mafay

I am thinking to run 17*9 +63 all the way around, but with 245/40 tires at the front and 255/40 tires at the rear. Will this work with stock suspension without rolling the fender? Or should I stick with 255/40 all four corners?

Jin_SK

At stock height you should have no problems, even with a 255. If you get really aggressive on the track, you may want to roll anyway just to be on the safe side. Rear is fine. With the wheels you may rub on the control arm which can be fixed with a 3mm spacer. If you do 255 all around then you can rotate, so square wouldn't be a bad way to go.

Sebring AP1

Do 4 tires of the same size so you can rotate to get better life out of them, IMO

dc2-2-ap1

I agree, run 255 on all 4. If you are worried about rubbing, you can always run 245 all around. There are a lot of people running that setup without problems.

ZDan

Don't get the fixation on square setups. I'd run 245/255, why not? Having equal sizes does not improve tire wear. There is more space for tire width in back, why not utilize it?

I ran square 225/50-14 for years on the 240z, which worked great. I always ran staggered on the S2k, which also worked great. If it worked out that I needed new rears before fronts, so what?

s2000Junky

^^^ I share the same philosophy with ZDan here. I certainly have my tire stagger preferences on this car, but running less tire then you can fit in back, just so you can rotate tires really rub's me the wrong way. 245/255 makes more sense performance wise.

mas2kap1

some people will say that the square set up will spoil the handling/fun of the car.
there is no right/wrong answer, just a matter of taste and driving style.
I figured after hours and hours of research and testing done by honda led to a staggered set up, maybe it was meant for the vehicle?
I went staggered, but i think ill try 255's all around next as an experiment!!

RedCelica

It really helps if you can swap front to rear and vice versa though

I find that my fronts and rears wear evenly if you drive the car moderately aggressive though. Im running 225/255 setup.

ZDan

How? If you wear rears at a greater rate than fronts, swapping the tires around doesn't change this fact. If, without rotation, you were changing rears every 15k miles and fronts every 20k, then with rotation you'll be changing them all at 17.5k. No change in average tire wear rate or cost.

I don't get the fixation on even wear, either. People tend to exaggerate how much life is lost from uneven wear due to camber. Say the insides are worn down and there's still 4/32" tread on the outside. That doesn't mean that with no camber you'd be at 4/32 across the tread...

I run some camber for better ultimate cornering grip, -1.5 front, -2 rear. I'm at 18k on RS-3 rears and counting, still 2/32 to the wear bars. Serious performance tires also seem to wear pretty evenly for me despite camber, anyway (two track days on these, one in the cold/wet). Weirdly, I did get serious "camber wear" on my front winter tires, never seen that on Max or Extreme Perf Summers with the same alignment.

Anyway, I don't worry about "even wear" much. If having reasonable camber for ultimate cornering grip costs 10-15% tire life, so be it.

RedCelica

Dan, it seems to be that because the rate doesn't change (hence, the rears are wearing faster than the fronts by 50%), that you'll get an extra 5k out of going nonstagger. 255s up front will help with braking performance as well.