[Wheels] Should 20 inch rims be optioanl on the V6 Camaro?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
irocdreamer - you probably can find cheap 20's. But they won't be good performance rubber or have been developed with an eye toward the newer developments. If you never drive very hard, you'll never know the difference, and the inexpensive tires will serve their purpose for you admirably.
Maybe that's good enough for most folks, but on an enthusiast forum built around a performance car icon it is entirely reasonable to expect a far greater proportion of people who demand more from their tires than round/black/hold air/can be balanced. There can be a huge difference in driving "feel" among different mfr/model tires of the same size, if you drive a bit harder and take the time to notice it. I'll note here that the better rubber in the 255/45-18" sizes is already more than $200, so $300 for 20" rubber looks to be about where the good stuff there begins.
Norm
Maybe that's good enough for most folks, but on an enthusiast forum built around a performance car icon it is entirely reasonable to expect a far greater proportion of people who demand more from their tires than round/black/hold air/can be balanced. There can be a huge difference in driving "feel" among different mfr/model tires of the same size, if you drive a bit harder and take the time to notice it. I'll note here that the better rubber in the 255/45-18" sizes is already more than $200, so $300 for 20" rubber looks to be about where the good stuff there begins.
Norm
Camaro will come with 245/45/20 tires. A quick search on tirerack.com shows:
Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar = $255
Goodyear Eagle RS-A = $133
not too bad. and once more cars come out with this size proces will drop and more variety will be available. For Comparison a set of 275/40/17 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS for a LS1 Camaro would cost $267
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 234
From: state of confusion
Good Grief!!!!!!!!!
Tires that are almost 29" tall belong on a truck, not a car. That's only a couple of inches shorter than the 31" "mudder" tires used on pickup trucks not so many years ago. And Pirelli apparently agrees - they list their Scorpion Zero Asimmetrico RFT as being a Street/Sport Truck All-Season tire.
That much tire makes it unreasonable to fit even 27" tires for appearance reasons, never mind that 27" is itself an inch or more larger than necessary for either performance or load capacity. Let's run a little logic . . . larger tires require deeper gearing (which is less efficient - kind of a bad label given current fuel pricing) and different suspension tuning (that probably does not favor either ride quality or handling). Where's the advantage? Aren't we supposed to be making forward progress?
Interesting that you mention the RS-A at the lower end of the price scale - it's kind of my poster boy for tires that only look like performance rubber. If they had much less cornering response it'd be imaginary, and they can hardly get any less linear. They belong on rental cars, where their discouragement to hard driving should (mostly) keep the moron drivers out of the ditches and give performance drivers a brief and relatively cheap opportunity to find out for themselves why they don't belong on anything else.
Oh, well. I guess it's time to chalk up another one for the misguided style and appearance crowd at the expense of function . . .
On edit, it would be nice if there were a few tires offered in the 17"/18" sizes and 20". I may have over-estimated the hit at $100, but I certainly expect $50 between the 17's/18's and the 20's in the same tire make/model and of similar load index (not counting specials and close-outs).
Norm
245/45ZR20
Load Index 99 = 1709lbs (775kg) per tire
Speed Rating “Y” = 186mph (300kph) 99Y SL Treadwear: 220
Traction: AA
Temperature: A220 AA A
1709 lbs.
51 psi
10/32"
29 lbs. 7.5-9"
8"
9.6"
8.4"
28.7"
729
Load Index 99 = 1709lbs (775kg) per tire
Speed Rating “Y” = 186mph (300kph) 99Y SL Treadwear: 220
Traction: AA
Temperature: A220 AA A
1709 lbs.
51 psi
10/32"
29 lbs. 7.5-9"
8"
9.6"
8.4"
28.7"
729
That much tire makes it unreasonable to fit even 27" tires for appearance reasons, never mind that 27" is itself an inch or more larger than necessary for either performance or load capacity. Let's run a little logic . . . larger tires require deeper gearing (which is less efficient - kind of a bad label given current fuel pricing) and different suspension tuning (that probably does not favor either ride quality or handling). Where's the advantage? Aren't we supposed to be making forward progress?
Interesting that you mention the RS-A at the lower end of the price scale - it's kind of my poster boy for tires that only look like performance rubber. If they had much less cornering response it'd be imaginary, and they can hardly get any less linear. They belong on rental cars, where their discouragement to hard driving should (mostly) keep the moron drivers out of the ditches and give performance drivers a brief and relatively cheap opportunity to find out for themselves why they don't belong on anything else.
Oh, well. I guess it's time to chalk up another one for the misguided style and appearance crowd at the expense of function . . .
On edit, it would be nice if there were a few tires offered in the 17"/18" sizes and 20". I may have over-estimated the hit at $100, but I certainly expect $50 between the 17's/18's and the 20's in the same tire make/model and of similar load index (not counting specials and close-outs).
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; Feb 27, 2008 at 12:35 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
From: Michigan
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 234
From: state of confusion
There is more difference when you start talking abouot performance tires, which is what most people associate with installation on a muscle/pony/sports car. Sure, 20's may not be all that expensive if "round, black, and holds air" are the buyer's only criteria.
The objection to having the larger sizes available as an option is that it more than likely forces other changes in the design. Just as one example here, a larger wheel size plus some internal corporate design standards that ultimately involve things like sidewall height and tire to fender gap does end up dictating the wheelwell opening. More conventional size tires then start looking "puny" and "lost". For that reason, I don't even want to see them available as an OE option on the V8 cars.
Not everybody is such an extrovert that every major possession has to scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME" to the whole world. Not everybody wants to drive something that looks like a static concept car. Some of us are much happier with subtle design and performance first. Even in cars at less-than-top-rung for the specific make/model, performancewise.
Norm
The objection to having the larger sizes available as an option is that it more than likely forces other changes in the design. Just as one example here, a larger wheel size plus some internal corporate design standards that ultimately involve things like sidewall height and tire to fender gap does end up dictating the wheelwell opening. More conventional size tires then start looking "puny" and "lost". For that reason, I don't even want to see them available as an OE option on the V8 cars.
Not everybody is such an extrovert that every major possession has to scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME" to the whole world. Not everybody wants to drive something that looks like a static concept car. Some of us are much happier with subtle design and performance first. Even in cars at less-than-top-rung for the specific make/model, performancewise.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; Jul 27, 2008 at 06:34 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
From: Michigan
There is more difference when you start talking abouot performance tires, which is what most people associate with installation on a muscle/pony/sports car. Sure, 20's may not be all that expensive if "round, black, and holds air" are the buyer's only criteria.
The objection to having the larger sizes available as an option is that it more than likely forces other changes in the design. Just as one example here, a larger wheel size plus some internal corporate design standards that ultimately involve things like sidewall height and tire to fender gap does end up dictating the wheelwell opening. More conventional size tires then start looking "puny" and "lost". For that reason, I don't even want to see them available as an OE option on the V8 cars.
Not everybody is such an extrovert that every major possession has to scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME" to the whole world. Not everybody wants to drive something that looks like a static concept car. Some of us are much happier with subtle design and performance first. Even in cars at less-than-top-rung for the specific make/model, performancewise.
Norm
The objection to having the larger sizes available as an option is that it more than likely forces other changes in the design. Just as one example here, a larger wheel size plus some internal corporate design standards that ultimately involve things like sidewall height and tire to fender gap does end up dictating the wheelwell opening. More conventional size tires then start looking "puny" and "lost". For that reason, I don't even want to see them available as an OE option on the V8 cars.
Not everybody is such an extrovert that every major possession has to scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME" to the whole world. Not everybody wants to drive something that looks like a static concept car. Some of us are much happier with subtle design and performance first. Even in cars at less-than-top-rung for the specific make/model, performancewise.
Norm
Very interesting statement Norm,and i for one agree with you.I just posted the fact of the 20" wheels being on option with the RS package for the sake of those who would be interested in that option.I personally would prefer a smaller wheel size.
Those who are contemplating the bigger wheel size,probably aren't aware of all the technicallity's of having larger wheels & tires.A larger wheel size along with a low-profile tire,your chances of that tire,wheel being damaged is alot higher,along with that you also sacrafice ride comfort.For instace,if you hit a pothole(expecially here in Michigan)that 20" wheel & tire is toast!,and will cost you big $$$ to replace it
Another issue is width of a tire.Remember the era of the "Pro-street" muscle car,big fat Mickey thompsons in the back with skinny tires up front?A friend of mine had his 69 camaro set up that way,and when he would drive his car on "paved" roads,it literally took all his strength(both hands)on the steering wheel to keep his car in the groove.So a wider tire in my opinion isn't always the best way to go.It does affect the handling of the car...alot.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CARiD
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Dec 26, 2014 04:20 AM