Go Back   Dallas Fort Worth 5.0 Mustang Club > 5.0 Mustang Forum > Performance

Performance Post anything performance related to your Mustang


Sponsored Ads
Welcome to DFW50s.com

Register to remove these ads.




Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2013, 03:57 PM   #16
re-rx7
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Gainesville,Tx
Age: 38
Posts: 2,405
Default

Originally Posted by kn7671 View Post
Wrong. Wheels have absolutely no relation to gear ratio.

Tire diameter effects gear ratio, but you can choose tires for larger wheels that have an equal tire diameter as stock 17, 18, or 19's in 20" sizes without affecting gear ratio.

That being said, if you choose tires with different diameter than stock, say approx. 3/4" shorter or taller, the effect on gear ratio is minimal, about 3% on average. At 70mph you'r speedometer would be about +2mph with smaller tires or -2mph with larger tires.



You don't lose power if the overall weight of your 20" wheels/tires are the same overall weight as the stock 18" or 19" wheels/tires, which isn't too hard since the factory wheels are usually on the heavier side.
At that point you will sacrifice ride quality. Thats why if the car is lowered 18's seem to work fine.
re-rx7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 05:08 PM   #17
kn7671
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Arlington, TX since 1971
Age: 52
Posts: 103
Default

Most people don't realize that the Mustang comes with several different diameter tires, spreading over 1.1" in difference.

V6 with 17 = 28.0"
GT with 18" = 27.2"
GT with 19" A/S = 27.7"
GT with 19" Brembo = 27.2"
Boss 302 rear = 26.9"
GT500 with 20" rears = 27.9"

In this regard, if you had a normal 245/45R19 (27.7") All-Season equipped GT, which is .8" taller than the 285/35/19 (26.9") rears on a Boss 302, and then jumped to to a 20" 285/35R20 rear tire (27.9") would give you .4" shorter sidewall than the stock 19" AS tires, but a 100% equal sidewall height to a Boss 302 rear tire.

Additionally, the 20" tire at 27.9" rear tire will give you a better ride than the 26.9" rears, while giving a little more overall grip from a slighty larger contact patch.
__________________
2015 Mustang GT - Black w/Perf Package

Last edited by kn7671; 06-16-2013 at 05:18 PM.
kn7671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 06:31 PM   #18
Grandpa
I> /\/\
 
Grandpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: A fender ahead of BlownAltered
Posts: 7,562
Default

Originally Posted by kn7671 View Post
Most people don't realize that the Mustang comes with several different diameter tires, spreading over 1.1" in difference.

V6 with 17 = 28.0"
GT with 18" = 27.2"
GT with 19" A/S = 27.7"
GT with 19" Brembo = 27.2"
Boss 302 rear = 26.9"
GT500 with 20" rears = 27.9"

In this regard, if you had a normal 245/45R19 (27.7") All-Season equipped GT, which is .8" taller than the 285/35/19 (26.9") rears on a Boss 302, and then jumped to to a 20" 285/35R20 rear tire (27.9") would give you .4" shorter sidewall than the stock 19" AS tires, but a 100% equal sidewall height to a Boss 302 rear tire.

Additionally, the 20" tire at 27.9" rear tire will give you a better ride than the 26.9" rears, while giving a little more overall grip from a slighty larger contact patch.
And there you have it. Solid post sir.
Grandpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 07:04 PM   #19
Dan12GT
Senior Member
 
Dan12GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Roanoke, Texas
Age: 39
Posts: 818
Default

18s are definetly noticeably smaller when comparing to 19s and obviously more noticeably with 20s. I myself am tempted to go the 18s route on the Forgestar FR5s I want buy, but in the future want to go big brake as well (brembo at a minimum) and don't want to have to deal with getting different wheels again. I just hate how 19s are such the odd cat with tire selections and 20s are EXPENSIVE!
__________________

Airaid CAI | Borla S-Type Catback | Amsoil 10w30 and MTG Trans. Fluid
382hp 387ft/lb | 1/4: 12.9 @ 112mph
Dan12GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 10:35 PM   #20
saunupe1911
Senior Member
 
saunupe1911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 278
Default 19s or 20s?

Excess rotational weight is horrible for drag racing, but its not always a bad thing for road racing (and even drifting). The extra weight on the axles help keep it planted in the corners. It's on off the reason that help ILE and ZL1 pull more Gs than GT and Bosses. Its not all about the IRS. That extra weight help keep them planted.
saunupe1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 10:54 AM   #21
kn7671
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Arlington, TX since 1971
Age: 52
Posts: 103
Default

For those against the 20" wheel thing, with the 2015 Mustang right around the corner, I would assume that there will be a 20" wheel/tire option available from the onset. Here's a quick history on the tires sizes offered:

1979-84 Mustang = 14" (forget the Michelin TRX metric sizes)
1984-86 Mustang SVO = 16"
1985-90 Mustang GT = 15"
1991-93 Mustang GT = 16"
1994-04 Mustang GT = 16" std, 17" opt
2005-09 Mustang GT = 17" std, 18" opt
2010-14 Mustang GT = 18" std, 19" opt
2015-?? Mustang GT = 19" std, 20" opt

I ride on 19" Brembo's, but 20" wheels in a few years will look pretty normal on a Mustang from the way the trends have gone over the last 35-years.
__________________
2015 Mustang GT - Black w/Perf Package
kn7671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 11:27 AM   #22
46Tbird
Senior Member
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 697
Default

Originally Posted by Pepperinyoureye View Post
18s > *
I also never understood people throwing 20s on a Mustang but everyone seems to do it. I guess it looks good on some cars but definitely not ideal from a performance standpoint. Best tire selection is going to be 18s and your ride quality won't suffer much because your not riding on rubber bands. My wheels weigh 17lbs Idk of many 19-20 inch wheel even close.
Weren't you have a lot of traction problems at Ennis?
__________________
"If this was like, a thousand years ago, I'd be a Picasso. I'd be one of those dudes that cut his damned ear off."
46Tbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 03:33 PM   #23
Dominic Toretto
Senior Member
 
Dominic Toretto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Irving / Oklahoma City
Age: 41
Posts: 1,896
Default

Originally Posted by kn7671 View Post
The Corvette has done this since the C5 in 1997. Other car high performance car manufacturers do this as well, so apparently there is real benefit when tuned and setup. Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean we should fear it.
+1

All the high performance cars use a staggered wheel fitment. Corvettes, Vipers, Ferraris, Porsches etc. Even the GT500 comes stock with 19s front and 20s rear.

As others have stated, wheel weight makes the most difference for unsprung weight. TSWs Nurburgrings are excellent. I saw one member on another forum with a 19X9.5 TSW N that weighed 22lbs. In that size is it definitely lighter than stock AND allow for a larger brake kit. Also on those other cars, because the front fender of those exotics are generally much shorter than the rear fenders, if they ran same size front and rear wheels, the fronts would look bigger.

-Alex
Dominic Toretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 03:40 PM   #24
Dominic Toretto
Senior Member
 
Dominic Toretto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Irving / Oklahoma City
Age: 41
Posts: 1,896
Default

Also keep in mind when you opt for larger wheels, most likely, you will be opting for wider tires. Wider means more tire which means more weight.

-Alex
Dominic Toretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 07:06 PM   #25
Pepperinyoureye
Senior Member
 
Pepperinyoureye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Valley Ranch, TX
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Default

Originally Posted by 46Tbird View Post
Weren't you have a lot of traction problems at Ennis?
No traction until 4th gear most runs... And that's if second gear wouldn't lock me out. My car is running Star specs which are more suited for road course/autocross use. Hard sidewall and require a decent amount of heat to grip anywhere, not to mention a 275/35/18 which changes my gearing quite a bit. I'm into 5th gear quite a bit to hit my 113mph trap lol I honestly think I would have been better on the stock all season Pirelli tires.
Pepperinyoureye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 08:44 PM   #26
merlinmol
Senior Member
 
merlinmol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 42
Posts: 710
Default

This thread is all over the place, I run 20x10 and 20x11 wheels and they are about 17lbs lighter per wheel then the stock 19" Brembo wheels. Granted to get that weight loss in a 20" you will have to spend a little money for them. As far as ride quality, I have yet to have a complaint, most everyone comments on how comfortable it is. Suspension setup and the Recaro seats have a lot to do with that as well. Nick/Pepper is right though, if you throw some thin tires on there, the ride is going to suck. As far as looks, pretty sure most the mustangs run with 20" wheels once they go aftermarket. From all the ones that I have seen, they only look bad if the wheel design/finish is lame, or if the fitment is wrong.

Edit: As far as the OP is concerned, I wouldn't even consider 19's, its a waste of money as far as tires go, 18's and 20's give better options for track/show use. Just my 2 cents though, I take my car to road courses as well as shows so I am a tad biased.
__________________
2002 Camaro SS M6 (Daily)
2013 GT: Track Pack, Recaro Seats, Whiteside Customs 2012 SEMA Car "Copper Pony"; Dynocom Industries booth# 20123
Dynocom SEMA Video w/ Car

Last edited by merlinmol; 06-17-2013 at 08:51 PM.
merlinmol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 12:38 AM   #27
GTRacerX
Senior Member
 
GTRacerX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arlington, TX
Age: 39
Posts: 212
Default

Originally Posted by merlinmol View Post
This thread is all over the place, I run 20x10 and 20x11 wheels and they are about 17lbs lighter per wheel then the stock 19" Brembo wheels. Granted to get that weight loss in a 20" you will have to spend a little money for them. As far as ride quality, I have yet to have a complaint, most everyone comments on how comfortable it is. Suspension setup and the Recaro seats have a lot to do with that as well. Nick/Pepper is right though, if you throw some thin tires on there, the ride is going to suck. As far as looks, pretty sure most the mustangs run with 20" wheels once they go aftermarket. From all the ones that I have seen, they only look bad if the wheel design/finish is lame, or if the fitment is wrong.

Edit: As far as the OP is concerned, I wouldn't even consider 19's, its a waste of money as far as tires go, 18's and 20's give better options for track/show use. Just my 2 cents though, I take my car to road courses as well as shows so I am a tad biased.
Remind me of the wheels you have again? That's an impressive weight!
GTRacerX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 09:27 AM   #28
merlinmol
Senior Member
 
merlinmol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 42
Posts: 710
Default

Originally Posted by GTRacerX View Post
Remind me of the wheels you have again? That's an impressive weight!
Forgeline S3C3 (I think thats the right model number). They offer monoblock wheels as well which are even lighter.
__________________
2002 Camaro SS M6 (Daily)
2013 GT: Track Pack, Recaro Seats, Whiteside Customs 2012 SEMA Car "Copper Pony"; Dynocom Industries booth# 20123
Dynocom SEMA Video w/ Car
merlinmol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 12:32 PM   #29
GTRacerX
Senior Member
 
GTRacerX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arlington, TX
Age: 39
Posts: 212
Default

Wow they have some really nice wheels! Prices are pretty steep about $1,200 a wheel. Get what you pay for I suppose.
GTRacerX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump