2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.
Sponsored by:

Anyone running 205/55-15 tires?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-06-12, 01:00 PM
  #26  
Full Member

Thread Starter
 
pls91fc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Shark: I wasn't so much disagreeing with the fuel efficiency portion of your satement as we all know the RX7 is a sports car. I am more concerned about the effects on drivetrain wear, etc.
Old 01-06-12, 02:21 PM
  #27  
Theoretical Tinkerer

iTrader: (41)
 
RXSpeed16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Norcal/Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,589
Received 46 Likes on 32 Posts
Today's math fun fact. The S5 NA's and S5 GTUs rear ends had 4.1 and 4.3 ratios respectively. That's a 5% difference, but they were equipped with the same wheel/tire combo. All I'm saying is that 3% difference is a made up number and there are options that work.
Old 01-06-12, 08:25 PM
  #28  
Stay Into It!
iTrader: (1)
 
rx7w/yaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: lewis county Wa
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
... is there really a discussion on the pros and cons of tire size for stock wheels?

The damage being done by changing series of tire has to be so minimal it would almost be non existent. These cars are already 26-20 years old, if it breaks fix it. A bigger set of wheels may do damage with the added weight and larger tire diameter but changing the series your running by +/- 5 or 10... idk, I would run it. But Im also running 18x8s.
Old 01-06-12, 10:20 PM
  #29  
Perfectly Broken

iTrader: (7)
 
GuiltySoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Dirty Jerz
Posts: 1,288
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by rx7w/yaw
... is there really a discussion on the pros and cons of tire size for stock wheels?

The damage being done by changing series of tire has to be so minimal it would almost be non existent. These cars are already 26-20 years old, if it breaks fix it. A bigger set of wheels may do damage with the added weight and larger tire diameter but changing the series your running by +/- 5 or 10... idk, I would run it. But Im also running 18x8s.
thank you! and the difference between 60 and 55 side is a 10mm difference, unless our diffs were made of tin i dont think a 10mm difference will kill your drivetrain faster than normal. ALSO doesn't it depend on the driver? if u want results get 2 fc's, n/a, same diff, trans, and stock engine with no bolt ons, have it overhauled, and make 1 fc run 205/55/15 and the other 205/60/r15. drive em with equal mileage, take the drivetrain and motor out and see who has the most wear!

The challenge has been set, GO!
Old 01-06-12, 10:27 PM
  #30  
Perfectly Broken

iTrader: (7)
 
GuiltySoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Dirty Jerz
Posts: 1,288
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
and arron cake if your out there, i call upon your vast knowledge to please end this feud! lol I do not want to know whos right or wrong, just an answer so we can go on and fulfill our fc's dream of running correctly (for some at least running)
Old 01-07-12, 08:14 AM
  #31  
Ban Peak

iTrader: (49)
 
Molotovman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 3,995
Received 412 Likes on 265 Posts
Originally Posted by pls91fc
Shark: I wasn't so much disagreeing with the fuel efficiency portion of your satement as we all know the RX7 is a sports car. I am more concerned about the effects on drivetrain wear, etc.
If you are concerned about drivetrain wear, keep your car parked.

As stated before, running a smaller tire gets you more tire rpm. It's also slightly lighter than a stock tire, which puts less stress on your suspension and brakes.

In my opinion, it's less stressful for the far. It will make you accelerate a very tiny bit faster, and you will have a lower top speed.

Have any of you ever seen vehicles that spec for..... MULTIPLE TIRE SIZES? They are very common........
This whole argument is dumb. There is a minimal difference, the only thing you'll notice is your speedo being SLIGHTLY incorrect.
Old 01-07-12, 10:03 PM
  #32  
Full Member
iTrader: (4)
 
lim_fc3c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
kumho ecsta ast H rated 400a/a treadwear 225/50/15, around $70 bucks a tire. Best $300 bucks i spent besides my coilovers lol.
my speedo is off by about 2-3mph @ 60mph, fuel mileage really didn't change much, less stress on the clutch (lighter flywheel) due to ratio differences, and acceleration improved greatly. That extra wear BS is all fooey lol
**** bridgestone, and BFG's..... had horrible luck with both of them in 215/60/15 sizes.

Last edited by lim_fc3c; 01-07-12 at 10:06 PM.
Old 01-08-12, 01:47 AM
  #33  
Rotary Enthusiast

iTrader: (4)
 
tweaked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I have gone up and down in both tire and wheels sizes many times. Two years ago i was autocrossing with 235/40/17s. I didn't have as much acceleration, but it cornered great.

But going to a smaller tire is different. Plus, the change isn't much. It certainly isn't enough to cause additional wear. A 205/60/15 is 24.7", while a 205/50/15 is only 23.1". so it would effectively lower your overall gear ratio. Giving you some added torque for launches and accelerating. This is exactly what I'm going to do after I get my car ready for next seasons races.
the smaller tires will, however, require higher RPMs at highway speeds. It's a 6.5% difference. So with your car reading 60, you would really be going something like 56. It's probably possible to change the speedo gear to make it accurate.

If you want to talk about drive train wear with tire size, then come and play with my 4x4. 33" tires replace 27" tires, 10% larger difference and something like 35 pounds heavier. Front wheel bearing are serviced often on that truck.
Old 01-08-12, 12:03 PM
  #34  
Moderator

iTrader: (3)
 
j9fd3s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,829
Received 2,597 Likes on 1,845 Posts
Originally Posted by ColinShark
Yeah, it is changing the final drive ratio. I guess you would call it the final final drive ratio.

An RX-7 is not an economy car, it's a sports car. Resources you expend making your RX-7 fuel efficient should either:
A: Be spent on a naturally fuel efficient car or...
B: Be spent maximizing the RX-7s other fun traits, which don't include fuel economy.

The stock tire size is a product of 80s tires, and expectations for comfort and looks from the time period. Modern cars run shorter sidewalls. An RX-7 is at home on the shorter sidewalls. The shorter gearing is a benefit. The gearing will still be taller than the stock gearing of a TurboII. An NA has less power to play with. Like jdfd3s said, it wakes up the car.

If you have a lower mileage 7 that's showroom stock, the 60 series has the benefit of keeping the factory look and feel.

If you asked one of the original Mazda engineers this question today, they would recommend the 55 series for performance driving.
interesting! 205-50-15's do make it look like its a cancer patient, vs the normal 205-60-15.....

mazda's tire sizing is actually fairly logical, they run fairly consistent sizing. although the side wall depends on the wheel diameter, so a T2 is a 205/50/16 and the NA is 205/60/15, the overall diameters are really close. the Rx8 is 225/45/18 or 225/40/19, again really close.

i did do the math 205/50/15 vs 205/60/15 is like going from 4.10 to 4.4 in the diff, and its much much cheaper!
Old 01-10-12, 06:49 AM
  #35  
Rotary Freak

iTrader: (16)
 
PvillKnight7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
4.4 to a 4.10?
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Akaviri
Introduce yourself
6
09-09-15 03:56 PM



Quick Reply: Anyone running 205/55-15 tires?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 PM.