Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

DJR is right too, the best bang for buck wheel and tyre package for a 32 on the track is a set of 17X9s somewhere between +18 and +30 with some 235-255 semi slicks on them. there are heaps of wheel and tyre choices in this size. 33 GTR wheels are not bad at 17X9 +30, are forged, sort of light weight, strong and cheap and plentiful. a set of those with some 255 RE55s bridgestones will be good as a set of track wheels. I actually have 3 sets of 17X9s for my 'track 32'. BBS LM GPs for street in +20, Enkei NT-03s for circuit in +18 and weds sport TC-05s in +20 for circuit too.

no i agree about the handling, just not about the attesa handling tyres with 4mm difference.

nothing wrong with different sized tyres on a GTR, attesa's have a bit of tolerance before its an issue, enough tolerance that u can make almost any stagger in wheel diametre, width or tyre width fit fine on a GTR.

but for the love of god why would you want to? it looks worse. it handles worse. it's less economical. and yes sure you can make it work, but often it doesn't. so why?? and the tolerance is not that much. it's small enough that people have had problems when fitting new fronts with worn rears of the same size even.

it's small enough that people have had problems when fitting new fronts with worn rears of the same size even.

any evidence of this?

im not saying u should, im saying u can, pretty big difference.

u could go 245's on R32 GTR rims if u wanted, although i probably wouldnt reccomend it for circuit. but it depends on the tyres, if ur running semis with really hard sidewalls u can run 235's comfortably at the track without too much sidewall flex.

for a R32 GTR id be trying for a 17x10 +30 with a 255/40 at the rear, and a 17x9 +25 with a 235/45 at the front.

im not saying u should, im saying u can, pretty big difference.

Sounded like a recommendation.

Teh Baron is right. There is no good reason to use different tyres front & rear. There are a number of good reasons not to.

so your not recommending it now? just arguing it can be done? well that's a one sided argument. I agreed it could be done in my first post, but that it SHOULDN'T be done.

you agree it can cause awd problems but you want to continue arguing with me.... so if you know it's a bad idea why did you tell him to run 235 fronts and 255 rears? is that the best set-up in your GTR circuit experience? I look at probably in the hundreds of circuit GTRs every year ranging from road cars that do 1 or 2 track days a year, to full on half a million dollar race cars and they ALL use the same size tyres front and rear. but if you know better tell me why it's a good idea. Perhaps they can all improve based on this new revelation.

you keep arguing it can be done. I know it can be done. I acknowledged that in my first post. of course it can be done, but again what's the point? It's like saying you can drive a car with no gearknob. yes it may cause a sore hand. and it may not. but either way it offers no benefit so why would you bother? it is a dumb idea. it's worse performance wise and it MAY cause problems. so why on earth would anyone waste time trying to get it to work, sitting their calculating how to get the same diameter out of different width/profile tyres is a waste of time.

as for evidence of worn/new tyres causing attesa problems, have a search of this forum and you'll find some. or talk to any good GTR mechanic and he will have seen some over the years.

here is a text book case for you. guy bought new rear tyres and fronts were worn. all tyres were the same size etc. car started getting awd faults. when it faulted into 2wd car drove ok. when it was in 4wd car would surge and shudder... what do you reckon the problem was? http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/At...ng-t130266.html

no i agree about the handling, just not about the attesa handling tyres with 4mm difference.

nothing wrong with different sized tyres on a GTR, attesa's have a bit of tolerance before its an issue, enough tolerance that u can make almost any stagger in wheel diametre, width or tyre width fit fine on a GTR.

There is stuff all tolerance when you want the system to work properly.

Been there done that a million times over.

Ill tell you the biggest tire you will fit on an R32 GTR is a 320 wide rear slick and a 300 wide front slick.

My main issue with guard rolling is the paintwork, I've never had it done to any cars I've owned before, so I'm alittle worried about disadvantages of getting them done.

Not nessisarily true,

I have several GTR's running very different tire sizes and only one of them has this issue.

the VDC system on our Z picks up tread depth diffenernce however im yet to find a GTR thats this picky.

Im running 255/45's and 255/40's on one car with no issues, and another 34 GTR with 265/40's and 265/45's again without any problems.

Only reason tire sizes are different is they all come off different cars in pairs and make do as street tires.

There is stuff all tolerance when you want the system to work properly.

Been there done that a million times over.

Ill tell you the biggest tire you will fit on an R32 GTR is a 320 wide rear slick and a 300 wide front slick.

I just happened to have finished reading the other thread when you posted up here, so

Does this mean that you ended up having issues with those cars that had differing sized tyres front to rear??

I realise that the other post was 3 years ago but just curious as to the complete about face on this one??

I mainly ask as I did also get the occasioal 4WD fault on my GTR just before I replaced a set of rear tyres that were on the wear indicators while the fronts were approximately 75% still. Would flicker and light up the light in the dash just as the car started to roll.

Have not had another fault since putting new tyres on the rear.

here is a text book case for you. guy bought new rear tyres and fronts were worn. all tyres were the same size etc. car started getting awd faults. when it faulted into 2wd car drove ok. when it was in 4wd car would surge and shudder... what do you reckon the problem was? http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/At...ng-t130266.html

thanks for the link, gave me this quote:

Not nessisarily true,

I have several GTR's running very different tire sizes and only one of them has this issue.

the VDC system on our Z picks up tread depth diffenernce however im yet to find a GTR thats this picky.

Im running 255/45's and 255/40's on one car with no issues, and another 34 GTR with 265/40's and 265/45's again without any problems.

Only reason tire sizes are different is they all come off different cars in pairs and make do as street tires.

maybe risking later down the track had issues? which wouldnt surprise me however as they are a lot larger diferences than what we are talking about here, but still worth the quote.

Sounded like a recommendation.

Teh Baron is right. There is no good reason to use different tyres front & rear. There are a number of good reasons not to.

yeh and i later took it back and agreed that it wasnt a good balance for handling, whilst keeping with my argument that it wasnt an issue for the ATTESA. i didnt really word it very well, i shouldnt have said "this is what id do" as its not, i was just giving him an idea of what is possible. it wasnt a very clear post i admit.

as i mentioned i was more focused on wheel size/ offset for ability for maximum tyre width, front to rear. i admit i was being fairly conservative with the tyre width, but in fairness i was allowing for a low camber, low ride height setup. in a lot of these cases as mentioned the reason why a lot of these people are able to fit large tyres is because there cars are high enough that ur not compressing the tyre very far if at all into the guard (mainly at the front)

my honest reccomendation would be to roll the guards and go 17x9.5 +20 all round with 255/40's all round. as soon as u go beyond 255 in a 17" ur looking at much bigger $$.

I actually found that despite the system appearing to work okay it was not working at its best.

No damage was ever done but after using an AWD dyno the differance become obvious in the front to rear split compared to what it should have bee.

  • 4 weeks later...

i just got my hands on some R34 gtr rims and now i run federal 595's 265 R17 all round

that and some tein HA coilovers

best mod i have ever done it shits all over standard handling

  • 4 years later...

Hey guys, sorry to dig up an old thread but I couldn't find anything more recent.

At the moment I'm running 245 wide tyre's on 18x9.5 +12 rims. I need to get wider tyre's and I'm pretty sure I can run 265's without issue but I was wandering what is required to go wider. I see plenty of second hand 275 and 285 wide tyre's for sale but I don't think I can fit them without guard work.

the street setup for my 32 GTR will be running 18x9.5 TE37's with 265 35.

You will need to roll your guards for them to fit.

Below link has some pics on what the setup will look like.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/358190-fs-mlb-bronze-volk-te37-fitted-with-near-new-ku36/

Hey guys, sorry to dig up an old thread but I couldn't find anything more recent.

At the moment I'm running 245 wide tyre's on 18x9.5 +12 rims. I need to get wider tyre's and I'm pretty sure I can run 265's without issue but I was wandering what is required to go wider. I see plenty of second hand 275 and 285 wide tyre's for sale but I don't think I can fit them without guard work.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Or just wire a multimeter in, sit it up like it's a gauge, go for a drive, read temp gauge, read multimeter, speak to phone and tell it to take notes.
    • This is the other log file, if only we had exhaust manifold pressure - would understand what's going on a bit better   Can you take a screenshot of your wastegate setup in the Kebabtech?   Engine Functions --> Boost Control (looks like this):  
    • You just need a datalogger of some sort. A handheld oscilloscope could do it, because it will make the trace visible on screen, so you can look at the peak, or whatever you need to look at. And there are cheap USB voltage loggers available too. You could get a 2 channel one and press a button to feed voltage to the second channel at points that you want to check the sensor voltage, when you knew what the guage was saying, for example.
    • it's not the issue with making power, it's the issue with controlling boost, and this isn't the first time I've seen a 6Boost having issue with controlling boost down low.   The boost control here looks interesting.   Looking at your logs, looks like it's set to open loop boost control strategy (which is fine). We can see VCT being kept on till about 6600RPM (no issue with that). Ignition timing (I'm assuming this is E85, seems within reason too, nothing too low, causing hot EGTS and boost spiking). There's about 15 degrees of advance when your boost shoots up, however can't be this as the timing isn't single digits. I'm assuming there's no EMAP data, as I wasn't able to find it in the logs. We can see your tuner sets the WG DC to 0% after 4300RPM, trying to control boost.   My thoughts, what frequency is your wastegate set to?  AND why aren't you using both ports for better control?
    • While that sounds reasonable, this is definitely a boost control problem, but the real question is why are you having the boost control problem? Which is why I pondered the idea that there's a problem at ~4000rpm related to head flow. In that instance, you are not yet under boost control - it's still ramping up and the wastegate is yet to gain authority. So, I'm thinking that if the wastegate is not yet open enough to execute control, but the compressor has somehow managed ot make a lot of flow, and the intake side of the head doesn't flow as well as the exhaust side (more on that later), then presto, high MAP (read that as boost overshoot). I have a number of further thoughts. I use butterfly valves in industrial applications ALL THE TIME. They have a very non-linear flow curve. That is to say that there is a linear-ish region in the middle of their opening range, where a 1% change in opening will cause a reasonably similar change in flow rate, from one place to another. So, maybe between 30% open and 60% open, that 1% change in opening gives you a similar 2% change in flow. (That 2% is pulled out of my bum, and is 2% of the maximum flow capacity of the valve, not 2% of the flow that happens to be going through the valve at that moment). That means that at 30% open, a 1% change in opening will give you a larger relative flow increase (relative to the flow going through the valve right then) compared to the same increment in opening giving you the same increment in flow in outright flow units. But at 60% opening, that extra 2% of max flow is relatively less than 1/2 the increase at 30% opening. Does that make sense? It doesn't matter if it doesn't because it's not the main point anyway. Below and above the linear-ish range in the middle, the opening-flow curve becomes quite...curved. Here's a typical butterfy valve flow curve. Note that there is a very low slope at the bottom end, quite steep linear-ish slope in the middle, then it rolls off to a low slope at the top. This curve shows the "gain" that you get from a butterfly valve as a function of opening%. Note the massive spike in the curve at 30%. That's the point I was making above that could be hard to understand. So here's the point I'm trying to make. I don't know if a butterfly valve is actually a good candiate for a wastegate. A poppet valve of some sort has a very linear flow curve as a function of opening %. It can't be anyelse but linear. It moves linearly and the flow area increases linearly with opening %. I can't find a useful enough CV curve for a poppet valve that you could compare against the one I showed for the butterfly, but you can pretty much imagine that it will not have that lazy, slow increase in flow as it comes off the seat. It will start flowing straight away and increase flow very noticeably with every increase in opening%. So, in your application, you're coming up onto boost, the wastegate is closed. Boost ramps up quite quickly, because that's really what we want, and all of a sudden it is approaching target boost and the thing needs to open. So it starts opening, and ... bugger all flow. And it opens some more, and bugger all more flow. And all the while time is passing, boost is overshooting further, and then finally the WG opens to the point where the curve starts to slope upwards and it gains authority amd the overshoot is brought under control and goes away, but now the bloody thing is too open and it has to go back the other way and that's hy you get that bathtub curve in your boost plot. My position here is that the straight gate is perhaps not teh good idea it looks like. It might work fine in some cases, and it might struggle in others. Now, back to the head flow. I worry that the pissy little NA Neo inlet ports, coupled with the not-very-aggressive Neo turbo cam, mean that the inlet side is simply not matched to the slightly ported exhaust side coupled with somewhat longer duration cam. And that is not even beginning to address the possibility that the overlap/relative timing of those two mismatched cams might make that all the worse at around 4000rpm, and not be quite so bad at high rpm. I would be dropping in at least a 260 cam in the inlet, if not larger, see what happens. I'd also be thinking very hard about pulling the straight gate off, banging a normal gate on there and letting it vent to the wild, just as an experiment.
×
×
  • Create New...