Sumitomo HTR+ 255/45/17 Opinions
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
QuickSilver wrote:I prefer the 235/55 with a load index 99 vs the 96 on 235/50 for potentially better handling and a fuller wheel well. However, the third link cleareance is going to very, very close.
I still don't understand why you'd think you'd have a clearance issue... I have 255/50's, stock diameter, and a 1" suspension drop and I have NO clearance issues.
I bought HTR 200's for my last car and was quite impressed. However, after putting them on my wife's Camry - I changed my mind. I think they are too soft and too noisy. Perhaps the taller sidewall on the Camry is to blame. Anyway, I went with BFGoodrich Comp T/A HR4-2. I have no regrets. They handle great on my J30. Go to tirerack and save.
-
szh
- Posts: 15932
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
- Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.
Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO! - Location: San Jose, CA
AZhitman wrote:I still don't understand why you'd think you'd have a clearance issue... I have 255/50's, stock diameter, and a 1" suspension drop and I have NO clearance issues.
In the 17" tire size, I believe that the diameter is 1 inch larger for the 255/50. The shape of the tire sidewall and the tread width, etc., may have an impact on the tire fitment. I am not sure of this, of course! The true test is to try it.
If the offset of the tire is high (like 45mm), then the clearance issue to the suspension components (particularly in the front) is a concern. Offsets of 38mm to 40mm would probably be safer. Too low (like 30mm or 33mm) and you might have fender clearance issues ... I think!
Again, the true test is to try the fitment.
Z
-
QuickSilver
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 10:25 am
Thanks Z,
Yeah, the 255/50/16 has a total OD of 26.03" vs. the 27.1" of the 235/55/17. IMHO, the 16" wheels are ideal for the cost/performance minded Q owner.
Your offset info is very helpful. I've got an offset of 42mm. I've measured the difference between my current 235/45/17 tires and the 235/55/17's, and its very close. I'll order the tires and then try the fitment. If they don't work, there will have to be some more compermises.
I'm now considering going with Dunlop SP Sport A2 over the Kumho KH11 in a 235/55/17 size. Mainly because of the 50k milage warranty which I plan put to the test. They are also suppose to be Consumer Report #1 tire in its class and have very good road test results on tire rack.
The compromise is that they are 98H vs. 99W rated.
Yeah, the 255/50/16 has a total OD of 26.03" vs. the 27.1" of the 235/55/17. IMHO, the 16" wheels are ideal for the cost/performance minded Q owner.
Your offset info is very helpful. I've got an offset of 42mm. I've measured the difference between my current 235/45/17 tires and the 235/55/17's, and its very close. I'll order the tires and then try the fitment. If they don't work, there will have to be some more compermises.
I'm now considering going with Dunlop SP Sport A2 over the Kumho KH11 in a 235/55/17 size. Mainly because of the 50k milage warranty which I plan put to the test. They are also suppose to be Consumer Report #1 tire in its class and have very good road test results on tire rack.
The compromise is that they are 98H vs. 99W rated.