Anybody running 19's on their G50?

[3rd Q]

Saw some G35 coupe 19" forged rays on Ebay. I'll be getting upgrading from my 16's to new rims/tires when it's time to take the Blizzaks off. Has anyone put 19's on? I'm guessing fitment problems and an awfully narrow sidewall.

Paul

[Rex]

I'm pretty sure there's a non-regular with 19's, but check the offset and fitment of the G35 Rays. I know they're nice wheels (forged and all), but unless you're willing to experiment with some camber or possible rolling, they may rub a touch if you're running any lowering springs.

My current set up 18x8 +30 and 18x8.5 +33 will be very close and may rub if the suspension travels to full bottom. There are guys running much more agressive set ups, but it's just a matter of how much "tweaking" you want to do to accomodate them.

Hopefully others will add their 2 cents .

[elwesso]

I dont think youll run into problems if you run the stock sized 19in tires..

[AZhitman]

Except for load rating.

I'd beef up the tires, IIRC they're pretty narrow (225 and 245).

[96Qowner]

Question: With all the talk lately about big diameter wheels, is there any handling advantage AT ALL to larger wheels, or are they purely a cosmetic thing?

Or, the opposite: Do larger wheels (smaller tires) actually harm performance?

[AZhitman]

No real handling advantage unless you count the avaialbility of better tire choices in the mid-to-upper end of fitment spectrum.

Weight is detrimental, but shorter sidewall can be a plus. It's a trade-off (just like anything).

For the Q, I'd venture to say 16-17" is the "sweet spot" for handling. Some would argue, but they'd likely be wrong...

[3rd Q]

I think I'll probably do the 18's then. I have some Cali custom springs to install in the Spring and really don't want to deal w/rolling fenders, etc..I will have a set of the lowered springs w/ blues and a set of stockers w/blues so I can switch back and forth easily for snow season.With some Chicago storms, it's tough to make it through the snow at stock height, let alone a 2" drop. Thanks for the feedback.

Paul

[elwesso]

I agree with greg, when you consider handling vs cost, 17s are the way to go...... nearly every 245-45-17 is 95 load rated so your golden there......

[maxnix]

No real handling advantage unless you count the avaialbility of better tire choices in the mid-to-upper end of fitment spectrum.

Weight is detrimental, but shorter sidewall can be a plus. It's a trade-off (just like anything).

For the Q, I'd venture to say 16-17" is the "sweet spot" for handling. Some would argue, but they'd likely be wrong...

AZhitman its correct, although 16" performance tires and wheels are becoming quite rare, 17" is starting to, and 18" is where the best current tire technology for a G50, FY33, Y34 or F50 is. It is not inexpensive, though.

Remember, a 95 load rating is the OEM minimum.

[elwesso]

I have my flame suit on and ready to go..... But Im sort of convinced that if the G35 has a 90-91 load rating on their tires, that has to be close enough... You figure the G35 weighs just about 400lbs more than the Q...

Still... I think you could run 245-40-19s in the front, which have load rating of 94, which is easily close enough....... but IMO.... if your running a godo quality tire and is Z rated, you can inflate just a little more and be OK... Most Q guys dont drive their car hard enough for it to matter anyway...

[AZhitman]

The G sedan weighs more than the Q?

Not disputing it, but hard to fathom... Wow.

[96Qowner]

Yeah, had to be a typo - G35 is 400-500 lbs lighter than a G50.

G35 is 3300 to 3400 lbs.

[maxnix]

The G sedan weighs more than the Q?

Not disputing it, but hard to fathom... Wow.

Way too easy to dispute.

G35 is lighter by several hundred pounds. Why it has a 3.5L V6.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not passenger safety!

There are some very tangible gains to be had by exceeding the OEM minimum specified load rating. None by not meeting it, only decreased performance and greater danger of tire failure.

[96Qowner]

Quote »Question: With all the talk lately about big diameter wheels, is there any handling advantage AT ALL to larger wheels, or are they purely a cosmetic thing?

Or, the opposite: Do larger wheels (smaller tires) actually harm performance?[/quote]OK, so the answer is that tires with a lower aspect ratio provide quicker response and a harsher ride:

Higher aspect ratios deliver: - Greater deflection under load - Softer ride

Lower aspect ratios deliver: - Wider footprint- Quicker response- Less tire deviation or slip angle- Lower flex rate- Less deflection under load- Harsher ride

http://www.dunloptires.com/care/widthRatio.html

[bmwkiller]

Im sort of convinced that if the G35 has a 90-91 load rating on their tires, that has to be close enough... You figure the G35 weighs just about 400lbs more than the Q...

Where are you getting this info? I checked a number of sites online that indicate that a 2005 G35 weighs 3468 lbs. and my Q weighs 4039 lbs. Besides, the weight of the car is not the ultimate issue, but rather the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR - vehicle weight + cargo capacity).The door plate on my '93 lists a GVWR of 5027 lbs. I have no first hand knowledge of the GVWR on a G35, but the web sites I checked indicated that it is 4500 lbs. for the base G35 sedan and 6MT sedan, with the AWD version being rated at 4742 lbs. That's a difference of 3-500 lbs. in vehicle weight. A load rating of 91 vs. 95 is a difference of 165 pounds per tire.

[elwesso]

Yeah, had to be a typo - G35 is 400-500 lbs lighter than a G50.

G35 is 3300 to 3400 lbs.

Yeah thats what I meant..... sorry.....

Im just saying, that it probably doesnt make much difference with a 91 load rated tire vs 95... however you wont find anything below 93-94 on my car.

[Q45tech]

The problem is even 95 good enough, I would be very careful with modern tires which may not be truefully as strong as the old V rated MICHELIN XGTV.

If you hit someone or get hit and their attorney/police notices improper equipment {tires} a wonderful way to prove you were negligent without much effort.

Will your insurance cover you or will they refuse because you unsafely modified your vehicle without their knowledge. Most policy have a disclaimer.

[Falkdesigns]

245/35-19 on my front with 93 load rate, 275-30-19 on back with 95 load rate. On Y33 Q45 indicated load rate is only 94.

My insurance policy covers my aftermarket wheels and tires. In fact, they cover anything I add to the car as long as I tell them about it and have a receipt.

[Q45tech]

Ask your insurance company in writing will they cover you with overloaded [underrated] tires, ask your tire installer if they will take the responsibility in writing for installing overloaded tires?

In the EU and other countries you can be ticketed and towed for improper tires. But the US like other 3rd world countries doesn't do much until someone dies.

[Falkdesigns]

Yeah I'll be sure to do that.
Modified by Falkdesigns at 5:22 PM 1/7/2006

[G50 Q]

Ask your insurance company in writing will they cover you with overloaded [underrated] tires, ask your tire installer if they will take the responsibility in writing for installing overloaded tires?

Wow you guys are really hard core about load ratings...lol Let people do what they want to do. You're not changing anyones mind.

Not to mention, if someone IS running "underrated" tires on a Q45, they are more than likely fully aware of what they are doing (Like Falk is), and are ok with doing it.

[Falkdesigns]

You know what the difference is between my "underrated" 93 front's vs. the "recommended" 94? Less than 100 pounds. Front 93 load rating is 1440 pounds, the rears 95 are 1560 pounds, meaning my tires can theoretically hold just about 6000 pounds. That's 1200 pounds more than the car weighs. I weigh 190, wife is 120, and I can't imagine having two people in the back that weigh more than 800 pounds.

And I'd be willing to bet these guys could dig all they want and NEVER find ONE single case where this was an issue. In fact, I bet most insurance adjusters have no idea what a load index even is, ask guys at most tire shops and they'll tell you "it's a V rated..".

[qsiguy]

Where's it written that 95 is the "minimum" anyway? I doubt the factory would use the minimum rating for the oem tire selection. 95 is the recommended not minimum IMO since I couldn't locate any specs that said min-max load rating.

If you do the math then 89 would be the minimum if you divide 5027 gvw by 4, again IMO,

Not that I want to use anything that low.
Modified by qsiguy at 12:12 PM 1/9/2006

[Rex]

As I understand it, the Load Rating isn't simply a reflection of how much weight the tire can support, but has to do with the load/stress that can be exerted on it during cornering/braking/accelerating. That said, I wonder if the 95kg for the G50, since the same for all (standard, touring and active), is really applicable for the non-active models?

Also, FWIW, I think a 95 Load Rating in a used Cooper (10k) isn't really equal to a 95 in a used "premium" tire (Yokohama, Michelin, Bridgestone, Pirelli) with the same miles. But obviously more is better, as it's a reflection of the tires inner construction integrity.

[AZhitman]

Arguing it is a waste of time, most people have never experienced a catastrophic tire failure due to overload during high-speed cornering (I have).

A Q will ride fine on 185/70/14's too.... For a while.

[TgduMg]

Wow you guys are really hard core about load ratings...lol Let people do what they want to do. You're not changing anyones mind.

Not to mention, if someone IS running "underrated" tires on a Q45, they are more than likely fully aware of what they are doing (Like Falk is), and are ok with doing it.

It's just that many of the owners on this forum love any enjoy their Q's and don't want anything substandard on their vehicles, and would like for them to be as good, no, even better that they were when they left Tochigi. Because to truly enjoy a car, you have to drive it.

Though they may exist, I don't know of any trailer queen Q's on this forum. If the car will not be used for say, a long trip with passengers. luggage and a full tank, or if it's not regularly driven near its limits then and the owner was comfortable with underrated tires, its their car. Their decision. If an owner wanted some 185/70/14's with Daytons on their Q, its their car, their decision. I wouldn't want to see that one though. Bounce. Bounce.

Falks (F)Y33 is sweet and his front tire/load rating is only one point down as compared to some I've seen three, four or more numbers away from spec.

Purely in the interest of meeting and/or exceeding OEM load rating specs, one could go with the Benz SLR McLaren OEM (front) 255/35YR19 96Y Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires at all four corners.

If the staggered fitment is desired, for an extra $180, one could get the SLR's rear 295/30YR19 100Y Pilot Sports for a total of only $1416 from the Tire Rack. That does not include taxes, shipping, wheels, installation, etc. Fifteen of the twenty-two 255/35-19 tires listed on the Rack have a load rating of 96 and most of those have a Y speed rating and none of them are cheap. Not to mention the potential daily care and feeding cost of a G50.

I'm not saying don't do 19's, but if they're done, do em right.

The tires aren't cheap and the wheels shouldn't be either.

The vehicle that they are on though should be (first) mechanically and cosmetically sound. And a brake upgrade should be looked at to handle the extra rotating mass. Full time G50 lover

Danisiti 1
Modified by TgduMg at 7:38 PM 1/14/2006