Is staggered the best way to go??

[kppk1986]

I was wondering if it was better to go staggered or using the same size tires all the way across??

[Nismo_Freak]

Depends on your purpose or goal.

[jdmfreak]

What does staggered mean?

[Nismo_Freak]

What does staggered mean?

Running differently sized wheels or tires.

Ex. 17x7 front / 17x9 rear

[barrigas14]

best way to go imo is the same. 8.5 all around.

[kim]

best way to go imo is the same. 8.5 all around.

(edit) sorry I didn't see the "8.5 all around" I thought it said same all around (edit)

Not really, if you are into Drag and have lotta HP & TQ you'll want to go with staggerd. The tire only touches the ground with a very small patch, you can't make that patch any longer but you can make it wider. Alot of FR true sport car do this from Factory. This setup also benifits autoX type events too. the bad thing about this setup is you can't really rotate tires.

If you want drift then I think you will want to go with same all around. you need to lose traction on rear so you probably don't want to widen the patch

[kppk1986]

Just as a daily drive.. i dont really have any intentions to go drifting or auto x... maybe to the drag strip once in a while..

[kim]

yeah you should go same all around that way you can rotate tires and have them last longer if you do staggered no rotation.

[turtl631]

you can't rotate them if they're directional though. I'm in the same boat, trying to decide if i want to run a small stagger or not. I think its mostly for looks, especially at the power levels most people run. Then again, porsche c4 comes with 11 inch wide wheels in back

[SmithSR]

Yes you can rotate them if they're same size directional because the biggest gain from rotating wheel positions is saving tire life from front shoulder wear. Use same size all around, rotate front to rear, no x-ing needed.

If you decide to get different sizes f/r you pay more for bigger wheels, you pay more for bigger tires of the same size/brand(generally), you can't rotate, except to cross switch, which, with directional tread means dismount/mount/balance, which means more money out of pocket. You replace front tires at twice the rate everybody else will.

So, you've spent-more money on bigger sizes(bigger isn't better, softer is better, which also costs more money)-more money to x-switch to try and cut down on excess shoulder wear-more money on front tire replacement, because of accelerated wear.

[Nismo_Freak]

Lol, I wear out my fronts faster than my rears...

[jdmfreak]

How's that?

[SmithSR]

That's the whole point.

[jdmfreak]

What's the whole point? Im lost.

[Nismo_Freak]

How's that?

A properly setup RWD grip car should always wear out the fronts first. This is because braking loads out weigh acceleration loads by alot. The front also has the majority of the cornering load (which is were the excessive shoulder wear SmithSR was talking about comes from). As well as typically more aggressive toe and camber settings in the front.

[Def]

All E36 M3's I've seen properly prepped for the track wore out their rear tires well before their fronts, and the car has very similar suspension geometry to a 240SX.

You can actually generate more total grip in the rear tires on corner exit by applying throttle and also cornering at the same time. This tends to really wear those rears down.

The fronts shouldn't wear out that quickly on a ~50/50 weight dist. car if you aren't overdriving it and have a decent amount of negative camber up front.

[Nismo_Freak]

All E36 M3's I've seen properly prepped for the track wore out their rear tires well before their fronts, and the car has very similar suspension geometry to a 240SX.

You can actually generate more total grip in the rear tires on corner exit by applying throttle and also cornering at the same time. This tends to really wear those rears down.

The fronts shouldn't wear out that quickly on a ~50/50 weight dist. car if you aren't overdriving it and have a decent amount of negative camber up front.

What works on one car, similar or not, doesn't mean it works on another. Static weight distribution really has no bearing on tire wear.

[jdmfreak]

OK I undertand now. Thanks Nismo.

[kppk1986]

so should i go same size all the way around.. it would be alot more cost effective.. i was also wondering about tire sizes on rims?? can you put to different size tires on rims?? for example if the wheels are 17-8 can you put both 225 and 230 size tires on that wheel??

[Def]

What works on one car, similar or not, doesn't mean it works on another. Static weight distribution really has no bearing on tire wear.

I was just offering an example that clearly shows that well setup RWD cars can(and in my experience, usually do) wear the rear tires out quicker.

As for static weight dist. not affecting tire wear - it plays a huge role. Given any lateral acceleration quantity, the force provided by the tires on that end of the car have to directly counteract the centripetal acceleration of the mass of that end(not really, but close enough). More weight on one end almost always equals more lateral load on that end's tires during cornering.

Since weight dist. can drastically affect handling, different factors are going to come into play, but breaking it down traction into its simplest idea will show that the more weight on one end, the more lateral grip the tires of that end have to provide, which in turn equals more wear.

[Nismo_Freak]

I was just offering an example that clearly shows that well setup RWD cars can(and in my experience, usually do) wear the rear tires out quicker.

As for static weight dist. not affecting tire wear - it plays a huge role. Given any lateral acceleration quantity, the force provided by the tires on that end of the car have to directly counteract the centripetal acceleration of the mass of that end(not really, but close enough). More weight on one end almost always equals more lateral load on that end's tires during cornering.

Since weight dist. can drastically affect handling, different factors are going to come into play, but breaking it down traction into its simplest idea will show that the more weight on one end, the more lateral grip the tires of that end have to provide, which in turn equals more wear.

Once you corner though you have dynamic weight load, not static.

See my point?

[hannibal]

so should i go same size all the way around.. it would be alot more cost effective.. i was also wondering about tire sizes on rims?? can you put to different size tires on rims?? for example if the wheels are 17-8 can you put both 225 and 230 size tires on that wheel??

if you go the same size f/r, you would want the same size tire f/r so you can rotate them. If you want different tires sizes, you should definitely have different wheel widths.

based on what ive read, I prefer same size f/r on a daily driver. Smith listed some good reasons.Now, 17x8's all around or 17x9's??

and yes, there is a range of acceptable tire sizes for a given wheel width. look down at the bottom of this page...http://www.meggala.com/wheelsoffsets.htm

[Exar-Kun]

Once you corner though you have dynamic weight load, not static.

See my point?

I see both points, I think Def is refering to a 60/40 car wearing the front out because the lateral forces(dynamic weight) will be larger during corneing, since(for the most part) during hard cornering weight transfer side to side is far higher than that of front to back.

thusly, if you have more weight on one end of the car, the more that can be shifter laterally during acceleration(relative to the other end) resulting in more tire wear...(think minivan front tire wear for a good, if extreme, example)

but we all knew that already

on alans point, dynamic oading can upset(obviously) the predetermined static weights a good bit, but no so much having a 50/50 distribution car wouldnt be better than a 40/60 or otherwise...

in conclusion..I like cheeze.-chet

[Nismo_Freak]

in conclusion..I like cheeze.-chet

Cheese... cracka! :rolleyes :batman :bandit

[Def]

Yep, chet got it right.

Dynamic weight distribution takes into account external forces on the body(gravity, acceleration, moments - all that fun stuff), but nothing can change the actual mass on each side of the car that the tires have to push around. Well, unless you fall out of the car on the track - but then you've got bigger problems.

Dynamic weight dist. affects tire traction due to the changing normal force on each tire, but all the car's mass still has to be muscled around by the tires.

You should see the guy in old late 70's P-cars go through rear tires! Those things just get obliterated on a track prepped car with their ~30/70 static weight dist.

[turtl631]

Good thread, I'm learning a lot And leaning towards non-staggered, smaller wheels/tires in general..probably 17x8, 225/45/17.

[Def]

A non-staggered setup would be a very good solution for a car that isn't making alot of power(say 250+rwhp). Plus on a mostly street driven vehicle, rotating tires can make them last MUCH longer due to the different wear patterns usually seen on front and rear tires.

My M3 munched two sets of rear tires for every set of fronts I put on it.