FO2K

Just as the OEM 16 rear S02's have an unusually wide treadwidth, the OEM front RE050's have an unusually narrow treadwidth resulting in some difficulty maintaining the proper stagger when buying tires other than OEM RE050's.

For instance, treadwidths for 215/45/17 (fronts):

RE050 6.7 inches
S03's 8.0 inches
Dunlop SP Maxx 7.6 inches
Dunlop SP9000 7.9 inches
Goodyear GS03 7.1 inches
YOK AVS Sport 7.6 inches
Avon Tech M500 7.9 inches

It is apparent that the OEM front tire was designed with a much narrower tread than most other tires the same size.

This is not true of the rears (245/40/17) however:

RE050 9.0 inches
S03's 9.0 inches
Dunlop SP Maxx 8.8 inches
Dunlop SP9000 8.8 inches
Goodyear GS03 8.3 inches
YOK AVS Sport 8.7 inches
Avon Tech M500 9.0 inches

If some were to put S03's on there AP2. the rear tread width would remain the same, and the front would increase by 1.3 inches! I have to believe that this would significantly affect the handling of the car. If some one wanted to dial in more oversteer, fine. The change in handling may not be what everyone is looking for.

I suggest a sticky similar to the AP1 rear tire sticky for AP2 stagger issues.

l8brakr

Were all those measured on the same width rim? And what is your source? Have you measured this yourself to verify that they didn't make a typo and mean 7.6" for the RE050?

Before you go and request a sticky that may cause people to buy incorrectly sized tires provide a little research.

FO2K

All info came from the Tire Rack website.

I did measure them myself also, as soon as I got my car home from the dealer.

The treadwidth is a lot smaller than some 205 55 16's Ive got.

If you had an AP2 you would realize how narrow the fronts are.

l8brakr

I use 17" for my street tires but I wouldn't put the RE's on there because of cost. I looked on Bridestones site and they list the same 6.7" and only make that size for Honda so there's nothing to compare to but the section width is in the same ballpark as all the other tires (approx. 8-8.5). Why do they make us play guessing games with tires

FO2K

I don't know, it seems Honda could have used a 205 size to get the same results. It is odd how rounded the shoulder is on the fronts, and how square on the back.

I'll need one set of rears before the fronts are worn, after that there should be all kinds of new tires out there to choose from.

Silverstone04

I am struggling with this same issue. Looks like the closest way to maintain the front/rear tread width relationship is to go with 205/50 in the front and 255/40 in the back, unless you stick with the OEMs (which are also pretty pricey). Has anyone here tried this relationship?

I have been OK with the performance of the RE050s but don't want to be locked into them. I also am not interested in more oversteer - all the other cars in the household are fwd, so the S2000 is already an adjustment that way.

Silverstone04

mosesbotbol

Stick with S02's then.

FO2K

I don't think S02s come in 17 inch sizes.

Jim@tirerack

My guess is they went with the narrower front to to make the car understeer. Handling may be better with a slightly wider front tire.

Silverstone04

[QUOTE=Jim@tirerack,Sep 8 2005, 01:31 PM]My guess is they went with the narrower front to to make the car understeer.