![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Recently I upgraded both the wheels and tyres on my car, and had to go to a 70 profile height instead of 80, because I was worried about the rolling radius being different to original. Would this actually have been a problem, because next time I might fit the higher profile in order to get a better ride? |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Depends if you changed the width. Usual reason for going lower profile is to maintain the gear ratios and speedo calibration (and wheel arch clearance) when using wider than standard tyres. eg. 145/80/10 is roughly the same rolling radius as 165/70/10 (and possibly 165/55/12?). The poor ride is the price you pay for fashionably wide boots. (A lot worse with 175/50/13s, I would guess.) "greasemonkey78" <bonefish45 (AT) tiscali (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:afc2f7debcb1db7e7ce350f41f38f28d (AT) localhost (DOT) talkaboutautos.com... Recently I upgraded both the wheels and tyres on my car, and had to go to a 70 profile height instead of 80, because I was worried about the rolling radius being different to original. Would this actually have been a problem, because next time I might fit the higher profile in order to get a better ride? |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
I have two cars (mine and the wifes) on 13's and both are comfortable....my 66 S on 10's is more nimble and easier on tight turning... but feels ever pot hole in the roads .... Mind you both cars on 13's have the Moulton Smooth ride kits fitted..... "Paul Prescott" <Paul.Prescott2 (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote in message news:TUvIe.12558$9K3.8080 (AT) newsfe7-win (DOT) ntli.net... Depends if you changed the width. Usual reason for going lower profile is to maintain the gear ratios and speedo calibration (and wheel arch clearance) when using wider than standard tyres. eg. 145/80/10 is roughly the same rolling radius as 165/70/10 (and possibly 165/55/12?). The poor ride is the price you pay for fashionably wide boots. (A lot worse with 175/50/13s, I would guess.) "greasemonkey78" <bonefish45 (AT) tiscali (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:afc2f7debcb1db7e7ce350f41f38f28d (AT) localhost (DOT) talkaboutautos.com... Recently I upgraded both the wheels and tyres on my car, and had to go to a 70 profile height instead of 80, because I was worried about the rolling radius being different to original. Would this actually have been a problem, because next time I might fit the higher profile in order to get a better ride? |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
Tim, does the '66 'S' still have the 40 year-old rubber springs? Cheers, Kelley On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:22:26 +1200, "Tim" tim_lis(NOSPAM)@clear.net.nz> wrote: I have two cars (mine and the wifes) on 13's and both are comfortable....my 66 S on 10's is more nimble and easier on tight turning... but feels ever pot hole in the roads .... Mind you both cars on 13's have the Moulton Smooth ride kits fitted..... "Paul Prescott" <Paul.Prescott2 (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote in message news:TUvIe.12558$9K3.8080 (AT) newsfe7-win (DOT) ntli.net... Depends if you changed the width. Usual reason for going lower profile is to maintain the gear ratios and speedo calibration (and wheel arch clearance) when using wider than standard tyres. eg. 145/80/10 is roughly the same rolling radius as 165/70/10 (and possibly 165/55/12?). The poor ride is the price you pay for fashionably wide boots. (A lot worse with 175/50/13s, I would guess.) "greasemonkey78" <bonefish45 (AT) tiscali (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:afc2f7debcb1db7e7ce350f41f38f28d (AT) localhost (DOT) talkaboutautos.com... Recently I upgraded both the wheels and tyres on my car, and had to go to a 70 profile height instead of 80, because I was worried about the rolling radius being different to original. Would this actually have been a problem, because next time I might fit the higher profile in order to get a better ride? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |