Just joined? Please introduce yourself.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45

Thread: Wheels and tires for a 55 C4 conversion

  1. #31
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Member #:571
    Posts
    4,671
    I am no defender of Cnut's conduct but Rd's conduct is no better - they just insult each other and feed off each other's comments. To me it's when it extends to "innocent" members that they are truly out of line - and that happens.

    On the benefits of IRS, where IRS has the most advantage is with marginal track or road surfaces.

  2. #32
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Member #:4017
    Posts
    176
    Rick are you saying the main advantage of independent rear is for bumpy road surface? Better ride? What about quickness thru a road course vs a NASCAR type solid axle? I would think the vette suspension was specific for low CG and less weight....maybe not?

  3. #33
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Member #:571
    Posts
    4,671
    The IRS is less sprung weight (not necessarily lower total weight). This means the springs and shocks have an easier job of keeping the tires on the pavement and that's why they do better on rough roads - both for ride and performance. Lower C.G. height helps any suspension.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Member #:2775
    Posts
    1,426
    Some IRS suspensions are great, especially on the newer cars. Chevrolet's first attempt in 1960 with the swing-axel Corvair might not of been so great, but they had it much improved by 1964 by using softer springs, a front sway bar, and a auxiliary traverse leaf spring. My first car was a yellow Corvair Syder Turbo, and that car was a blast to drive in its day. Too bad Nader killed a good car. The Yenko Stingers could spank a lot of cars back then, and still can. In 1965 they went fully independent with the same basic design as the C2, C3, and even the C4 isn't that much different. It changed dramatically on the C5.
    As far as tires on a C4 Tri5, I would love to use a 255/50-17's which are 27 inches tall, and would look and work great. But there are only like 2 available tires in that size, and they are not that great. The only production car that used that size were the 94-96 Impala SS, and the demand is low in that size. I think any tire near 26 inches or less just looks too small on a big car. A 245/45-17 for example was a production size used on smaller cars like the 2004 Mustang, and GTO. The biggest selection of taller max performance summer tires seems to be mostly in the 18 inch sizes.

    https://images43.fotki.com/v249/phot...pension-vi.jpg
    Last edited by 55 Rescue Dog; 07-18-2019 at 03:02 PM.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Member #:2775
    Posts
    1,426
    Yenko Stinger. A 108 inch wheelbase car replaced by the Camaro with no IRS, and engine back to the front. Well now finally, along comes the Corvette C8.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGayn3Y800
    Last edited by 55 Rescue Dog; 07-18-2019 at 03:05 PM.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Member #:2775
    Posts
    1,426
    I like the engineering explained guy's take on why big wheels, and low-profile tires are not always a great idea. On so many new vehicles they have become way to common, driven mostly by marketing, and looks over function. It never was an issue on older cars with bigger sidewalls, until they stated going below 50 series tires. 45 series tires are even showing up on truck/suvs too. Sidewalls that are too short shouldn't even be produced, or sold. Especially in the case of 25 series tire on a 26+ inch wheel with a one inch sidewall. Steering response probably goes out the window, since it would be like trying to make a big gyroscope change directions. Some wheels are starting to look like wheels on a train. The steam that blows the whistle, doesn't move the train.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6sP...ature=youtu.be
    Last edited by 55 Rescue Dog; 07-24-2019 at 05:30 AM.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Member #:2775
    Posts
    1,426
    I'm starting to consider going to an even narrower tire instead a really wide tire, for many reasons beyond looks. I feel like maybe the 235/50-18 tires deserve consideration. There are over a hundred different models, and compounds of tires from like every manufacturer out there. They have fairly tall sidewalls with a diameter of 27.3 inches, 8 inch tread width, 9.5 section, 97-101 load range ratings. They are also cheaper, and can use a much lighter wheel, and probably ride better than a wide heavy wheel, with a short sidewall tire.

  8. #38
    Registered Member BamaNomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Member #:3217
    Location
    Rocket City, USA (Huntsville, AL area)
    Posts
    3,774
    On what vehicle are you considering those tires/wheel, RD? I put 245/45-17 s on 8" wide wheels on my '57 Nomad I'm working on. Availability of optional tire brands/types is certainly a valid consideration.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Member #:2775
    Posts
    1,426
    These will be for my 55 C4 project. I am now starting consider going against flow and go to narrower tires, instead of wide tire, which would be more for looks. It seems like a 235/50-18 setup might be a good choice for many reasons, plus a big selection of different tires. There are over a hundred different high performance tires in that size to choose from, and they have some really sticky ones. They have a fairly tall sidewall, at 27.3 inches in diameter, 8 inch tread, 9.5 section and up to a 101 load index. That size must be used on a lot of newer OE cars similar in size to get so many different models of tires. Plus they are cheaper, and use a lighter wheel, which helps the ride better, with less rotating mass, than a wide heavy wheel with a short sidewall tire.
    Last edited by 55 Rescue Dog; 07-24-2019 at 08:34 AM.

  10. #40
    Registered Member BamaNomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Member #:3217
    Location
    Rocket City, USA (Huntsville, AL area)
    Posts
    3,774
    The weight of the tire rubber is a big addition to the 'rotating mass', and the further from the center of rotation the larger that momentum is, so your 27.3" height adds momentum over a 26.5 or 26.8" wheel/tire height...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •