Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[ZIPNBYE]

Originally Posted by Dackelone

ZipNBye - is that a chipmunk I see by your RR tire ???

Yup.

[ZIPNBYE]

Originally Posted by boostm3

Ok, here's the math.

tire size 225x45/18

225*.45*2/25.4+18

225*.45 = 101.25 *2 = 202.5mm
Now convert to inches: 202.5/25.4= 7.97"
add that to the wheel height: 7.97+18=25.97"

Total overall height of the tire is 25.97"

The height of the stock front tire is 24.77"

therefore, 25.97 - 24.77 = 1.2"

The rears are 255-35-R18, not 45, or 40. While your math's right, your size is wrong.

[boostm3]

Originally Posted by ZIPNBYE

The rears are 255-35-R18, not 45, or 40. While your math's right, your size is wrong.

er, a, I was figuring size based on the front, which I mistakenly thought was 225x45/18 instead of the correct 225x40/18, not the rears..

Question: I understand why, with the rears, folks have to go from the stock 245x35 size to 255x35 due to the paucity of the stock size availability. But why, when replacing the front runflats with conventional tires, where the stock size 215x40/18 is available by many makers, do folks choose to go with the 225x40/18 tire which is about .3" taller? Is it to lesson the difference between the front and rear stagger? After all, increasing the stagger, which would occur when maintaining the stock front size but increasing the rear section width, would tend to increase understeer at the limit. Or is there some other reason folks choose to enlarge the front oe replacement when it isnt reaquired?

[ZIPNBYE]

215 isn't wide enough for the front...

[boostm3]

Originally Posted by ZIPNBYE

215 isn't wide enough for the front...

Wide enough for what? Its the stock size.

[ZIPNBYE]

Car understeers as it is...