17" Weddsport tc105n, TRD Forged, or stock

[xdavidx]

I'm having trouble making a decision, so thought I'd see if you guys want to all try to force your opinions on me. If I find myself agreeing or disagreeing it will help me figure out what's right for me.


Car: 2019 Toyota 86 GT

Problem (in order of importance):


1) Grip on stock 215 tires is borderline dangerously bad, especially for how I drive and some of the canyon roads I drive on. This has also kept me from wanting to autocross, which I will do maybe once a year.

2) Negative camber resulting from lowering on TRD springs has made the stock wheels appear way too sunk in.
3) I just hate the way the stock wheels look.


Options I'm considering:
1) Replacing stock tires; 215, maybe can do 225?
Advantage: Cheap
Disadvantage: Everything else

2) 17x7.5" Matte Grey TRD forged wheels; 225, maybe can do 235 but not a lot of options there
Advantage: Maintains fairly stock appearance, saves a couple lbs on wheel weight, keeps car in stock autox class
Disadvantage: Lot of money for a minimal increase in tire width; wheel design is just 'ok'

3) 17x9" Weddsport tc105n; 245 seems the most I can do without risking hitting the suspension
Advantage: Widest tire option without sacrificing drive ability, weight not changed materially from stock
Disadvantage: Looks clearly aftermarket / I'm 40 and work an executive job



I've firmly decided already that I don't want to go larger than 17" due to road quality on my daily commute and various issues a smaller sidewall presents. Also decided I want Bridgestone RE-71s in all scenarios possible.


Obviously option 1 has some cost advantages. Options 2 and 3 I can do for about the same price.



Thoughts? Experiences? Judgement? Trolling?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by xdavidx

1) Grip on stock 215 tires is borderline dangerously bad, especially for how I drive and some of the canyon roads I drive on. This has also kept me from wanting to autocross, which I will do maybe once a year.

It's not the tire size, it's the compound/construction... 215 Extreme Perf tires like RE71R (top-dog), Rival S (right up there), or Hankook RS4/other would "fix" your grip issues.
225 or wider on wider-than-stock wheels works, but not necessary.

2) Negative camber resulting from lowering on TRD springs has made the stock wheels appear way too sunk in.[/quote}
Presumably rear camber? Lowering my car 1.25" on Swift BRZ Sport springs resulted in -2.4° rear camber which for my street/track usage I consider about perfect. You probably don't need to do anything for rear camber unless it's crazy asymmetric (like more than 0.5° difference left/right).

3) 17x9" Weddsport tc105n; 245 seems the most I can do without risking hitting the suspension
Advantage: Widest tire option without sacrificing drive ability, weight not changed materially from stock
Disadvantage: Looks clearly aftermarket / I'm 40 and work an executive job

Without front camber bolts, 245 on 17x9 TC105N fits just fine and looks great. Or you could run 235/40-17 or even 225/45-17. If you want more negative camber up front, you probably need camber plates. Try to get some that don't cost you much if any front bump travel...

Also decided I want Bridgestone RE-71s in all scenarios possible.

Other Extreme Perf options likely to give you 95% of the performance with 2x the tire life, but pretty sure RE71R are still top dog for lap times/autoX times.

[xdavidx]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It's not the tire size, it's the compound/construction... 215 Extreme Perf tires like RE71R (top-dog), Rival S (right up there), or Hankook RS4/other would "fix" your grip issues.
225 or wider on wider-than-stock wheels works, but not necessary.

Other Extreme Perf options likely to give you 95% of the performance with 2x the tire life, but pretty sure RE71R are still top dog for lap times/autoX times.

I think you just made my decision both easier and harder... Now I am second guessing my tire choice if I went with the tc105. I'd have a wider tire, but could then get a slightly longer lasting tire and that would ultimately give me at least as much grip as with either of the toyota wheels, but be better for the majority of the cars duty that is commuting. That could be a good compromise and makes me lean more towards the tc105.



I'm not too concerned with changing camber as I agree with you that it is in a good spot from the drop, just noting it because it makes the stock wheels look weird especially in the rear. I also just don't want to get into messing with that. I had a car when I was younger that I messed with coilovers, camber plates, and such on and it seemed the more stuff I added or adjusted, the more I had to add or the more problems it caused - wasted some of my best years obsessing over alignment and I just don't have time for that anymore. That's why I went with TRD springs as it was a factory option and can't be doing anything too harmful.

[Steve]

Some thoughts,

I agree with ZDan, tire width is not the issue, the stock tires are just crap. I run 205/55/16 extreme performance summer tires and the grip is phenomenal for spirited driving on twisty roads.

More width is not all positives, there are some draw backs. Excessive grip and wider tires introduce a lot more roll resistance, making the modestly powered car feel even more... modest. Our car should not have wider or just as wide tires as cars with twice the power IMO...

TRD wheels are overpriced, and I would personally never consider them. I think a clean nice aftermarket wheel in a not-flashy color looks stock to most people who don't know any better anyways.

17x9 wheels are very wide, you need negative camber up front to fit them properly in my opinion, and you need coilovers to have enough space to do so.

Also, maxed out camber bolts up front (about -1.5 degrees) plus an alignment provided a very noticeable benefit to handling and steering response from experience.

[xdavidx]

Originally Posted by Steve

Some thoughts,

TRD wheels are overpriced, and I would personally never consider them. I think a clean nice aftermarket wheel in a not-flashy color looks stock to most people who don't know any better anyways.

17x9 wheels are very wide, you need negative camber up front to fit them properly in my opinion, and you need coilovers to have enough space to do so.

Steve,


The TRD wheels I'm looking at are only $300 each and forged. Not a lot in the aftermarket that I felt is as good for that price. Plus, the ability to remain in stock autox class is a big draw for those wheels as once you leave stock class in these cars it gets pretty nuts. Not the biggest deal as I don't intend to try to win a series or anything, but I'd just feel better losing by 0.5 seconds vs losing by 13 seconds Technically, I could use other 17x7.5" wheels with an offset within 5mm and stay in stock class, but that further limits the pool.


The tc105n and the enkei rpf1 in 17x9 +35 are very well documented to fit with the stock suspension and/or 1 inch drop I have from the TRD springs without rubbing or other issues. It is a very tight fit though and is why I do have to be careful with tire selection. The narrow margin for error there and potential limitations is a factor in my consideration.

[Vten]

I had re71R and they didn’t last long plus they’re horrible in the wet. I replaced them with the hankook rs4. Performance wise it’s a little bit slower compared to the 71r but way longer life and way better in the rains.

This is my car with the tc105n w/ 255/40/17s lowered on racecomp t2 -3.5° camber , no rubs. I think for the price, it’s an amazing wheels setup superlight too. I’m selling them actually ... reason being is because they don’t clear my ap racing 6/4 calipers.

[xdavidx]

That looks really nice. Looks like they don't make those in 245 though (or at least not for sale on tirerack). I think 255/40 is the best size for those wheels, but I don't think there is enough clearance with stock shock setup. Being in southern california, wet performance is a non issue

[asdf]

Of the choices, I would go with the tc105n. I had them in 17x9 +35 with 245 Michelin pilot super sports and loved them. I agree with suggestion above to use camber bolts for the front and max out the front camber. You won’t get much more then -1.5ish but the difference with the negative camber up front is absolutely noticeable for fun driving. No rubbing at all on this setup. My car at the time was primarily for daily driving duties with the ocassional canyon run and autocross.

I think a 200tw tire is not what you should be looking at for commuting...but that’s just imo. Something like the super sports or conti extremecontact sport would be less noisy and last longer.

[xdavidx]

Originally Posted by asdf

My car at the time was primarily for daily driving duties with the ocassional canyon run and autocross.

I think a 200tw tire is not what you should be looking at for commuting...but that’s just imo. Something like the super sports or conti extremecontact sport would be less noisy and last longer.

I would disagree that a 200tw tire is not best for my commute.



While I do have a solid freeway stretch, on the way up to the office after exiting (or just as I'm leaving the office going home or when I go out for lunch) is a rather fun canyon road Sometimes I will just take a break and go for a drive on it.



It's either this or I take my bmw s1000rr and tires on that thing last me about 3k miles and are pretty pricey. The ~10k I'd get on re-71s will actually save me money.


Tire noise really isn't an issue for me either as I've gone def after decades of loud cars, bikes, and music.

[asdf]

In that case... I would still say go with the tc105n. The 17x9 size fits very nicely on our cars.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Vten

I had re71R and they didn’t last long plus they’re horrible in the wet. I replaced them with the hankook rs4. Performance wise it’s a little bit slower compared to the 71r but way longer life and way better in the rains..

Horrible in the wet?! How much tread depth did you have remaining? RE71R with some tread depth are about the BEST tires for wet grip available.

RE71R are by FAR the best gripping tires in wet/inundated conditions I've ever experienced at the track. I was passing faster cars with as-good-as or better drivers on Hoosier H2O rain tires in the pouring rain at Palmer and at Watkins Glen this year. Which was noted and resulted in the suggestion that RE71R tires be given more "points" next year for time trials!
https://www.comscc.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5822
"In the light rain at NHMS, the tire performed well, and in the deep wet at Watkins Glen, it was outperforming Hoosier Wets in portions of the track with deep standing water."

Also in Tire Rack testing the RE71R performed significantly better than RS4 in the wet: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests...y.jsp?ttid=234

Also I've dailied on RE71R all year and have never had any issues whatsoever with wet grip. In this regard, RE71R is well nigh unbeatable.

[Vten]

I believe it was about 3-4/32 when I replaced them with the rs4 and I feel more confident. I Tried them at mid ohio, Nelson ledges and offcourse I dd them with similar result.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

If you're going to end up getting another set of wheels and tires, why not opt for the OEM to serve as daily driving purposes, and then the second set of wheels having some tires strictly for your canyon runs and auto-x?

Also, I think the TC105N looks great on our cars, which is why I went with them. Imo, they look less flashy than the OEM wheel designs offered on cars nowadays.

[xdavidx]

Originally Posted by Kaotic Lazagna

Also, I think the TC105N looks great on our cars, which is why I went with them. Imo, they look less flashy than the OEM wheel designs offered on cars nowadays.

Yours also look really good. What is your suspension/alignment setup? I've noticed some poke a bit too much on the front but you two seem to have an ideal flushness going on.