Rims size - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > Ford Mustang | Wrenching, Care and General Topics > Mustang Wheels & Tires



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 12-24-2012, 08:28 AM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by hpisloud
Um no. The way to adjust tire revs/engine revs is not advised through tire diameter. That's what rear axle gear ratios are for...and they're much cheaper. As for wanting more weight in the wheel/tire assembly, that's about the most retarded thing I've ever heard for a passenger car...maybe not so much for a semi truck due to increased the increased inertia. You're just going to wear out shocks and other suspension components out more quickly.
Were you talking about my post? You didn't quote me, but it seems that way, but I never said I wanted an increase- I was saying it may not be beneficial if it exceeded that. So I am not sure. And as for advising, who does or does not do that advising, and what is it based off?

Oh, please add a little more thought into your response, as I would prefer a response based on physics than something being "retarded." If you read my post, it clearly says that going UP TO that increase would still be beneficial.

I also was not aware they made rear end gears under 2.73. Where can I find those? I upgraded my 17s to brand new 18s off of a 2013 GT, put on and aligned for 400.00 USD, so instead of going up an inch to make roughly a 2.7% change, I should buy gears, and have them installed- that will be cheaper?
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-24-2012, 10:14 AM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
hpisloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Region: Michigan
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
Were you talking about my post? You didn't quote me, but it seems that way, but I never said I wanted an increase- I was saying it may not be beneficial if it exceeded that. So I am not sure. And as for advising, who does or does not do that advising, and what is it based off?

Oh, please add a little more thought into your response, as I would prefer a response based on physics than something being "retarded." If you read my post, it clearly says that going UP TO that increase would still be beneficial.

I also was not aware they made rear end gears under 2.73. Where can I find those? I upgraded my 17s to brand new 18s off of a 2013 GT, put on and aligned for 400.00 USD, so instead of going up an inch to make roughly a 2.7% change, I should buy gears, and have them installed- that will be cheaper?
You said in your previous post, that ideally you would like to add 0-12 lbf worth of weight on each tire. That's moronical.

My advice comes from common sense. Ford has set the parameters of their mass-spring system through extensive testing. They have designed all the components of the suspension with those forces/frequencies in mind. When you increase the mass of the system, you basically put it on steroids.

But since you're a physics whiz, hopefully this will show how mass effects basically every part of the suspension...

ΣFₓ = Σmaₓ
in a mass-spring system- mẍ + cẋ + kx = 0
For the damping itself, the critical damping coeff in the system = 2*m*sqrt(k/m), which goes to show how you're changing the natural freq.

The energy dissipated in the shock is proportional to the mass...and you can pretty much assume that it's all being converted to heat...and they may or may not have been designed for that.

I don't know if they make anything under 2.73. If you're running 2.73s for mpg purposes, (and not land speed record purposes), I'm not sure the mustang was the right car choice for ya. But it's a free country, you can do what you want. And gears are what...like $175?
hpisloud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:45 AM   #38
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc
One pound of rotational mass equals four pounds of regular mass. Realistically, the only time it would matter is accelerating. Making torque to begin rotation of those heavy pieces would take more torque, but that would only start to negatively effect mpg in stop and go traffic and city, like, constant stop lights. For me, ideal weight increase would be less than or equal to 12.15 lbs per tire. For my needs, it would be perfect in that range, and be way more fuel efficient.
Ideal weight increase would be 12.5 lbs per tire or less. As in, that's as high as I could go. Work, otherwise I would fully read your response and whatever you think is moronical.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-24-2012, 11:24 AM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
hpisloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Region: Michigan
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post

Ideal weight increase would be 12.5 lbs per tire or less. As in, that's as high as I could go. Work, otherwise I would fully read your response and whatever you think is moronical.
Dammit...just stop. Unless you have weighed every component, performed a proper force analysis, put strain gauges on the control arms, etc, calculated stresses, and run fatigue testing under the new conditions, it is just flat-out wrong to say what is "ideal" if delta m is anything other than zero. Unless you're a test engineer at ford...which I highly doubt since you're working today....chances are you don't have the resources to prove it either. You can say what you think is acceptable, or what you think might be reasonable, but stop it with this "ideal" business...because I have proven in previous posts how much extra mass completely changes what might have been an "ideal" suspension set-up.
hpisloud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 11:44 AM   #40
The Blue Dragon
Regular
Supporter
 
GrabberBlue5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Louisville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 5,661
Civil debate is allowed, name calling and berating are not.

Chill out
__________________
New quick exhaust video

AUGUST 2012 MOTM!!!!
GrabberBlue5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 01:13 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
DaBluedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Region: Canada
Posts: 1,996
I also want to point out that changing your effective gearing by running a larger rim is a dumb idea. people who upgrade a rim size but then adjust with the proper tire aspect to keep overall tire height as close to stock as possible. Fitting a larger overall wheel/tire is a bad plan. And doing it for looks is extra silly as you are effectively going to be raising the whole car up and you won't be able to lower it as you will be rubbing very quickly.

Also I've never seen any data to suggest a larger rim will yeild better fuel economy. A heavier weight rim is often a good choice for inertial stability in a straight line but it does not offer better fuel economy because of that. Changing the gearing could but that is not what people use bigger rims for. Perhaps that is what some of you are missing??
__________________
2003 Mach 1
DaBluedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 01:28 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
gtstyles2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Lodi
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 1,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBluedude View Post
I also want to point out that changing your effective gearing by running a larger rim is a dumb idea. people who upgrade a rim size but then adjust with the proper tire aspect to keep overall tire height as close to stock as possible. Fitting a larger overall wheel/tire is a bad plan. And doing it for looks is extra silly as you are effectively going to be raising the whole car up and you won't be able to lower it as you will be rubbing very quickly.

Also I've never seen any data to suggest a larger rim will yeild better fuel economy. A heavier weight rim is often a good choice for inertial stability in a straight line but it does not offer better fuel economy because of that. Changing the gearing could but that is not what people use bigger rims for. Perhaps that is what some of you are missing??
Lol I agree with that, I see too many times when I ask ppl if they're gonna lower to put new wheels. They tell me the bigger wheels will fill in the gap, then I argue with them that that's not gonna work and they say they don't have $$ to do both and I tell them if your gonna do it wrong just leave it stock but they do it anyway lol.
gtstyles2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 01:38 PM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
DaBluedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Region: Canada
Posts: 1,996
Oh, and I forgot the most serious problem there is with a heavier wheel/tire combo. Braking! Heavier wheel/tires negatively affect braking big time. Somewhere out there is a video of a 200x civic braking from 60 in 13x feet. Then they installed some nasty 20" rims and the braking distance went to 17x feet. I'd think about that too.
__________________
2003 Mach 1
DaBluedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 02:31 PM   #44
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,684
My 20 inch staggered rims are much lighter than my oem 19's.
Mikeyt03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 04:42 PM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Man! I can NOT wait until I get off and can write out everything wrong here. I wish people would read things entirely. One individual said a bigger size diameter would be too heavy to have a positive influence on fuel economy.

WRONG.
It would be more efficient UP TO 12 lbs per wheel tire, but as others have posted, it is often that bigger not OEM sets weigh less. I do not know wtf people are talking about with suspension and adding weight to wheels. Some people just like to try and argue some things, even if no one is talking about it.

And the Mustang can not handle bigger wheels? Interesting, since it comes with 17,18,19,20 inch wheels. Huh.

And as for it not being more fuel efficient, no. False.

This may be too complicated for some people, but let me be as simple as possible. If your tire is 1 foot around, then one axle.rotation is one foot. If you INCREASE tire diameter, one axle rotation goes FURTHER.

So, if you are in top gear cruising on the highway, the bigger diameter will have a lower engine speed.

It amazes me that people who fail to understand something so simple.must label it as "retarded" and "moronic" when it is actually very common and simple. Maybe here, people do not worry about such things. But, many people increase diameter size for that exact purpose.

Some people must fight an idea they do not agree with or understand. Why would anyone want bad mpg when they are just daily driving? To me, it is dumb. If you need more torque, keep 17s, or even go smaller, if that's what you want. But if you are going after market, then going a bigger size will decrease engine speed. Such as increasing gear size. If you want performance, get 4.10s and 15 inch wheels. If you want efficiency, get bigger rims.

It's funny how often this comes up. I might as well put it in my signature so people can see-but if they read it like they do threads, read one post, and over react like it matters for them, then give wrong information, it will be pointless.

What really frustrates me is not ignorance, lack of reading a few posts before, or even a lack of simply google searching before posting, but that "retarded," having a mental or physical disability, is now an insult.

"Your idea is different from mine, and I have not researched it, so its retarded." It makes me sick.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 05:08 PM   #46
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,684
Question. Doesn't tire size factor into this as well?
Mikeyt03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 05:34 PM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
nosympathy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: none
Region: Ohio
Posts: 3,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyt03 View Post
Question. Doesn't tire size factor into this as well?
Yeah it would have too.
__________________
MustangEvolution ROCKS MY SOCKS!!!
nosympathy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 05:52 PM   #48
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,684
So I went from stock 255-40-19 to a 295-35-20 in the rear. Should I adjust the rev per min on my tuner? Or do you think it's enough to matter? I have an auto, so my main concern is shift points. I believe the rev per min is 739 for that size nitto invo. If I'm correct, if my tune thinks its stock tires, I would be shifting slightly earlier than if I adjust the revs. Am I correct?
Mikeyt03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 06:08 PM   #49
Registered Member
Regular
 
nhcowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyt03 View Post
So I went from stock 255-40-19 to a 295-35-20 in the rear. Should I adjust the rev per min on my tuner? Or do you think it's enough to matter? I have an auto, so my main concern is shift points. I believe the rev per min is 739 for that size nitto invo. If I'm correct, if my tune thinks its stock tires, I would be shifting slightly earlier than if I adjust the revs. Am I correct?
I didn't notice shift point difference, but the speedo was off... I eventually got a tune... No biggie without it.
__________________

2011 Black Mustang GT Premium
Corsa XO & Sport AB/Airaid/Bama 93R
Best 1/4 mile to date 60' 2.009
12.538 ET @112.33
100+ Deg 85 Hum RPR 3PM 1/2 tank street tires
nhcowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 06:32 PM   #50
Abominable Mustang

Regular
Staff
 
WhoDat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anchorage
Region: Alaska
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyt03 View Post
So I went from stock 255-40-19 to a 295-35-20 in the rear. Should I adjust the rev per min on my tuner? Or do you think it's enough to matter? I have an auto, so my main concern is shift points. I believe the rev per min is 739 for that size nitto invo. If I'm correct, if my tune thinks its stock tires, I would be shifting slightly earlier than if I adjust the revs. Am I correct?
I would retune it. Because you're going from 746 to 717 revolutions per mile. Here's the link to the calculator I used.

http://www.discounttiredirect.com/di...foTireMath.jsp

It evens shows what your speedometer will read with the new setup if it hasn't been recalibrated
__________________
2012 Kona Blue 3.7L V6:
Borla LT headers, O/R h-pipe, Borla S-types, 3.73 gears,
Steeda adjustable UCA w/ mount, BMR LCAs, Airaid CAI,
LCA Relocation brackets, AE driveshaft, GT 80mm TB,
Black 18x9/10 2010 GT500 Wheels w/ Nitto NT555s,
Eibach Sportline Springs/shocks & Koni STR.T Struts
WhoDat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 09:27 PM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBluedude
You aren't going to get better fuel economy from a larger rim. Just don't donk the car. I wouldn't run a tire any bigger than needed to clear the brakes.
Not true, so I responded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc

Uh, actually, one does. Its actually pretty simple and well know. On a bigger tire radius, one axle turn goes further. A k a, i can travel the same vehicle speed but have a lower engine speed, and at cruising, use less fuel. It makes a considerable difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabberBlue5.0
Yea but usually the weight more than offsets the wheel diameter and you end up losing mpgs anyways
A valid point, there is an amount of weight added (if the new wheels are heavier than the old) that will void out the gains in lowering engine cruise speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrsgrabber50
Weights doesn't always offset, caught up with the time and technology, when you get a higher end brand compared to a low end brand a high end 20 could weight as much of less than a low end 16
Valid point. Which would fall under the 12.15 lbs or less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc
One pound of rotational mass equals four pounds of regular mass. Realistically, the only time it would matter is accelerating. Making torque to begin rotation of those heavy pieces would take more torque, but that would only start to negatively effect mpg in stop and go traffic and city, like, constant stop lights. For me, ideal weight increase would be less than or equal to 12.15 lbs per tire. For my needs, it would be perfect in that range, and be way more fuel efficient.
I have my calculated amount of weight I could gain before it would cancel out my gain by lower driving speed. 12.15 lbs of rotating mass turns out to be equivalent of carrying an extra 50 lbs in the car. Four wheels, makes it like carrying an extra 200 lbs in the car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hpisloud
Um no. The way to adjust tire revs/engine revs is not advised through tire diameter. That's what rear axle gear ratios are for...and they're much cheaper. As for wanting more weight in the wheel/tire assembly, that's about the most retarded thing I've ever heard for a passenger car...maybe not so much for a semi truck due to increased the increased inertia. You're just going to wear out shocks and other suspension components out more quickly.
How is it advised, then?I have seen Metros, Insights, 350Zs, M35xs, CTS-Vs and more do it. Rear axle gears? They make them smaller than 2.73 for the Mustang? Is it easier to put in and take off than a set of tires? Gears and install by Ford is cheaper than 400.00 USD?

I never said I wanted to add more weight. *I wish people could read.* in gaining two inches of wheel diameter, I could gain 12.15 lbs per wheel and I would not be worse off. As the context and writing shows from the posts and thread so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc

Were you talking about my post? You didn't quote me, but it seems that way, but I never said I wanted an increase- I was saying it may not be beneficial if it exceeded that. So I am not sure. And as for advising, who does or does not do that advising, and what is it based off?

Oh, please add a little more thought into your response, as I would prefer a response based on physics than something being "retarded." If you read my post, it clearly says that going UP TO that increase would still be beneficial.

I also was not aware they made rear end gears under 2.73. Where can I find those? I upgraded my 17s to brand new 18s off of a 2013 GT, put on and aligned for 400.00 USD, so instead of going up an inch to make roughly a 2.7% change, I should buy gears, and have them installed- that will be cheaper?
My response, Which I guess was not clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hpisloud

You said in your previous post, that ideally you would like to add 0-12 lbf worth of weight on each tire. That's moronical.

My advice comes from common sense. Ford has set the parameters of their mass-spring system through extensive testing. They have designed all the components of the suspension with those forces/frequencies in mind. When you increase the mass of the system, you basically put it on steroids.

But since you're a physics whiz, hopefully this will show how mass effects basically every part of the suspension...

ΣFₓ = Σmaₓ
in a mass-spring system- mẍ + cẋ + kx = 0
For the damping itself, the critical damping coeff in the system = 2*m*sqrt(k/m), which goes to show how you're changing the natural freq.

The energy dissipated in the shock is proportional to the mass...and you can pretty much assume that it's all being converted to heat...and they may or may not have been designed for that.

I don't know if they make anything under 2.73. If you're running 2.73s for mpg purposes, (and not land speed record purposes), I'm not sure the mustang was the right car choice for ya. But it's a free country, you can do what you want. And gears are what...like $175?
I did not say I would Ideally add it. As I stated, in response to the other post, if I could gain 2 inches, it would still be beneficial EVEN IF I gained 12.15 lbs per wheel. If you still struggle, even though it was plainly written, and I quoted, you are welcome to re read that until you understand.

And then suspension talk, which has nothing to do with the conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc

Ideal weight increase would be 12.5 lbs per tire or less. As in, that's as high as I could go. Work, otherwise I would fully read your response and whatever you think is moronical.
Trying to make it understood for those who continue to struggle with the concept of LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO. It was difficult in 3rd grade to learn, but it is the alligator that eats to the right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hpisloud

Dammit...just stop. Unless you have weighed every component, performed a proper force analysis, put strain gauges on the control arms, etc, calculated stresses, and run fatigue testing under the new conditions, it is just flat-out wrong to say what is "ideal" if delta m is anything other than zero. Unless you're a test engineer at ford...which I highly doubt since you're working today....chances are you don't have the resources to prove it either. You can say what you think is acceptable, or what you think might be reasonable, but stop it with this "ideal" business...because I have proven in previous posts how much extra mass completely changes what might have been an "ideal" suspension set-up.
Not talking about suspension. You are getting rather upset about a conversation you are having by yourself.

This entire post is worthless to the argument. Not suspension. Not exceeding a rim size put on by Ford.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBluedude
I also want to point out that changing your effective gearing by running a larger rim is a dumb idea. people who upgrade a rim size but then adjust with the proper tire aspect to keep overall tire height as close to stock as possible. Fitting a larger overall wheel/tire is a bad plan. And doing it for looks is extra silly as you are effectively going to be raising the whole car up and you won't be able to lower it as you will be rubbing very quickly.

Also I've never seen any data to suggest a larger rim will yeild better fuel economy. A heavier weight rim is often a good choice for inertial stability in a straight line but it does not offer better fuel economy because of that. Changing the gearing could but that is not what people use bigger rims for. Perhaps that is what some of you are missing??
Dumb idea? A popular, efficient, practical working idea. How is it dumb? Ah, yes, because you do not do it, and do not have experience with it.

You have never seen data. Have you ever looked? I would be happy to send you the ecomodder website, filled with practical efficient ways to get better fuel economy and basic vehicle efficiency. But an open mind is required. If you just assume nothing will work, and because you do not do it then it is a dumb idea, then the whole website will be a waste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBluedude
Oh, and I forgot the most serious problem there is with a heavier wheel/tire combo. Braking! Heavier wheel/tires negatively affect braking big time. Somewhere out there is a video of a 200x civic braking from 60 in 13x feet. Then they installed some nasty 20" rims and the braking distance went to 17x feet. I'd think about that too.

I am smart enough to know that I do not know everything. When I am wrong, I admit it. When I am unsure, I ask. When I know something, I try to teach those interested. And when I find something knew that I do not know, I listen.

I am not tying to be rude or an ***, but such ignorance and what seems like aggression towards a simple fact seems ridiculous to me. It is a fact that a bigger wheel diameter means lower engine speed compared to smaller for the same speed. It is a fact that adding too much weight will demand more throttle to maintain speed, and decrease fuel economy because of initial torque needed to get up to speed. I mention that point, and people seem to go mad.

If you disagree, then lets have a conversation. But exclamation points, and descriptors like moronical and retarded are out of line. I'd like to think strangers on the internet can have some respect for one another. I try to be respectful of others, I expect the same, especially when I am trying to help and inform.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 11:00 PM   #52
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida3.7L View Post

I would retune it. Because you're going from 746 to 717 revolutions per mile. Here's the link to the calculator I used.

www.discounttiredirect.com/direct/brochure/info/tmpInfoTireMath.jsp

It evens shows what your speedometer will read with the new setup if it hasn't been recalibrated
On the nitto site, it says that 739 is my revs per mile. This is confusing. Are different brands of the same size different rpm's?
Mikeyt03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 11:15 PM   #53
Abominable Mustang

Regular
Staff
 
WhoDat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anchorage
Region: Alaska
Posts: 1,925
It "shouldn't" change from tire to tire, because it's all math based. It may have to do with the composition of the tires. The sidewall of softer tires may bow out more than harder tires, thus slightly changing the revs per mile. That's the only thing I can think of
__________________
2012 Kona Blue 3.7L V6:
Borla LT headers, O/R h-pipe, Borla S-types, 3.73 gears,
Steeda adjustable UCA w/ mount, BMR LCAs, Airaid CAI,
LCA Relocation brackets, AE driveshaft, GT 80mm TB,
Black 18x9/10 2010 GT500 Wheels w/ Nitto NT555s,
Eibach Sportline Springs/shocks & Koni STR.T Struts
WhoDat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 03:19 AM   #54
Registered Member
Regular
 
DaBluedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Region: Canada
Posts: 1,996
UltArc,

Chill out man seriously.

In my post I was referring to rim size only. Understanding that a taller overall diameter of the tire would effectively gear down the drivetrain for lower rpm levels is simple. (half an engineering degree) my comment t was meant to say that a larger rim with won't increase mileage because the vast majority of people who upgrade their rims adjust their tire size to match stock specs. Ie going from a 225/55/16 to a 225/35/19 (to achieve the same overall diameter of the tire.) That was the point i was making. Sorry if you misunderstood. A larger rim, with stock overall tire height, will not increase mileage.

Attacking everyone on the thread (and my deductive reasoning skills) is inflammatory and insulting. You want to upside your overall tire diameter, go for it. But its going to raise your car off the ground (bad for aerodynamics) add rotational mass unless you pop for serious dollar forged pieces, and will reduce your suspension effectiveness via raised centre of gravity.
__________________
2003 Mach 1
DaBluedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 03:22 AM   #55
Registered Member
Regular
 
nhcowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida3.7L View Post
It "shouldn't" change from tire to tire, because it's all math based. It may have to do with the composition of the tires. The sidewall of softer tires may bow out more than harder tires, thus slightly changing the revs per mile. That's the only thing I can think of
Actually, each manufacturer does have a different rev per mile (slightly) even for the same size tire. Usually within 15/20. 255/35/20 pilot super sports were 770. Bridgestone potenza re-760 as were 772. Some the true overall tire diameter will vary from manufacturer.
__________________

2011 Black Mustang GT Premium
Corsa XO & Sport AB/Airaid/Bama 93R
Best 1/4 mile to date 60' 2.009
12.538 ET @112.33
100+ Deg 85 Hum RPR 3PM 1/2 tank street tires
nhcowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 03:44 AM   #56
Abominable Mustang

Regular
Staff
 
WhoDat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anchorage
Region: Alaska
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhcowboy View Post

Actually, each manufacturer does have a different rev per mile (slightly) even for the same size tire. Usually within 15/20. 255/35/20 pilot super sports were 770. Bridgestone potenza re-760 as were 772. Some the true overall tire diameter will vary from manufacturer.
Oh ok. So, for example, since tire width is labeled in increments of 10mm, one manufacturer may have to mark a line of tires as 255s even though they may physically be 258mm wide? That would definitely explain why revs per mile vary slightly between tire brands. Or am i understanding that wrong?
__________________
2012 Kona Blue 3.7L V6:
Borla LT headers, O/R h-pipe, Borla S-types, 3.73 gears,
Steeda adjustable UCA w/ mount, BMR LCAs, Airaid CAI,
LCA Relocation brackets, AE driveshaft, GT 80mm TB,
Black 18x9/10 2010 GT500 Wheels w/ Nitto NT555s,
Eibach Sportline Springs/shocks & Koni STR.T Struts
WhoDat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 03:52 AM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
nhcowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida3.7L View Post

Oh ok. So, for example, since tire width is labeled in increments of 10mm, one manufacturer may have to mark a line of tires as 255s even though they may physically be 258mm wide? That would definitely explain why revs per mile vary slightly between tire brands. Or am i understanding that wrong?
I cannot speak to exactly which measurement is off from each manufacturer (width, aspect ratio, etc), but the overall diameter there manufactures post in their tire specs vary from brand/model even when they all are the same width/aspect ratio/rim size.

You just need to check the manufactures tire spec on their sites to confirm overall tire diameter/revs per mile.

I had particular interest as at one point, I was running different brands front rear. Too great a different in revs per mile, and the newer advanced trac thinks something is slipping sine the front/rear wheels won't be traveling at the same speed... Can potentially go into limp mode (or at least throttle you back). Never had it happen but again, I purposely made sure I was within 20 revs per mile.

Becomes a bigger deal with staggered setups.
__________________

2011 Black Mustang GT Premium
Corsa XO & Sport AB/Airaid/Bama 93R
Best 1/4 mile to date 60' 2.009
12.538 ET @112.33
100+ Deg 85 Hum RPR 3PM 1/2 tank street tires
nhcowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 04:00 AM   #58
Abominable Mustang

Regular
Staff
 
WhoDat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anchorage
Region: Alaska
Posts: 1,925
Good to know
__________________
2012 Kona Blue 3.7L V6:
Borla LT headers, O/R h-pipe, Borla S-types, 3.73 gears,
Steeda adjustable UCA w/ mount, BMR LCAs, Airaid CAI,
LCA Relocation brackets, AE driveshaft, GT 80mm TB,
Black 18x9/10 2010 GT500 Wheels w/ Nitto NT555s,
Eibach Sportline Springs/shocks & Koni STR.T Struts
WhoDat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 07:07 AM   #59
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida3.7L View Post
It "shouldn't" change from tire to tire, because it's all math based. It may have to do with the composition of the tires. The sidewall of softer tires may bow out more than harder tires, thus slightly changing the revs per mile. That's the only thing I can think of
I see, yeah your prolly right. I'm going to plug in 739.
Mikeyt03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 08:38 AM   #60
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBluedude
UltArc,

Chill out man seriously.

In my post I was referring to rim size only. Understanding that a taller overall diameter of the tire would effectively gear down the drivetrain for lower rpm levels is simple. (half an engineering degree) my comment t was meant to say that a larger rim with won't increase mileage because the vast majority of people who upgrade their rims adjust their tire size to match stock specs. Ie going from a 225/55/16 to a 225/35/19 (to achieve the same overall diameter of the tire.) That was the point i was making. Sorry if you misunderstood. A larger rim, with stock overall tire height, will not increase mileage.

Attacking everyone on the thread (and my deductive reasoning skills) is inflammatory and insulting. You want to upside your overall tire diameter, go for it. But its going to raise your car off the ground (bad for aerodynamics) add rotational mass unless you pop for serious dollar forged pieces, and will reduce your suspension effectiveness via raised centre of gravity.
I am chill, trust me. I don't mean to insult, and it was less with you than the other individual. I quoted a lot of people to show the context, that reading the post before explained, I wasn't attacking everyone. There were several valid points from multiple others.

We were unclear, about RIM size vs tire diameter. I should have been more clear, I didn't realize people often just bought bigger rims or replacement wheels and kept the same tire diameter. A one inch increase in tire diameter is only one half inch higher in center of gravity, if I remember correctly. That may be wrong.

I am glad this thread is useful to some people! Merry Christmas.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > Ford Mustang | Wrenching, Care and General Topics > Mustang Wheels & Tires

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


» Like Us On Facebook



12:44 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.