Right now I have 245/50's on my 16 inch iroc rim. Was thinking about trying to go wider. Can I get some pics and feedback???Anybody got like any 265 or 275's on there Iroc rims. Thanks for the input:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

 

Ultimate tire size for 8" (IROC) rims is 255. Anything over that won't aid traction, but may look a little better. I would say 275's or above could be dangerous as the sidewall flex could in theory take the tire off the rim if you were cornering hard.

 

Just checked out the local tire shop and I can go to a
255 50zr 16 on my stock GTA rim. I currently run Dunlop
SP 5000 245's and have been satisfied with the performance
so (considering the price). Larger meats should look good on
my GTA especially with the new paint going on next month!!!
JOhn 89GTA

 

245/50R16 is the optimal size for the 16x8" rim. A 255/50R16 will be taller than the 245 and hence hurt handling and marginally improve traction. Some cars may have problems with rubbing or the front wheels. Anything wider than 255 is really too wide for an 8" rim and could pop the bead under hard cornering.

 

do 255/45/16 tires exist? they'd be have a bit less sidewall than a 245/50.

EDIT: just checked tirerack, apparently those don't exist

 

Aren't the Iroc and GTA rims same? 16X8?
I personally refuse to go to a taller
tire but want a wider footprint!
Thanks all
John 89GTA

 

For the pride of all thirdgenners, please don't run a lower profile than a 245/50 or 255/50 unless you have also lowered your car. With a stock height tire our cars have quite enough fenderwell gap. When you go to a 25" or even shorter tire you really start to exxagerate the skate-board wheel look. And it NEVER looks good.
Hate to sound like a *****, but i think MHO bears some merit. For far too long people have been literally butchering thirdgens with half assed ideas of appearance and performance. Thats why as a whole thirdgens are so looked down upon in ANY circle of performance cars except our own.

The difference in height between a 245/50 and a 255/50 is basically a wash in practice BTW. Yes i know how the math works out (1/2" shorter). But if you actually read manufacturers published specs you'll see the loaded radius. For example, i also run dunlop SP5000s. My rears are 11.9" loaded, the fronts are 11.8" Compare that to the 245/45 w/ a loaded radius of 11.5" so it isn't that much shorter. However, a 245/45 is only 24.8" tall. So you're giving up 1.3" of height vs. the 255/50, .9" of which is ADDING to the fenderwell gap. Does anybody here think they need an extra inch of fenderwell gap, for a purely imagined difference in handling that the heights would give? I'd rather run a world class tire at the appropriate height to get my handling than completely compromise my appearance for basically nothing.

 

I don't want to go any shorter. I don't want fenderwell gap. I was just trying to go a little wider. wouldn't like a 265/45 be about the same height. There is only a few centimeters difference right 245/50=122.5 and a 265/45=119.25 How much of a difference would that make. I know it would be alot wider. Don't want to chop up or half *** my car as said above, but I think a little wider would look good. Not to mention help a little on take off. Thanks for all the input, ANYBODY GOT ANY PICS WITH A WIDER TIRE on a 16 inch rim. Do they make a 265/45/16????? :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

 

I'm sure there are ssome 265 or 275 series rubbers in the 26" diamter range, but honestly it's not really worth it. When you run a tire thats significantly wider than the rim it's on you really start to work against the tire's ability to stay flat on the road, ESPECIALLY when you start getting into low profile stuff. For example, you can see the difference in the sidewall bulge between my 245 fronts and 255 rears very plainly.

If you really want that fat tire look you should just look for a 255/50 w/ a wide footprint. All tires are not the same size, regardless of what the sidewall says. For example, firestone SZ50 245/50s look like most brands 225s. You can even shop the tire makers websites and find this data. For example, i just confirmed what i told you. From dunloptire.com, my tires are 9.1 and 9.5" wide. from firestone.com, SZ50s in the same sizes have tread widths of 7.4 and 8.1" which is in the range of a 215-225 series dunlop.

If you're set on wanting to run really huge rubber, you have to get wheels. It's not that bad, at least these cars came w/ 16x8" wheels stock, steamrollers for the day. And at least we CAN take a huge meat, even 315s w/ any kind of tubbing. Try that on pretty much anything else...

edit...just wanted to emphasize how cool the internet has really become. Since i had tire maker sites open i started looking through them. And it's so nice to be able to do true comparisons of everything from tread width to tire weight.

 

come on man!! Tell me this does not look bad ***. I mean, those things are wide. I don't have to be that wide, but a little more would be nice

 

I'm using 255-50ZR16's in the rear and 245-50ZR16's in the front.Nothing rubs.

I agree that 45 series tires look like hell unless the car is lowered some.I ran 245-45ZR16's last year.Noticeably stiffer sidewalls, but even with mine lowered over 2", it didn't always look right.

Recently switched back to 50's, mainly because I went to a 3.73 gear and now I can use a little more tire height.
(Falken Tires)

-Rich-

 

Hoosier or Kumho makes 265 45 16's and I have seen them on some American Sedan cars at SCCA road races but.....the car that won the most races wore 255 50 16's all around

 

any body got a picture like I posted above with 255/50/16's???? Lets see what you got. Come on I want to see, so I can see what will look the best. How much wider is a 255 than compared to a 245. I know the math, but I want to see some pictures.
:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

 

Sorry JFox55, :nono:

But that picture is absolutely disgusting IMO.

It looks like a heap of

 

The tires on that car are 315/35 17s. I rememeber the car.

A 255/50 will put down 9.5" of tread. Even a 275/40-17 only puts down 9.9" of tread width. Trying to squeeze an quivalent sized tire onto a 16x8 rim just does not fit right though. IMO it's just not worth the tremendous decrease in tire life and function for just the look of it. Thats the experience of basically everybody who try's this, including myself. Just like you wouldn't run a 1 7/8 stepped long tube header on a 305. You just don't get anything by running the wrong parts together.

 

we'll, I guess everyone is entitled their own opinion. It's not my car, so I don't care what you say about it. I have 245's all the way around mine. I was just thinking about going a little wider. That's why I posted this, to get some input. Thanks for all the input and keep it comin. Anybody run 255/60's.By the way, heres my car, so tell me whether you think it looks like crap like you said the one above does!!

 

don't get me wrong. I like big fat tires. I didn't say that white car looked bad, i eventually might run them myself. It's actually funny that you posted that pic because you'll notice it was my post before it that i said we could run those rollers.

The issue here is rim size. There is no merit in running a tire a few sizes too big. You'll get at most 1/2 of tread. Probably not even quite that much. And in return you'll wear out tires twice as fast, and handle loose as hell. Distorting the hell out of the sidewalls to get that width is as bad as running a taller tire. It just doesn't make sense, i've been down that road before.

 

the last post wasn't meant for you ed The last post was really directed to stroked z.