The car I am looking at buying will come with a set of 18x9 wheels.
Does it make sense to run staggered tire size on a square set up?
Pros/Cons?
What is the widest tire you want to run on a 9" wheel? I would guess a 275 or 285.
Thoughts…
Don’t know if this will help. Running 255/35/18’s up front on 9" wheel. Sidewalls seem pretty even with the lip. I posted this website while ago when I was still into my track setup concept (http://www.rimsntires.com/specs.jsp) I think it could be helpful with your visualization. Here’s my point of view on staggered. Definitely need wider in the rear for traction. As I was looking for tires to mount on the new staggered setup on the Enkei’s I bought, I found that some profiles and widths were available in the rear size I need but not the front, and vice versa. With the exception of one or two manufacturer and makes, no one was able to offer a complete set with the current numbers I’m running. No option for me to rotate either. I guess based on what I need, it’s the best I can do to maintain reasonable traction at the cost of convenience.
I’ve run 285’s on 8" wide wheels. Like stretching in reverse.
I’m not sure if it helps but I run 275 star specs on a 9.5 inch wide wheel and it seems to be just fine. Is the car RWD?
So you are saying all four wheels are 18x9, but you want to stagger the tire size?
You should be fine as long as you stay within the tire manufacturer’s recommend rim width for the given tire size.
Going outside of the recommend rim width will not have an optimized tire footprint, could potentially accelerated shoulder wear, could create undesired difference in sidewall stiffness (tire cornering stiffness between front and rear axle) which may cause under-steer or over-steer to be more pronounced.
I does depend on the manufacturer, but in this example for a 18x9 wheel:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Dunlop&tireModel=Direzza+ZII
The widest that I would want to run is 255.
The widest that I can recommend is 275.
I run a 15x10 275/50/15 rear and a 16x8 205/55/16 front.
Unless your car is 4 wheel driven you should be fine.
Yes, the factory upgrade rims that I really like are 18x9 but to go into a 10" rear wheel you have to get replicas and I am not into that…the car is rwd. However the front can only clear lets say a 245 before rubbing becomes an issue. Obviously the back can be a little wider and of course you would want as much footprint as you could get back there.
What car is this going on? I personally think staggered tires on square wheels is lame…but that’s just my opinion. Keep in mind that at a certain point going with a wider tire doesn’t translate to a wider contact patch (as is commonly believed). I’ve ran both a 245 and a 275 width tire (same brand/model) on an 8.5" wheel and had the exact same contact patch. The tire size Andy mentioned of a 255/35/18 would look great on a 9" wheel, at all 4 corners.
Its going on a domestic V8 haha…dont want to mention it until I have the car.
But for example, shelby cobra mustangs have a stock square wheel set up but run staggered tires.
Also being able to rotate tires will add a bunch of life to the setup.
All good points, just mildly concerned about traction and aesthetics. Its a bit of a fat bodied car and running a 245 out back seems to look more V6 than V8…why they made the factory wheel uprgade so narrow blows my mind…American Cars…geesh
Again, traction becomes a null point if you go with too wide of tire on your wheel. I don’t have the pic, but based on the wear pattern of my 245 / 275 width comparison mentioned above I saw the exact same contact patch. Sure the 275 bulged out more and looked the part (hillbilly), but the car didn’t get any faster.
On the +, a square set up will be less expensive and the rotation will be a beneft, esp since I think they car will have a hard time putting any power to the ground outside of a drag radial.
My 2004 CTS-V had 245 all the way around (18x8.5), granted wheel-hop was more of an issue than traction when launching. I would buy a better/grippy tire that you can rotate and last longer.
I would be really happy to run a 265 all the way around but it just wont fit on the fronts…which is why I had thought about a 245/265 set up. but its sounds like I may be 245 all the way around
dont be a wuss lol
lol…tell them to make wider wheels so I could run 315s!
I believe it is 235&265, and 245&275 and 255/285.
Personally, the maximum size tire I would run on a 9.5 is a 275. The minimum would be 245 but it will have a bit of stretch. id rather have stretch than ballooning.
If they are square 18x9 I would do 235/40/18 and 265/35/18. Should be equal diameter for most manufacturers
This is not true.
I would want the “squarest” most rectangular shaped footprint. That is, I would want the length of the contact patch at the shoulder to be as close as possible to (but not exceeding) the length of the contact patch at the center line.
I would love to see an ink footprint of this.
Perhaps the width of the contact patch looked similar. I am very certain that the shape would be different in this scenario.
Unfortunately, this was years ago and is all but a memory. The width measured out the same on the two tires, lots of wasted tread on the 275 from the bulge effect. We can get as scientific as we want, but the end result was similar results when it came to the performance.