Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan
Enkei RPF1: 17x8 = 15.6 lb., 17x9 = 15.9 lb.
Michelin Pilot SuperSport: 225/45-17 = 22 lb., 245/40-17 = 23 lb.
1.3 lb. per corner
Ever so *slightly* better gearing and lower ride height with 24.7" 245/40s vs. the possibly/theoretically better mpg and ride with the 25" 225/45s!
|
Good job of finding that needle in a haystack! That example is far from the more typical 2-3lbs per corner. So much for the accuracy of Tire Rack's wheel weights. There is no avoiding some increase in rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag with wider tires. Thanks for your help but I have zero interest in RPF1s unless they're hyper black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Blue
You don't always have to compromise...at least not where you weren't going to already. In your OP you stated that you probably won't be lowering it. So what a great opportunity to go wider without worrying! Besides, 9's aren't really that wide anyway. As far as weight, do as ZDan said and get some Enkei's. They are the best bang for your buck on a purpose build.
|
I forgot to mention that I'm compromising some function for form too. Finish has to be hyper black. Current choices are Rota G-Force 17x8 +48, Torque +48 and Grid 2 +38. I have yet to find a 17x9 in HB that won't poke too much for my taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clintavo
I am at the same crossroads. The lightest affordable rim/tire combination I have found is the Kosei K4R 17x7 (14 lbs) and 215/45 Dunlop DZ101 (21 lbs). This would be over 5 lbs per corner weight reduction over stock, which in my experience is quite noticeable in acceleration and bumpy road handling.
17x8 RPF1 (15.6 lbs) with 225/45 is roughly 2 lbs heavier than the 17x7 combo above. Is the marginal increase in contact patch worth it?
17x8 or 9 with a 245 tire isn't an option for me: +45 disallows the use of camber bolts (rubs the spring perch), +35 pokes.
Am I missing another option?
|
In your example the extra contact patch is definitely not worth the extra weight, IMO.