Req pics of 16's with beefy tires.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Joined
·
4,338 Posts
225/50/16, same overall diameter as stock (so no ECU, odometer, or mileage issues):
![]()
![]()
And one steelies:
![]()
![]()
The difference is the more rounded profile b/c the rim is smaller compared to tire width with 225s over 205s.
And one steelies:
The difference is the more rounded profile b/c the rim is smaller compared to tire width with 225s over 205s.
Thanks TartanJack! I still do not like how the tires sit inward in the rear. I DO NOT wanna use spacers. So, would a negative or positive offset on a new set of 17's rims take care of that? Would something wider with 50 profile on 17's work?
Joined
·
107 Posts
here is a shot of my box with 16" rims but the offset is 40mm vs 45mm on the stockies... I do have the 205/55/16 tires on it still and will be going with the 225/50 like tartan when these wear out...still looking into lowering, the rear gap is starting to bother me..
![]()
Question about that last pic. Noticing the odd spot for the gas cap on the car off to the side, which car is that?225/50/16, same overall diameter as stock (so no ECU, odometer, or mileage issues):
![]()
![]()
And one steelies:
![]()
![]()
The difference is the more rounded profile b/c the rim is smaller compared to tire width with 225s over 205s.
Joined
·
266 Posts
I'd bet on a Miata!
Joined
·
4,338 Posts
That's the old Brainstorm (back when Andy still owned it) gas cap on my early 90 Miata. It's painted in 1960s Lotus Racing Green, with a Lotus Racing Yellow stripe.
Joined
·
4,338 Posts
I've driven a couple V-8 Miatae. They almost all modify the rear suspension to fit in another differential, for a while the 90s V-8 T-Bird was popular. The problem is that such changed the handling characteristics and made the tail not hold the road right-> completely ruining the Miata's best feature: well balanced, clean road-carving handling.
One guy swapped driving with me between my breathing 1.6 and his 302 Monster Miata during one Miatas at the Gap (which takes place on The Tail of the Dragon, centered on the Lodge). We each drove our own first with the other riding-telling specific characteristics, then swapped seats. His was first, then mine. Neither "pushed" very hard in the other's car, as we neither wanted to risk bending metal . . .
I didn't like the handling of his at all. It would accelerate fast, but the tail kept wanting to come around (despite me driving it "gentle," for me). On Sunday, he had a for-sale sign on his and he told me he was planning to buy an early 1.6, drop in an NB 1.8 and get a Flying Miata turbo (which I had mentioned sometime during the driving, he told me- I didn't remember saying it).
That gets the lightest chassis, the best configured 1.8 engine (I specifically like the 2000, as it is after the 99's issue and before the more complicated engine management of the 2001). Plus, it fits pretty easy. With the FM turbo, it's the most "stock" Miata engine with the least weight body-> best power-to-weight.
Stock, I like the 1.6, as it spools up quickly and has great mid-range power/torque.
One guy swapped driving with me between my breathing 1.6 and his 302 Monster Miata during one Miatas at the Gap (which takes place on The Tail of the Dragon, centered on the Lodge). We each drove our own first with the other riding-telling specific characteristics, then swapped seats. His was first, then mine. Neither "pushed" very hard in the other's car, as we neither wanted to risk bending metal . . .
I didn't like the handling of his at all. It would accelerate fast, but the tail kept wanting to come around (despite me driving it "gentle," for me). On Sunday, he had a for-sale sign on his and he told me he was planning to buy an early 1.6, drop in an NB 1.8 and get a Flying Miata turbo (which I had mentioned sometime during the driving, he told me- I didn't remember saying it).
That gets the lightest chassis, the best configured 1.8 engine (I specifically like the 2000, as it is after the 99's issue and before the more complicated engine management of the 2001). Plus, it fits pretty easy. With the FM turbo, it's the most "stock" Miata engine with the least weight body-> best power-to-weight.
Stock, I like the 1.6, as it spools up quickly and has great mid-range power/torque.
55/215/r16 with a little more backspace than stock. Here is the thread with pics: http://www.newscionxb.com/133-wheels-tires/9353-new-throwback-tri-spokes-2.html
I really like those! Sure they're only 215's? Seems wider than that. What tires are those? I like the way the tires bulge out like that. Any idea what the offset is? I use to have a set of rims like that on an Oldsmobile, think they said "Streetwear" or something like that on the caps.
I agree on the "perfect balance" of a vehicle. I owned a 2009 VW GTi and red a few posts in the forums about how VW owners kept handing owner's of MazdaSpeed3's asses back to them on the track. I thought they were bluffing because I think a 3 has 60hp or 80hp more. Turns out they were right.
I think our xB's are beyond help in the hp catagory unless you have $$$$$. Handling is about the only thing we can change with a decent budget but that has it's limits given it's a 3100lb pig. Be nice if we could drop 800lbs off of these things!
Joined
·
266 Posts
225 on the 6.5 will definitively look beefy, like truck tire beefy.
These are 225 on a 16x7 rim, I really like the look
Oh my. I guess 225 is too much for me. I didn't think it would look like that. Looks dangerous to me or your cornering would go to crap. What profile are those? Guess I'll wait and get 16x8's.225 on the 6.5 will definitively look beefy, like truck tire beefy.
These are 225 on a 16x7 rim, I really like the look
![]()
Joined
·
4,338 Posts
Here are 225/50/16 BF Goodrich G-Force Sports on 16x7 (40 offset, if I recall correctly) Tenzo R Meister rims.
![]()
![]()
The "sticky" has as more to do with the tire compound first and the tread pattern secondly than wall height, as the actual difference in a 55 and a 45 ratio sidewall isn't that much in terms of construction for grip except to keep the rim from hitting pavement under high compression.
A high-performance (ultra or whatever "class" it's in) of a given tire doesn't fall off significantly when jumping between different ratios of that same tire. A 225, in theory, gives a wider tread pattern, but may be the same overall size as a 205. The difference is in the middle of a corner as the deformation THEORETICALLY gives the 225 a slight grip edge over a 205.
The number 205 and 225 references the width, in millimeters of the road-facing face of the tire, meaning the contact width. That means the 225 is 2 centimeters wider than the 205- which is just slightly more than 1/2 inch. In most situations, that is irrelevant.
On a smooth surface, a wider, LIGHT, diameter rim mounting a low-ration offers a SLIGHT theoretical advantage as there is less deformation to the face in the midst of a fact corner. Hence, the fraction-of-a-second difference builds up in an endurance race like Le Mans to enough to mean all the cars have tiny ratio race tires.
On an irregular surfaced road, a taller sidewall should allow some deformation to compensate for the road irregularities allowing the contact patch to deform and compensate for that road shape change. Plus, it allows for more bump absorption to protect the rims from damage on BAD roads. Hence, rally cars have higher ratio tires and use different tire/rim size (as well as tread pattern and compound) for different surfaces and conditions.
The "sticky" has as more to do with the tire compound first and the tread pattern secondly than wall height, as the actual difference in a 55 and a 45 ratio sidewall isn't that much in terms of construction for grip except to keep the rim from hitting pavement under high compression.
A high-performance (ultra or whatever "class" it's in) of a given tire doesn't fall off significantly when jumping between different ratios of that same tire. A 225, in theory, gives a wider tread pattern, but may be the same overall size as a 205. The difference is in the middle of a corner as the deformation THEORETICALLY gives the 225 a slight grip edge over a 205.
The number 205 and 225 references the width, in millimeters of the road-facing face of the tire, meaning the contact width. That means the 225 is 2 centimeters wider than the 205- which is just slightly more than 1/2 inch. In most situations, that is irrelevant.
On a smooth surface, a wider, LIGHT, diameter rim mounting a low-ration offers a SLIGHT theoretical advantage as there is less deformation to the face in the midst of a fact corner. Hence, the fraction-of-a-second difference builds up in an endurance race like Le Mans to enough to mean all the cars have tiny ratio race tires.
On an irregular surfaced road, a taller sidewall should allow some deformation to compensate for the road irregularities allowing the contact patch to deform and compensate for that road shape change. Plus, it allows for more bump absorption to protect the rims from damage on BAD roads. Hence, rally cars have higher ratio tires and use different tire/rim size (as well as tread pattern and compound) for different surfaces and conditions.
Are both of those pics of the front? Here is the rim I might get but they are the same weight as the steelies so all I'm gonna get is just looks. I'd be happy with the stock steelies just sticking out more and 225's all the way around but I'm scared of spacers. Just noticed your tailpipe. Thinking about doing the same to mine.
![]()
I have no clue as to the offset, they were off of a 1990 Eagle Talon. Scored off Craigslist for a hundo! Prime is the brand, couldnt find too much about them on the internet except that they are out of business... this is all the info I could find
Prime Wheel
And those are the Goodyear Eagle GT's 215/55/16's Grippy but a bit soft coming off 19" Proxes4's...
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
