NOTICE: Correct Rear Tire Size AP1
02-28-2002, 07:08 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
golfnut311,
Whoh...I just found some literature on wheel width ranges on tirerack.com. Check it out:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/tir...l#rimwidthrange
Whoh...I just found some literature on wheel width ranges on tirerack.com. Check it out:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/tir...l#rimwidthrange
02-28-2002, 08:23 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vernon - NW NJ
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phantom and Jim -- Thanks for the quick replies. Does it help out??? Sort of. I'm not sure this is something you are going to get/understand all at once, but it is starting to sink in. I think I will just take the suggestion to use the 245/45/16 and stick to golf. (lol). It sure was easier just taking the family van in and telling them to replace the tires with no real thought as to what was being put on. Was this stupid of me? Probably, but I knew the van wasn't going to be going 100+MPH with the kids in it.
Thanks again for all your help. I just called Jim at TireRack for some prices. I was quoted $420.00 for the rear S03's 245/45/16 at my local tire store(mount and balance included). They said if I got the tires myself, the mount and balance would be $50.00 per tire as the rims are special? Is this possible?
Thanks again. (Foooooore)
Thanks again for all your help. I just called Jim at TireRack for some prices. I was quoted $420.00 for the rear S03's 245/45/16 at my local tire store(mount and balance included). They said if I got the tires myself, the mount and balance would be $50.00 per tire as the rims are special? Is this possible?
Thanks again. (Foooooore)
02-28-2002, 10:34 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vernon - NW NJ
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phantom - THANKS AGAIN -- Looks like using Tire Rack will save me about $40+ bucks. Jim from TireRack did return my call and gave me the price you quoted as well, and you are right, there is no sales tax if I get them thru him. Soooooo, I'll be ordering them this afternoon.
Thanks again for all you help. You guys are GREAT!!!
Thanks again for all you help. You guys are GREAT!!!
03-08-2002, 05:13 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Land of the landeaus
Posts: 2,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been awhile since chiming in on this thread and it looks like I need to catch up, so without further ado.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cdelena
It would be better if you informed everyone of actual measurements rather than theoretical measurements based upon printed material.
OK, here tis: Nitto's tire survey was done using a 235/45ZR17 tire obtained from five other competitors. Each tire was mounted on a 17x8 wheel with 31psi and a load of 992-lbs. The data results I posted elsewhere so I won't repeat them here. My point in the earlier post was to state that due to the construction of the NT-555 tire, it also (like our SO-2's) has an unusually wide contact patch for its size when compared to same sized tires from the competition. I do not own (nor intend to buy one tire of each) to measure them myself as you seem to suggest I do. Afterall, I'm sure Nitto's ability to perform a contact patch measurement mirrors my own method...that being horizontally, so I'm comfortable working with percentages and not inches.
I have no data that says you are wrong, but this is a confusing issue without introducing unproven data. I believe from the above, the data was proven, not only with #'s but with photos. You can clearly see the differences in the tires. Check back issues of SCC for more info.
You were mistaken in a post regarding the front tires when you supposed measurements based on stats rather than an actual comparison of mounted tires (which I have done), so do us a favor and check this out before insisting on the tread width of various brands.
I'm not sure what post of mine you are referring to. If you would be more specific, I will do my best to reply as judiciously to your last comment as I have above. Until then, I won't be able to comment further on "supposed measurements."
OK...on to the others.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cdelena
It would be better if you informed everyone of actual measurements rather than theoretical measurements based upon printed material.
OK, here tis: Nitto's tire survey was done using a 235/45ZR17 tire obtained from five other competitors. Each tire was mounted on a 17x8 wheel with 31psi and a load of 992-lbs. The data results I posted elsewhere so I won't repeat them here. My point in the earlier post was to state that due to the construction of the NT-555 tire, it also (like our SO-2's) has an unusually wide contact patch for its size when compared to same sized tires from the competition. I do not own (nor intend to buy one tire of each) to measure them myself as you seem to suggest I do. Afterall, I'm sure Nitto's ability to perform a contact patch measurement mirrors my own method...that being horizontally, so I'm comfortable working with percentages and not inches.
I have no data that says you are wrong, but this is a confusing issue without introducing unproven data. I believe from the above, the data was proven, not only with #'s but with photos. You can clearly see the differences in the tires. Check back issues of SCC for more info.
You were mistaken in a post regarding the front tires when you supposed measurements based on stats rather than an actual comparison of mounted tires (which I have done), so do us a favor and check this out before insisting on the tread width of various brands.
I'm not sure what post of mine you are referring to. If you would be more specific, I will do my best to reply as judiciously to your last comment as I have above. Until then, I won't be able to comment further on "supposed measurements."
OK...on to the others.
03-08-2002, 05:25 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Land of the landeaus
Posts: 2,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TKG 26
Russ, not sure if this makes a difference, but therein may lie your problem....
the OE tire IS NOT a PP (Pole Position) - a 225/50/16 SO-2 Pole Position is NOT the tire that came on the car - the car came with non-Pole Positions that are about the equivalent of a 245.
I know that. I did not state in my comparison with the NT-555 that they used our OEM, I stated PP because I wanted to make that distinction. What I did imply was that there is less than .5 inches between the two SO-2's and that as a result of the NT-555 being constructed with the same type of attention being paid to contact patch, the difference between our OEM and the Nitto would NOT be as significant as it is between our OEM and the over-the-counter SO-2.
if you were to compare a PP S)-2 and the OE SO-2 in 225/50/16 - they would physically be different widths (i.e. measured width)
Yes
bridgestone makes both a PP and non-PP version (maybe not anymore, but they used to)
Yes
don't compare the nitto or any other tire to a SO-2 PP in like sizes.
Not doing so would make me stupid. Of course I am going to compare. Not only tread width, sidewall construction, load rating, speed rating, treadwear rating, etc. That last comment doesn't make any sense at all. An informed consumer would of course compare tires but if you are implying that the OEM tires have their own unique characteristics, then we are in agreement but for some reason, many of you guys are brainwashed into thinking this is the only tire on the planet with a "wide" 225.
My point from the get-go was to get some of you to do YOUR research. How in heck could anyone here assume that there is no other tire on the planet comparable to the OEM for like-sized width? My original statement remains...there ARE alternatives if one has the time and inclination to do their own research. Has ANYONE here measured a Yokohama NEXUS (no longer available unless it's NOS)? Probably not. How about a Pirelli P-ZERO Assimetrico?
Please don't read tone into my words as they are not meant to berate. I'm 40 years old and have been doing P1, P2 and P3 combos for 20 years. I realize the OEM's are wide for their size but how many of you know ONE of the reasons why is because it is mounted on a 7.5-inch wheel? I believe the approved measuring width of a 225/50/16 inch tire is 7-inches so by this tire being mounted on a 7.5-inch wheel, it gains approximately 5mm of contact patch. This principal would apply to any brand of tire. In addition, Krazik states using the stock wheel, a 245/45/16 is strongly recommended but he also fails to mention that the measured rim width for most tire brands this size is 8 inches, so by mounting that size tire on our stock 7.5-inch wheel, one has lost 5mm of that 245's contact patch. Just a thought.
Moving on....
Russ, not sure if this makes a difference, but therein may lie your problem....
the OE tire IS NOT a PP (Pole Position) - a 225/50/16 SO-2 Pole Position is NOT the tire that came on the car - the car came with non-Pole Positions that are about the equivalent of a 245.
I know that. I did not state in my comparison with the NT-555 that they used our OEM, I stated PP because I wanted to make that distinction. What I did imply was that there is less than .5 inches between the two SO-2's and that as a result of the NT-555 being constructed with the same type of attention being paid to contact patch, the difference between our OEM and the Nitto would NOT be as significant as it is between our OEM and the over-the-counter SO-2.
if you were to compare a PP S)-2 and the OE SO-2 in 225/50/16 - they would physically be different widths (i.e. measured width)
Yes
bridgestone makes both a PP and non-PP version (maybe not anymore, but they used to)
Yes
don't compare the nitto or any other tire to a SO-2 PP in like sizes.
Not doing so would make me stupid. Of course I am going to compare. Not only tread width, sidewall construction, load rating, speed rating, treadwear rating, etc. That last comment doesn't make any sense at all. An informed consumer would of course compare tires but if you are implying that the OEM tires have their own unique characteristics, then we are in agreement but for some reason, many of you guys are brainwashed into thinking this is the only tire on the planet with a "wide" 225.
My point from the get-go was to get some of you to do YOUR research. How in heck could anyone here assume that there is no other tire on the planet comparable to the OEM for like-sized width? My original statement remains...there ARE alternatives if one has the time and inclination to do their own research. Has ANYONE here measured a Yokohama NEXUS (no longer available unless it's NOS)? Probably not. How about a Pirelli P-ZERO Assimetrico?
Please don't read tone into my words as they are not meant to berate. I'm 40 years old and have been doing P1, P2 and P3 combos for 20 years. I realize the OEM's are wide for their size but how many of you know ONE of the reasons why is because it is mounted on a 7.5-inch wheel? I believe the approved measuring width of a 225/50/16 inch tire is 7-inches so by this tire being mounted on a 7.5-inch wheel, it gains approximately 5mm of contact patch. This principal would apply to any brand of tire. In addition, Krazik states using the stock wheel, a 245/45/16 is strongly recommended but he also fails to mention that the measured rim width for most tire brands this size is 8 inches, so by mounting that size tire on our stock 7.5-inch wheel, one has lost 5mm of that 245's contact patch. Just a thought.
Moving on....
03-08-2002, 05:45 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Land of the landeaus
Posts: 2,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phantom
No offense...but please do some better research before you post.
I don't know why you are regurgitating NT555 advertisements and recommending it for our rears...when they don't even make a size that will fit our stock rear wheels.
I realize that. Any visit to their web site would indicate that (as it appeared you did before posting). It should have been obvious I used that particular tire as an example of one manufacturer's attempt to maximize contact patch. For those looking to go to a larger tire/wheel package, it THEN becomes an option. If you go back and read my original reply to Krazik, I pointed out the plus option did not work with his advice, which sort of began with a whitewash statement, ""If you are not running the OEM tires on the rear of the S2K, you should be running a 245/45/16 in the rear. " After my reply, I noticed he then re-edited it to read, "This advice applies to the Stock Rims, with NON-OEM tires." I still will part ways even with that statement, since others have successfully transferred to a 16-inch tire of a different brand in the 225 size and voila! are still alive as we speak. I'm not sure what he originally intended to imply with the statement, but If he had said, "to maximize the OEM handling characteristics of our cars, you'll want to find a tire that exceeds the atypical contact patch area of a 225mm tire," I would have agreed wholeheartedly but there is a subliminal assumption being implied that by buying a Kumho 712 Ecsta in a 225/50/16, you are creating a death trap.
Stop talking about Nitto! It doesn't help our S2000 folk here.
I'd like to think you're not quite so narrowminded to assume Nitto doesn't make a quality tire for our car. Remember...my initial post mainly referred to plus sizing, so there are plenty of choices from them that would apply to the S2K. Are some of you guys on Bridgestone's payroll?
Overall, a good discussion with lots of useful (and I guess mundane info at times) but I guess we can agree to disagree. My only goal when replying to these "one size fits all" threads is that it implies when someone is replacing tires or looking for new tires/wheels, that anything OTHER than these recommendations puts the owner's life in danger or somehow seriously compromises the integrity of the car. It simply is not the case. How many of you would feel comfortable with 205's on all four corners on a mid-engined sportscar ALREADY known for being twitchy? I ran it HARD for months and loved it. I would never go so far as to recommend that for everyone, which is why I feel these "you MUST get this size" opinions are just that...opinions. Not everyone is taking offramps at double the posted speed limit, so those cases that WOULD apply to such advice are null and void. Maybe 245's to some who drive in afternoon thunderstorms is too wide a tire and a normal sized 225 would suit them better, especially if that tire is designed for wet weather which our OEM's are definitely not. My point is simple: Each owner has to look at his/her driving style and choose a tire/wheel combo applicable to the task at hand. Finding a tire as wide as the OEM should be anyone's goal, but there are too many S2K's out on the road with non-OEM 225's that are running just fine.
No offense...but please do some better research before you post.
I don't know why you are regurgitating NT555 advertisements and recommending it for our rears...when they don't even make a size that will fit our stock rear wheels.
I realize that. Any visit to their web site would indicate that (as it appeared you did before posting). It should have been obvious I used that particular tire as an example of one manufacturer's attempt to maximize contact patch. For those looking to go to a larger tire/wheel package, it THEN becomes an option. If you go back and read my original reply to Krazik, I pointed out the plus option did not work with his advice, which sort of began with a whitewash statement, ""If you are not running the OEM tires on the rear of the S2K, you should be running a 245/45/16 in the rear. " After my reply, I noticed he then re-edited it to read, "This advice applies to the Stock Rims, with NON-OEM tires." I still will part ways even with that statement, since others have successfully transferred to a 16-inch tire of a different brand in the 225 size and voila! are still alive as we speak. I'm not sure what he originally intended to imply with the statement, but If he had said, "to maximize the OEM handling characteristics of our cars, you'll want to find a tire that exceeds the atypical contact patch area of a 225mm tire," I would have agreed wholeheartedly but there is a subliminal assumption being implied that by buying a Kumho 712 Ecsta in a 225/50/16, you are creating a death trap.
Stop talking about Nitto! It doesn't help our S2000 folk here.
I'd like to think you're not quite so narrowminded to assume Nitto doesn't make a quality tire for our car. Remember...my initial post mainly referred to plus sizing, so there are plenty of choices from them that would apply to the S2K. Are some of you guys on Bridgestone's payroll?
Overall, a good discussion with lots of useful (and I guess mundane info at times) but I guess we can agree to disagree. My only goal when replying to these "one size fits all" threads is that it implies when someone is replacing tires or looking for new tires/wheels, that anything OTHER than these recommendations puts the owner's life in danger or somehow seriously compromises the integrity of the car. It simply is not the case. How many of you would feel comfortable with 205's on all four corners on a mid-engined sportscar ALREADY known for being twitchy? I ran it HARD for months and loved it. I would never go so far as to recommend that for everyone, which is why I feel these "you MUST get this size" opinions are just that...opinions. Not everyone is taking offramps at double the posted speed limit, so those cases that WOULD apply to such advice are null and void. Maybe 245's to some who drive in afternoon thunderstorms is too wide a tire and a normal sized 225 would suit them better, especially if that tire is designed for wet weather which our OEM's are definitely not. My point is simple: Each owner has to look at his/her driving style and choose a tire/wheel combo applicable to the task at hand. Finding a tire as wide as the OEM should be anyone's goal, but there are too many S2K's out on the road with non-OEM 225's that are running just fine.
03-20-2002, 12:40 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thessaloniki
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the car's brochure and it says all about Bridgestone and Honda that they worked together for the tires of this car and when it comes to the sizes it says "the rear wheels size is 255........- even bigger than the ones used in NSX which uses 245....". Before getting the car I thought that the size of the rear tires was 255. When I bought the car I got confused about the rear tires size because the way it is written in the brochure does not look like mistake, they make comparison with the NSX tires. Ever since I am wondering was their first choise the 255 and on the way they replased them with 225 but the brochures were already published ?? 
03-20-2002, 04:23 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Frederick
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just spent 30 min reading here. I just ordered rear tires from the tire rack last friday. After researching on their website, sounded like S03's were the way to go for me. Upon clicking on my car, the only tires mentioned were 225/50 16's. Now I'm reading that I should have purchased another size?? The car is at the dealership now to be serviced tomorrow and have the tires put on. I WAS excited about this til reading these posts. Why does the TireRack website recommend 225's and a TireRack employee recommend another?? I really wish I would have visited this site last week. I drive my car extremely hard, did I mess up? If so, I guess 10,000 miles doesn't take too long. Oh...what about the fronts? Perhaps that was mentioned and I missed it. Thanks in advance.