I just bought the BFG G-forece KDW and put them on my car and I have a problem: they are a solid 1" NARROWER than the tires I just took off!!

I just took off BFG Comp T/A's that were 245/50-R16's
I just put on BFG G-Force KDW That are 245/50-R16's...but they're 1" narrower.

This is B.S. I paid for 245's but got 220's that say 245 on them. I've called the vendor to see what thye say, and they have no explaination. Can any tell me why 245 millimeters is different now than it was ten years ago?

-Tom

 

Pictures would really help here, but my guess is that both tires had the same "footprint" i.e. the contact area is exactly the same, and one set of tires had rim guards on them (tire is designed so the sidewall billows out a little bit) and hence makes the tire look wider. Again this is just a guess, but pictures would really help

 

Thanks for replying. I can tell you that if either tire has any type of rim guard, it's the newer (but narrower) G-force. The old-school Comp T/A definitley doesn't have that feature at all.

The tires do not ahve the same foot print. The G-Force is narrower all around, and narrower foot print. It's 1" narrower side wall to side wall (what the 245 is SUPPOSED to mean), and the tread is also about 1" narrower.

I can take pics, but not right this second.

-Tom

 

Have you actually taken a tape to the tire yet? I know you said its 1" narrower, but what is the actual width of the tire?

 

See the pics here (this web site wouldn't host pics this big)

http://www.snowest.com/fusetalk/atta...Tire0001%2EJPG

http://www.snowest.com/fusetalk/atta...Tire0006%2EJPG


NOTE: Hard to tell in the pics, but the actual measurements are:
9-7/8" (250.825 mm) for the INFLATED (32 psi) G-Force
10-3/4" (273.05 mm) for the UN-inflated Comp T/A

So 7/8"(20.955 mm) difference, which I'm sure would increase to at least one inch...minimum, when comparing equally inflated or deflated tires. Either way, We're talking a HUGE difference for two tires that both say "245" on the side.

Interesting that after making this post and ding the conversions, the old Comp T/A is apparently TOO wide, and the new narrower G-Force is actually a hair wide itself.

Maybe I should get a 275/45- R16 tire..... (?) This is Gad-dayum annoying. And I'm 48 hours away from a 2000 mile road trip. I need to sort this out soon.

-Tom

 

Any thoughts on this anyone?

-Tom

 

My best guess, is that it has part to do with the sidwall design, and the design of the sholders. I bet the new tires have a stiffer sidewall, and a more squared shoulder. If you measure the actualy area of the tread block what do you get?

There are also diffrences, the sizing is not always 'accurate' a 245/50/16 from diffrent manufactures often varies in actual size, I would gather it likely does on diffrent tires from the sam manufacture.

 

an unmounted tire is always going to look wider unless you stretch it on a maximum potential mounting rim. Meaning that a 245/50-16 can be mounted on a rim width range of 7.5-9.5". We of course put them on an 8" wide rim.

Whne the 245/50-16 tire is infalated on the rim it will grow in diameter and shrink in width on the 8" rim.

The tread design and overall width of both tires mounted is still different though, just not as much as you are stating in comparing one mounted and one not.

Reason is is technology and lightness. The tires now-a-days are lighter and stronger materials. Those old comp HR4's are a very heavy and thick sidewall tire from what I remember (I used to run them on my truck until they discontinued them, a 275/60-15). The new sidewall design and reinforcement ribbing BFG does for the G-force edge makes the 50 series tire feel more like a 40 series because it does roll more onto the top tread with the sidewall not as bubbled for flex. This of course makes the tread portion of the tire slightly narrower.

You may recall from another post that I too have just put them onto my car and am not overall elated about them. My old Goodyear GS-D3's were much better handling AND lokked much more aggresive AND were in fact a wider tire section & wider tread width.

 

I do recall that post....it made me wish I had gotten those Goodyears.

I can tell you for a fact, that when BOTH tires were un-mounted, they were still an inch difference. The mounting and inflating changed that very little, if at all. When both tires were OFF the car, I had them stacked next to each other and they were clearly an inch at least different.

Also the side wall on the G-force is thicker and stiffer than in the old Comp T/A.

Also the tread is equally different on each tire; the over all width is about 1" different (the number that the "245" supposedly represents), and the tread is also about 1" narrower ont eh G-force.

I agree newer tires' tech has improved, but I want that tech in the SAME SIZE, as before...hopefully resulting in more total grip.

It's wicked aggrivating that these numbers don't equal consistency. I would think that 245 mm would equal 245 mm, no matter what brand's ruler you're using. -It's not a subjective measure. At least it shouldn't be.

-Tom

 

That I fully agree. And your statement about them being more like a 225 is very true. It is very disappointing.

The Goodyeat has a more flimsy sidewall unmounted, but I will tell you factually from my driving expetise that the Goodyears will walk all over the BFG's in both the track times AND driver comfort levels. You have to run the Goodyear GS-D3's very high pressure though. I consitantly ran them at 48psi hot front and 45 psi rears for daily use and I bumped them up to actually 52psi hot fronts and 48.5 rear hot when I autoxed them with perfect scrub paterns over the chaulked edges after the runs. They are a 51psi max tire psi. The BFG KDW's are a 44psi max and I have them right now at 41 front and 37 rear.

 

That's good info about the GY's. I'm considering making the vendor take the BFG's back, and giving me the Goodyears.

Tell me...running those higher pressure in the good years, did you experience excessive wear along the center of the tire? Or were you able to realize good (for what it is) even wear AND good handling?

-Tom

 

They wore perfectly and I was able to get just shy of 25,000 miles out of them until I cut a tire on center tread hitting something in the road doing about 70. They were almost to the wear indicators but I had probably another 3 months to go on them.

This car has always worn tires perfectly at high psi #'s on all four corners. No center wear.
The top picture I just ran out and shot. Its the tire unmounted off the car now. The second pic below is from after I originally first Autox'ed this car back in May of 2003. The car is literally driven daily by my wife and I just took that tire iff last week (June 05). They have always had at least 45psi MINIMUM in them under any circumstance and you can see how they wore.

 

Man, that's great wear! Thansk for those pics. I think that is the tire I should go for at this point. I really appreciate this good input.

 

Your welcome Tom. At this point I wish I had them back also rather than these KDW's. Not to say that the KDW's are bad, its just the Goodyears feel so much heavier under you like you really have meat on the car and confidence.

I know this car very very very well yet I am a bit timid driving it right now with the BFG's especially at higher freeway speeds. I have yet to really get a chance to through the car sideways safely at about 70 and see how it drifts. The back feels more loose with the KDW's like if I came into a panic sitiuation they could possibly give me a handful.

On average I probably only drive this car by myself (no wife or daughter in it) maybe 1 or 2 times a month. Mostly when I drive it they are in it with me. This is my family car (three of us). They really aren't keen on me trying out new tires and banging heads against the windows- nor should I be doing it with them in the car either- hence why I don't. I have built this car however for safety in handling and braking at freeway speeds.

I'll report back when I finallly do press these tires and see how they react.

 

Took it for a spin this morning running down the freeway about 30 miles to an appointment.

I have pinpointed the exact speed that these tires "go to hell" and it is exactly at 88mph. They are stable at 85, they are loose all four corners at 90. Centrifical force must be ballooning them where the car becomes instantly twitchy.

I give the wheel a back and forth jont and the car dances eachway- it has never done this. Heck, I thought something was broken the first time soo I slowed back down to about 75 and tried it again and the steering was tight. All the way back up to 88 then whamm- instantly they go loose at the speed and above. Not grtaduall, instantly like something is loose in the rear suspension- But I assure you it is not- its the tires.

Lower speed edge grip is close to what the Goodyears had when they were 2 1/2 years old (harder from age) and worn. I still say the Goodyears new are much better AND more predictable, even used the Goodyears were better The KDW's have decent grip around a certain offramp cloverleaf I know well but *** they skip I have to jiggle and work the steering wheel to keep the car's attitude around the corner. That corner I take with the used Goodyears at 58 at steady state through the cloverleaf, these were at 55-56mph and were dancing to hold grip- notivcible difference. And the turn in was scary feeling it slid into grip instead of transitioning.

Braking seems great- better than the used Goodyears, but not as good as them new.

No wet testing yet on the KDW's- but I am not expecting much. his is where the GS-D3 Goodyears shine.

 

Am I the only one who finds that funny.

You better take the flux capacitor out, until you get the tire situation squared away.

 

I've noticed the same thing with my drift car and rubbish tires in the rear for burning up. Stack 2 sets of different brand 205's or 225's next to eachother and chances are they are different widths. I dunno what to say except that I also wish the descriptions of tire widths were uniform across all manufacturers. It sucks that one size tire from one manufacturer is different than the supposedly same sized tire from a different manufacturer. I've never done this but maybe compare the actual contact patch of the tires by rolling them through water or something and measuring the tracks. All things aside, the actual contact patch is what we're concerned with anyway right?

 

Funny John, I actually sat in the real Delorean fromthe movie at Barris' preveiw a few weeks ago. A very good friend of mine invited me along- He is currently helping Barris on a car for an upcoming movie so he brought me along for a fun day at the auction preview.

ps, I had to hold the door up- needs a new strut.

 

I agree completely w/the above review. I just drove my car 2300 miles. I left Park City Thursday night and drove to Tahoe CA to see my Brother. Then I drove down to Monterey Friday morning to watch the Moto GP at Laguna Seca. That was sweet.

Left Monterey Sunday afternoon, and I drove down unbelieveable Rt. 1 from Monterey to LA, which was un-freakin'-real. I was following a friend who was riding a Buell so needless to say, we enjoyed Rt. 1 at a "stepped up" pace.

Slept over the friends in LA, then hit the Angeles Crest Highway, again, me following the Buell, and it was FUN!!!

Then to I-15, up through Baker (109*F) then through Veg-*** (104*F), then into Utah and back up to Park City, Monday night.

Most of the driving on the Highway portion was done at 90-100 mph. On the curvies, Rt.1 and the Crest Highway, speeds throught the twisties were 40 to 80 mph. The tires turned in well, and had GOOD overall grip. But I do agree that at higher speeds they were too "floaty". They're a good tire, but not the best I think.

What RTFC said.

-Tom