Post by
Red coupe »
https://forums.nicoclub.com/red-coupe-u19771.html
Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:10 pm
IMO from purely a grip basis smaller is better (to a point), I have no problem running stock tire sizes...Tread compound is more important then tire size.
1st- with the money spent on new rims, and tires to fit them, you could have just gotten a way better set of tires, and still had some money left over....
2nd-Per dollar a smaller tire will always give you a stickier compound then a bigger tire. Take for example the G-force T/A KWD, for 205/55/15 they are ~$100 each, I looked at them for a friends car (IIRC 245/40/17 or something close to that) and they were ~$225, thats $125 dollars per tire for the same grip, so for a buget of X dollars you can get much stickier compounds if you have smaller rims
3rd while there are benifits to a wider tire footprint IMO its not as drastic as every one makes it out to be... because a circle only intersects a plane at one point when sitting on it the actual area of the tire on the ground is dependant on tire pressure and load. A wider tire will distribute the load over a greater width so the length will decress. While a wider footprint should be more stable it isnt helping you put more rubber on the ground as many people belive...
The 16's should actualy be lighter, and them being the same width can hold tires just as wide. the tires should be cheaper for the 16s to, so as I mensioned you could probably afford a better tire on the same budget. The only real problem with the 16's is there are considerably less options for 16 inch rims as far as tires go.