Handling characteristics with staggered and/or larger wheels?
Full Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 160
Likes: 2
From: TN
Once again, I was not talking about track use or what is better for a particular type of racing. The original question was about a guy with a stock-ish car who likes twisties and stuff of that nature, which is surely what Mazda had in mind with the original design...wouldn't you think.
You are right however, I can get nowhere with my point if everyone here is answering the question to suit themselves rather than answer what was asked by the thread starter. I will bow out...
You are right however, I can get nowhere with my point if everyone here is answering the question to suit themselves rather than answer what was asked by the thread starter. I will bow out...
Last edited by Dane; Mar 29, 2005 at 01:17 PM.
Originally Posted by rynberg
Well, I'm pretty sure I remember Manny saying that he felt much more comfortable on the track with his staggered setup (17x8.5, 17x9.5 SSR Comps) than with his symmetrical street setup (17x9). I think in the last year or so, he was just running his "street setup" on the track. Not sure about that though, Manny has apparently moved on and is no longer posting here...
https://www.rx7club.com/suspension-wheels-tires-brakes-20/equal-tire-size-fr-rr-vs-staggered-fitment-performance-s-344927/
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,617
Likes: 8
From: Dallas
You can go to a staggered setup to make the car more benign for you in the oversteer world if that's what you wish. On the other hand if you want to add more rubber to the car and all you do is add it to the rear you're giving up the extra braking grip that increasing the front as well would give you.
The FD doesn't need staggered rubber until you get nearer to 300 hp or so IMO.
The FD doesn't need staggered rubber until you get nearer to 300 hp or so IMO.
Last edited by DamonB; Mar 29, 2005 at 01:50 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 528
Likes: 1
From: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by Dane
Once again, I was not talking about track use or what is better for a particular type of racing. The original question was about a guy with a stock-ish car who likes twisties and stuff of that nature, which is surely what Mazda had in mind with the original design...wouldn't you think.
You are right however, I can get nowhere with my point if everyone here is answering the question to suit themselves rather than answer what was asked by the thread starter. I will bow out...
You are right however, I can get nowhere with my point if everyone here is answering the question to suit themselves rather than answer what was asked by the thread starter. I will bow out...
An excerpt from that post:
Originally Posted by Shad Laws
Hello-
Just how much does having staggered wheel sizes (say 8.5" in front and 9.5" in rear, for the sake of argument) change the handling characteristics of the FD at the limits? What about bigger rims and, consequently, shorter sidewalls?
Just how much does having staggered wheel sizes (say 8.5" in front and 9.5" in rear, for the sake of argument) change the handling characteristics of the FD at the limits? What about bigger rims and, consequently, shorter sidewalls?
Gene
You input is always appreciated.
Bringing this thread back up, b/c I'm curious about a different type of staggard setup... one that I've almost never heard of in the FD world, but seems to be practically standard on modern sportscars, including the new Z06. It's running staggard rim diameters AND widths. For example, the new Z06 runs 18 x 9.5 in the front, and 19 x 12.0 in the rear. The new Viper runs 18 x 10.0 fronts and 19 x 13.0 rears. The new Porsche GT runs 19 x 9.5 fronts and 20 x 12.5 rears, etc etc
I'm not so concerned w/ asthetics...and I've read many a time that ride quality goes out the window when you go w/ 19s, but I ask myself, in a car of such high caliber as the Z06 - especially in performance & handling, would they run such a setup if it hindered performance and handling? In short, what are the pros and cons of running both staggard diameter and width wheels? And if 19s are so bad, how come many high performance wheels and tires come in 19s?
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
~Ramy
I'm not so concerned w/ asthetics...and I've read many a time that ride quality goes out the window when you go w/ 19s, but I ask myself, in a car of such high caliber as the Z06 - especially in performance & handling, would they run such a setup if it hindered performance and handling? In short, what are the pros and cons of running both staggard diameter and width wheels? And if 19s are so bad, how come many high performance wheels and tires come in 19s?
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
~Ramy
Last edited by FDNewbie; Jan 13, 2006 at 12:48 AM.
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,617
Likes: 8
From: Dallas
Most production cars that have larger diameter wheels on the rear do it for purely cosmetic reasons. Their literature will come up with some spin that makes the concept sound advanced but they do it just to look cool 
What really changes ride quality is not the diameter of the wheel but how much sidewall you have on the tire. Granted larger diameter wheels tend to have lower profiles to make the tire fit, but if you look at production vehicles that are built at the factory with huge wheels you'll find that their tires are larger in diameter as well so they still have some sidewall. When fitting a larger diameter wheel than the car was designed for you don't get that choice.
Here's are wheels from a Chrysler 300C. Check out how much sidewall is on these things. It's not what most would call a low profile tire!
What really changes ride quality is not the diameter of the wheel but how much sidewall you have on the tire. Granted larger diameter wheels tend to have lower profiles to make the tire fit, but if you look at production vehicles that are built at the factory with huge wheels you'll find that their tires are larger in diameter as well so they still have some sidewall. When fitting a larger diameter wheel than the car was designed for you don't get that choice.
Here's are wheels from a Chrysler 300C. Check out how much sidewall is on these things. It's not what most would call a low profile tire!
Last edited by DamonB; Jan 13, 2006 at 07:35 AM.
Thanks (yet again) Damon. And I thought there was some real R&D behind such a staggard setup haha.
I really liked what Gene mentioned earlier
A 285/30 up front and a 305 or even 315 in the rear would be a nice balance. And even a 30 profile in a 315 is still quite a bit of sidewall...
I really liked what Gene mentioned earlier
Originally Posted by gfelber
I was pretty happy with the symmetical setup and many still swear by it. The biggest drawback for me was running the 285-30-18 rear which has a very short sidewall and had a tendency toward snap oversteer and poor breakaway characteristics. I used to run 17x10 with 275-40s all around and liked the handling characteristics better at the rear (though turn-in is better on 285-30-18 up front) . That's why I went with a 285 up front and a taller sidewall/wider 305 in the rear.
Sushi ******!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
From: Florida
Originally Posted by SoontobeLS1'd
I simply decided to go with a staggered setup on my FC due to the torque I will be putting out with this project. 235 front, 255 rear. 
Heh with the LS1 you'll be needing more than 275's in the back. I am in the same boat as you, but my max in the rear is 265 on stock fenders. I don't like the drag racer look with 275's in the rear. Also, I am trying to keep my front and rear widths as close as possible.
