I've been wondering why GM didn't use 255/50-16 tires for their 16" tire size for these cars, because they are the same height and almost the same exact circumference as the standard 3rd gen f-body 215/65-15 tires. The 245/50-16 size they went with is shorter, and more importantly has a circumference that is 1.5% less than the 215/65-15 size meaning the speedometer would have had to be recalibrated or a different speedo gear would have had to be used on the 16" wheel cars. Also, 255/50/16 tires would have cornered slightly better and had less gap around them between them and the car body, which I think looks better.

Nowadays there are more online tire purchase options in the 245/50-16 size than the 255/50-16 size, but I'm thinking the latter is the way to go since my car originally had 215/65-15 tires so as not to mess up the speedometer reading and to have better handling. I still think the stock 16" wheels look best on these cars: I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this beholder thinks anything larger in diameter than 16" wheels looks hideous on third gen F-bodies. The other problem with these "modern" tires that hardly have any sidewall is they don't ride worth a darn. The 2020 Camry I've been driving while I fix up my '89 Camaro has 18" wheels with four bands of rubber on them and you can feel every little imperfection in the road when driving.

 

i’m running 255 on back. 245 up front

 

Is there a clearance problem or something with running 255mm wide tires up front?

 

I have 275 40 17 up front. A 255 50 16 is gonna be a touch taller. I think you will be fine if you have a car that came w 16s and are not too low. I have an 82 and the steering stops allow for more wheel articulation and sharper turns. This coupled w the fact that my car is lowered I have mild contact in the wheel wells at full lock.

it should be OK

 

I believe I read on here somewhere that the IROCs and such that originally had wider tires got steering gears with stops in them to keep the wheels from being turned so much that the tires would rub. Therefore, if you have a car that originally had the narrower tires and switch to wider tires they may rub just from being able to turn them too far one way or the other due to not having the stops in the steering gear. The solution is to not turn the wheels too short until they rub.

This car will be a lower than stock, and I plan on running as much negative camber as I can get away with without causing porblems.

 

I have one of those cars w/o stops for wide tires. If I don't cut the wheel all the way, I'm good. I'm sure 255s will be good unless you have weird offsets on your wheels.

 

at one point in my youth I had 265/50/16 on the rear of my first GTA which fit fine, It tried them on the front and they rubbed, I think 255 may rub a tiny bit as well.

 

Would the reason GM went with the 245/50/16 and not 255/50/16 tires be that they were afraid of rubbing, or were they just trying to save money so they could increase their profits? They probably figured they would be able to sell millions of these cars either way.

 

Same here on both of my T/As.

 

I run 245/50 ZR16 on both my 91 and 94 TAs, as it was the size delivered on the car from the factory.

Unfortunately for me, both sets of tires will "age out" before they wear out.
The BFGs that were on the 91 before I purchased it about 3 years ago look a little "meatier" than the Toyos that I just put on the 94.....but because they'll "age out," I'm kind of a stickler when it comes to the manufacturing date of the tires, and the Toyos were the only ones that were manufactured within 120 days of my purchase. Everything else was about 18 months old already.