner for a set of FK451s at Tempe about a year ago. Then again they were 205/50/16s. Maybe ring Tempe and tell them you've been quoted a lower price at Ozzy Tyres and see if they'll match or beat this price. It's worked for me in the past.

Good idea not to go wider than the recommended width for the rim. Getting a wider tyre will not increase the size of the contact patch (and the level of grip), just the shape.

...Ben

Yup the larger size would definitely account for the higher price but I'm surprised by how much higher it is. The 205 is the standard size for WRXs (I know, I know...booooo hissss) so they probably sell bulk in that size as well.

I'd seriously consider going for the RT215s (formerly Real Sports) as that way you won't have a totally redundant set of whells when your 18s arrive. Street tyres are pretty ordinary on the track and track tyres are not too wonderful on the street so why not spend a (fair) bit more and get a set for both situations? I'd imagine most regular track goers on here would have a second set of track rims/tyres.

Just a thought anyway and I hope you get on the road soon.

Cheers,

Ben

  • 5 months later...

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...