Kumho V710s right now, probably Hoosier A6s later this year.

315/35/17s on all four corners

 

How the hell you fit 315s all around?!

 

you can do a search...........

 

You know, Id MUCH rather have WIDE 18's-19's then Bling Bling 22's on the concept. They look better and do more for ya...

 

It's not too hard really.... you only need three things with the 50mm offset Grand Sport wheels:

1) longer ARP wheel studs
2) the right spacer thickness
3) rolled rear fender lips

No hammering, flaring or cutting required.

Firebirds / Trans Ams have it even easier due to their wider fenders and can go without spacers using the 36mm offset ZR1 wheels.

Here's two more pics now that this thread is completely 'jacked....





Really, I'm only posting pics because I want to drill home the message to the uninitiated that THESE CARS ARE SUPPOSED TO TURN AS WELL AS THEY ACCELERATE.

Well...okay... I'm showing off a bit too.

 

Nice! Actually I would consider this ON topic.

 

Ditto!

Traditionally (at least since the 1980s) Camaro has solidified a reputation in handling. It was during the run of the 4th gen (especially in 97 when the 3800 V6 made it's way into the base models) that Camaro became a clear winner on acceleration.

Although Mustang GTs tend to "feel" quite a bit more communicative and therefore "exciting", I give my Z28s and B4C props in handling limits. I can probally exceed the Z28 in roadholding capability in my '89 SC, but the power advantage of the Camaro more than makes up for it.



Chewy, that's alot of work to fit 315s (rolling the fender lip?!). But I gotta admit, it does look mean.

I'm sort of at a crossroads with my B4C. On one hand, I'm ready to sell it and either get another 4th gen with T-tops and a 6 speed (My B4C is an automatic hardtop)or a used supercharged Cobra, or a GTO, or the other choice....invest money into it in handling and durability upgrades.

The car looks great inside & out. Still has the CHP antenna masts on the roof and the speaker holes in the bumper (which the uninitated for some reason think it's a air vent for some sort of police "supercharger" ), save for the diesel-like when cold clatter of the LS1 still runs great.

Also has what I call the "Badge of Honor" (.... a bullet hole in the front bumper from a car chase it was involved in.... a copy of the newspaper article on it came with the car!). There's still enough of them in the CHP that cars still move out of the way when I'm jetting on Cali freeways. But I don't have that emotional attachment to it that I have with my 'Bird, had with my Mustangs or even my last Z28. Plus I want to get back to a stick.


Don't want a brand new car again just yet. Too many really good cars in the pipeline. Outside of the 5th gen, there's the El Camino, the next GTO, the Challenger, and at least a few other vehicles that I can see buying and be more than willing to run them till the wheels fall off
(the B4C just turned over 148K miles and 3 of my last 6 cars reached over 170K miles before I sold them.... I drive fast and put on mileage, but I know how to take care of my cars ).

 

Its not like he was the first to do this. I think I have seen guys with 335s. I believe the main problems with wider tires is the rear wheel wells. The fronts accomodate much better.

It certainly does look badass.

 

You are correct sir.

I'll add that 335s usually seem to require 12 inch wide wheels and some flaring to the outer fender and/or BFH action to the inner fender.

 

[QUOTE=guionM;4527379]I can probally exceed the Z28 in roadholding capability in my '89 SC, but the power advantage of the Camaro more than makes up for it.

QUOTE]

Please God I hope you SC weighs less than your B4C....... if not you're agreeing that a few hundred pounds doesn't make much difference in "roadholding capability"

hmmm it appears that the SC came in around 3800lbs Interesting

 

The best skidpad number I could find (actually the only one I could find) for a stock 89 Thunderbird SC is .82Gs. The worst I could find for a 2000 Camaro Z28 is .84Gs, and that was the absolute worst I found. Both on stock tires. Definetly doesnt look like TBird has the road hugging capability of a 4th gen, even in the worst case scenario.


*edit- here is some more info

http://www.sccoa.com/articles/roadtrack89.html

skidpad quoted at .85Gs on a 100ft skidpad. Not all that mind blowing. Slalom is 61mph, which is decent, but not incredible either. I wish they hadn't have used a 100ft skidpad on this, because I am finding it difficult to find a valid comparison to make.

 

Don't knock things you know nothing about.

3800 pounds alone means nothing with regards to handling.


That's on stock, skinny by today's standards, Goodyear Gatorback 225s (even Z28s of that time were running 245s, like they still did in 2002).

I run 255s on my Bird. Modern 255s. No other mods needed. The suspension tuning is actually that good (some SC owners lower it or run with Eibach springs).

I said I could exceed the roadholding limit of my Z28s in my SC... I never said I was running factory-spec 1989-era stock sized tires on my SC, did I?

For the record, I upsized the Z28's to 255s also. Yep, the SC still sticks far better with the exact same tires (that size and brand was on sale at the time, so I did both cars).

In the 10 plus years I've been running SCs, there's been one car that wrecked, and one that spun out trying to keep up with me on some severely twisty roads. One was some kid in a riced out Eclipse.

I'll give you one guess what the other car was.



BTW: This is my favorite article: http://www.sccoa.com/articles/caranddriver89.html

It's far more descriptive and it's also where I got the quotes in my signature.

It also gives a cryptic mention worth noting.

After marveling that the SC handles far better and has more roadholding than the previous year's TC (Thunderbird Turbo Coupe), despite weighing 500 pounds more, it mentions that the suspension is getting alot more work out of the same rubber (it used the exact same tire as the previous far lighter bird). Then this bit that every SC enthusiast has learned:

"When you wind in toward an apex, the nose and tail bite as one. Neither end twiches or threatens. Experts will find on those rare occasions, when they can push to the absolute limit of adhesion- say a deserted entrence ramp, the SC is remarkably neutral. When the grip is all used up the tail steps out ever so gingerly, as if to say" That's all-time to ease up Mario".

Better tires with real grip (pretty easy when you're talking about 225s coming on the car stock) is all you need to do some amazing feats with the SC. Just ask the guys who drive 'em.

Much like the old 5.0 H.O. engine, Ford left alot of potential locked up inside the SC's suspension... and easy to get out.

(wow.... did I really just hijack my own thread? )

 

Nope - in fact, I think that you're driving home a particular point We should all know better than to assess a vehicle's real-world handling characteristics via a set of incomplete data.

 

The funny thing is that I've been contemplating buying another Camaro (once I sell one of the Tahoes and one of my 67 Camaros) and building a "track" car. I've never been one for HP over handling. That is why my 67 "plain Jane" has more money in the suspension than the motor. (The motor is "only" a GM crate 350HO/330HP.) While that car could easily be made into a "track" car, but with the manual steering box its still somewhat of a bear in the turns and I'd probably want to dump the Boyd's 17s for something more durable. (The dang things a money pit as it is.)

I've actually looked into a B4C (just missed one on ebay a few months back) or an early 4th gen (M6). I just don't have that heart and modifying the '95 Z/28. With less than 58K miles and the fact that its dead stock, it has become our most dependable second car. (The big red Tahoe does occasionally need service. ) Still any idea of buying another Camaro is a long way off. I need to sell a couple cars first, redo the driveway and the kitchen floors... otherwise my wife would kill me.

 

Really???? Really?! Really?!?!?!

How is it that the largely power-disadvantaged Cobalt SS (205 HP) ran a FASTER lap time around Virginia Speedway than the 300 HP Mustang GT??? Let's see, the weight of the Cobalt is 2925 lbs, while the Mustang is ~3500 lbs . Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm .

Weight MATTERS!!! Why then did it matter SO MUCH to GM to make the Z06 LIGHTER than the base C5/C6, while having MORE HP?!?!?!

Like a few guys have already said, it's much easier to add HP than remove weight. I'll take the lighter Camaro please!!! It'll be faster in a straight line AND around corners than a heavier car. I don't know how ANYBODY with half a brain could even fathom arguing that?