Hi,
I have a 1994 Z28 Camaro...I've had 245/50/16 Dayton(Bridgestone) Daytona ZR's on my car for the last 2 1/2 years or so, Amazing treadwear!, not so good handling compared to the Goodyear GS-C's I bought my car with. Anyway, It's about time to replace the rear tires, but I'm going to replace all 4.

I am not very well versed in tire size definitions, so my question is...What is the lowest profile(widest with shortest sidewall) size tire I could get on 16" stock wheels, and still have room in the wheel well, especially the front, to prevent rubbing.

Also are there any good tires made in these sizes that would be less than $85 each for ZR rated, and would handle just as good as more expensive ones?
I was looking at the Kumho ECSTA Supra 712 at $83 each, but i've seen mixed reviews on them. Someone on IRC chat mentioned Kelly tires, but I have not heard enough about them to make a decision.

Thanks,
-David-

 

With 16" wheels, you don't have a lot of choices. You could jump from 245/50-16 to 255/50-16. That will gain you a 0.40" wider tire, and a 0.40" larger diameter, and a very slightly taller sidewall. The speedo error will be about 1.5% which means when you are going 60mph the speedo will read 59mph, no big deal.

You aren't going to find a wider tire in high performance 16" sizes... maybe an all weater 275, but I doubt it. That's the problem with 16" wheels.

There is a Hoosier "Sports Car DOT - Radial" that is available in 275/45-16. That will be about an inch wider than what you have, and slightly smaller than stock... so the speedo will read 61mph at a true 60mph. Problem is the Hoosiers are "competition" tires for road racing, with a thin tread, soft tread compound, and poor wet traction, so not a good tire for daily driving. And they cost $208 each.

If you opt for a 17"x9.5" wheel, you can look at 275/40-17 or 285/40-17, or even go up to 17x11 with a 315/35-17 in the back only.... but that would be expensive by the time you got the wheels and tires.

 

Hi,
Thanks for the reply...I am more interested in a shorter sidewall than a wider tire, so would 245/45/16 be my best option if i was sticking with 16" for now? How much shorter would that make the sidewall? If I calculated right, that would equal a 4.82" tall sidewall for the 245/50/16's, vs a 4.34" tall sidewall for 245/45/16's.

Thanks,
-David-

 

Your calculations are correct... a 245/45 will have a 1/2" shorter sidewall. That will leave you with a tire almost one full inch smaller in diameter than stock, it will mean your car sits 1/2" closer to the ground, it means that the already huge gap between the fender lip and the top of the tire will grow by 1/2", it means you will have a 3.8% error on your speedo and odometer, which means you are putting more miles on the odo than you are acutually driving, and getting higher readings on the speedo. You can fix the speedo/odo problems with a program change.

The question I have is, other than getting that "rubber band on an oversize wheel" look that the import owners seem to love, why do you want a thinner tire sidewall? A shorter sidewall will generally reduce straight line traction, will expose your rims to greater risk of damage on a pothole and will make the ride harsher.

 

I was under the impression that the biggest difference in low profile tires was sidewall height, but I guess It's really a combination of width and height. I just like the look of Camaros bearing Nitto tires that look like they only have 2" sidewalls. But in reality i guess they were just wider 17's or 18's

Thanks,
David

 

Here is the picture of my car with 245/50/R16 front and 245/45/R16 rear - you can easily see, that rear tire is lower, looks smaller and I think it doesn't look good.. [ click for picture ]

 

Hi,
Yeah, I see your point...The rears look kind of dinky compared to the front, and leave a lot more un-needed wheel well space above the tire. I guess I'll just have to go with 17" wheels to get the look I want.

Thanks for the reply,
-David-

 

I think 17's offer the best wheel well fill and short sidewall look/performance.

 

Tire size calculator HERE

Lower profile will give you some extra gap which will be very noticeably and look very bad..

Also less sidewall doesn't really help straightline traction.. if that's important to you (ie you go to the track on occassion).

Stick with the stock size.. it looks good and functions well (good amount of sidewall, light enough, and cheap).

My .02

 

I agree on the 17's, even if it costs alittle more, you'll be more pleased with the look and performance of a larger wheel diameter with the same outside tire diameter than you would mounting a smaller diameter tire on the 16"rim. It was only a couple hundred dollars difference when I bought mine, that was tires and wheels together...Heads up on the backspacing, our cars have like 6 1/2 or 3/4 and I'm not for certain about offset but pretty much anything with 5 1/2 or less backspacing is a no go for our cars. Mine has 5 1/2" b.s. and they stick out even with the fenders, anything farther than that would look pretty tacky IMHO. I wish I could figure out how to post pictures on here and I'd post some of my car, anyone got any advice???