Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Anyone else getting fed up with the lack of tire width?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    scappoose, or
    Posts
    754

    Anyone else getting fed up with the lack of tire width?

    I'm for one getting f'n tired of the lack of tire sizes available. 16s are the next size to lose good hi performance tire sizes. I just looked up bridgestones re11 the replacement for the re01r and I cant even get a 245 in 16. This is getting f'n stupid. It seems there is a real nich market for a company who starts providing wide tires for 13 14 15 16 and even 17 now.

    All these new throw away plastic junk cars use wheels bigger than a steem roller so why make tires for the rest of us. Look at me 19inch wheekls on ma gangsta dodge! Sur emy wheels weigh 800lbs, but I gots size with on offset.

  2. #2
    Administrator john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arlington, TX, USA
    Posts
    5,527
    FWIW, BFGoodrich still offers some of their older wider tires, but they have to be special ordered.

    Plan B? Start pestering these guys to reproduce them. 8)

    http://www.cokertire.com/

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    219
    16s have been on the decline for 15 years or so in performance sizes. 15" still has a good range and 17" is both cheaper and better supported than 16".

    It is a bit unfortunate.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,651
    Project Hako uses 245/50-14 tyres at the back, and pretty much the only performance option are Yokohama A352s, which are made in that size in batches only once every few years
    Hidden Content Originally Posted by datsunfreak
    No Kev, you are eating a duck fetus.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    47
    Coker tire is here in chattanooga.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    351

    Re: Anyone else getting fed up with the lack of tire width?

    Quote Originally Posted by city hunter
    Look at me 19inch wheekls on ma gangsta dodge! Sur emy wheels weigh 800lbs, but I gots size with on offset.
    HAHAHAHAHAHA I agree totally with u bro :tu:

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    285
    At one time, 195/60-14 was an extremely common tire size. 185/60-14 was the most common, and there were some 205/60-14 tires for high performance models. Now, a few 185s, one or two 195s, and no 205s.

    Tire size availability follows new car equipment, and someone had decided that they can only sell a car with a 17+ inch wheel, and a 255+ width tire.

    The news headlines may be telling us that everyone is trading in their Hummers for Kei cars, but the reality is very different. Chrysler continues to push back the North American release of the Fiat, leaving them with NO small car offering, while they release a newer, bigger, heavier Durango/Grand Cherokee. And Chrysler did not file for bankruptcy, GM did that and GM has small cars to sell. Make no mistake, SUVs are still selling well, and huge wheels with huge diameter tires are big sellers.

    Meanwhile, the "small" cars continue to get bigger. The New Mini is not mini. Scion's are bigger than 80's cars, and the IQ release in North America has been pushed back again. The Mazda 2 is bigger than 80's cars. Hyundai's new campaign is "You must shake your brainwashed belief that you must have a small car and buy the new, bigger Elantra".
    More importantly, small cars are no longer built for maximum fuel economy. Smaller diameter wheels and narrower tires weigh less and consume less energy to turn in a circle. But you can't buy a compact car with a wheel smaller than 16 inches, or a tire narrower than 8 inches, no matter how silly the tiny 9 inch brake rotor (or even worse a drum) looks in the huge space within the body of the wheel.

    One of the recent TV programs had an interview:
    "How come my 1975 Civic got 50 MPG, and I can't buy a new Fit that gets better than 40 MPG? Where is all the technological progress, or did we loose the ability to build fuel efficient cars at some point?"
    The answer being that a 1975 Civic was built for fuel economy, with small and light weight moving parts (as in small wheels and tires). And the FIT is built to haul around four 400+ pound passengers on bling wheels and stupidly wide tires.

    If car companies were serious about making fuel efficient vehicles, whey would be looking at 1970's cars and land speed record cars for inspiration. Narrow and light weight wheels and tires. More sidewall and less metal. Smaller diameter tires. And those of us who continue to drive cars that are actually fuel efficient, would have no problem finding tires in the right sizes.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    1,608
    Quote Originally Posted by JT191
    But you can't buy a compact car with a wheel smaller than 16 inches, or a tire narrower than 8 inches, no matter how silly the tiny 9 inch brake rotor (or even worse a drum) looks in the huge space within the body of the wheel.
    The Mazda2 rolls on 15s. :tu:

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Camshaft
    Quote Originally Posted by JT191
    But you can't buy a compact car with a wheel smaller than 16 inches, or a tire narrower than 8 inches, no matter how silly the tiny 9 inch brake rotor (or even worse a drum) looks in the huge space within the body of the wheel.
    The Mazda2 rolls on 15s. :tu:
    You're right, and 185/55-15 tires.
    But it's 100 HP, 10 inch disks on the front, and 8 inch drums on the rear, and weighs 2,400 pounds. 14x5.5 wheels would be appropriate for that vehicle if it were 130 HP. 13 inch would match the power level and might fit. The stock 15 inch would work better with 160 HP, and only if you were going to flog the heck out of it, other wise it's overkill.

    I actually really like the Mazda 2. It's 4 inches too tall to be acceptable in stock form (7 inches taller than ideal). It would be nice in a two door lift back. The rear axle is beam axle, 1980's technology whose best use is holding down a trash can. But looking at it I was thinking it might make a good chassis for my engines, once the bodies of my cars rust away to dust. And I was probably the only person at the show walking between the RX8 and the 2, trying to figure out if the Rotary would fit in the 2.

    But think about the kind of mileage numbers these cars would get if someone actually equipped them for economy, with 165 width tires, no lead lined cup holders, none of the air conditioned center consoles, no 50 way power seats, etc. Volk even introduced a new range of ultra light weight Eco wheels in smaller diameters and narrower widths, so there is a niche that the car manufacturers are not filling with their original equipment.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    1,608
    Stance > economy. It's what's in right now. Young guys are buying econoboxes and fixing them up according to what's hot. Just be thankful we aren't all rolling SUVs anymore.

Similar Threads

  1. Hakos without front flares: Front Watanabe Width ?
    By ericbauer in forum Datsun/Nissan Garage
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 09:14 PM
  2. Good Tire size?
    By StinkyTurbo in forum Toyota Garage
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 11:40 PM
  3. Hako Track Width
    By Never Lift Garage in forum General Discussion, JNC News & FAQ
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-25-2012, 03:24 PM
  4. Best guess (size,width, offset)
    By nzjdm in forum Resto Tips, Wheels & Other Goodies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-11-2012, 11:07 AM
  5. 75 280z bucking, lack of power...
    By Dachshund in forum Datsun/Nissan Garage
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-16-2011, 05:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •