Watched the new BMI with EVO9 last night and saw an 18s vs 19s (350Z)comparison and the 19s ran faster but the driver said it felt like he had to fight more with car in the turns. The handling appears to be more responsive with lower profile tires. The other big difference is on the road if you hit a bump the car is more likely to wander off course as result of less aborsorbtion with lower profile tires. More skill is required to drive the 19s. What helps me the most is that my 19s only weigh 21-22 pounds and are lighter than stockers. The wheel and tire combination weight is about the same as stock wheel. Nissan is begining to develop cars with 19s that are standard but they need to be rigid to drive well. 19s ride pretty well on EVO with its rigid frame but I doubt it will ride as well on a Lancer

Here is Quote from Neil on Socalevo (works for Motortrend and has a MR)

"It's not so much the size of the wheel but the weight. A heavier wheel/tire package equals more rotational mass which does take more energy to turn whether accelerating or braking, so degradation in performance in both areas is the usual result. That being said it could be slightly offset by wider, gripppier tires, but you still have that weight issue which, just like us humans, IS an issue. Of course they could be lighter than the stock 17's. Remember, lighter weight is like free performance/horsepower. Think like a Lotus grasshopper... "

Here is what I did in an 1/8 mile drag race with 19s vs 17s. Yes I know there are to many factors to consider but I did run almost the same time. I may also be getting better at shifting


Mods
V360
turboback ehaust with high flow cat
Fuel Pump
KN drop in Filter
XEDE Piggyback
XEDE Flash
Fidanza cam gears


Running at Qualcomm (Q) Staduim 1/8 mile track

My Best Run with new (21 pounds) 19 inch VOLK SF winning (8/5/05)

Gas 105 (91 and 110) octance mix
Reaction-.815
60ft -1.898
MPH- 85.39
ET-8.289


My Best Run with old (19 pounds) 17 inch Rota Torques (6/24/05)

Gas 105 (91 and 110) octance mix
Reaction-.815
60ft -1.823
MPH- 84.27
ET-8.260


So in the end 19s aren't just for the bling since at the Q I beat many a cars on these big A$$ wheels

 

when you buy volks, no matter what size...its never about the bling
nice runs

 

I think you're justifying the 19" rims to yourself. You were apparently just making more power in the run with the 19s, because if you notice, your 60' is much worse, but your ET is the same while the mph is higher. This means you overcame a crappier launch by making more power. You may have just shifted better, but there is more than a 1mph difference, which is significant in the 1/8th. The wheels and tires weigh more, so performance will be hindered. The additional rotational mass will make it much harder to launch and will be even rougher on your clutch. There's no way around it. On the good side, having 19" rims that only weigh 21lbs each is very good, so whereas most people with 19s would experience more severe limitations, your change in performance was minimal.

 

nice car.. but 19's are for show, 18's to run.. nevermind the whole cost of a tire aspect..

 

Traded my rota torques for these plus a grand Yes they are huge but since I got a deal I can live with these big A$$ Volk wheels anyday plus I had just as much funny beating V8 stangs with Show Wheels

 

In terms of drag racing, when I switched from 16's and stock meaty tires to 18's and low profile 35 series, I found it to be easier to spin the tires and eliminated wheel hop. The smaller rims with bigger tires had the tendency to hop a little on me where as the low profile would just spin more. I actually cut lower 60 ft times with the low profile tires which is the exact opposite to what you would think should happen.

I am referring to my old FWD eclipse with 330whp and 330 trq. My 60 ft time went from low 2.3's with 16's to my best of 2.1 flat on the 18's. Don't ask me how because it doesn't make any sense to me. I did notice a slight difference in mph, but not much. I think it was only 1-2 mph difference crossing the line.

The newer 18's and tires weighed 4lbs lighter than the old 16 inch combo. That was probably the reasoning behind the better times, but that would be pure speculation.

The funniest thing about my times was the fact I had the best 60 ft and 1/4 times with a set of crappy tires on the 18's then two other high end tires I previously tried.

 

I think that was just circumstantial and dependent upon you as the driver or the track you frequented. In my FWD DSM, I used 16" rims with Nitto 555 drag radials up front and cut 1.9x 60's on a bad run, and cut a 1.81 on my best run (12.58 at 110). I never dyno'd, but with a 110mph trap on a 2900lb car, my guess would be right around 290whp...maybe 280. You had a good 50whp/50wtq on me, so with my setup, you may have just spun. I spun a good bit, but on good launches I would hook up at the top of 1st, which meant my snapshift to 2nd would only cause mild spinning. If I ever spun all the way through 1st then shifted, 2nd would also light up for quite a while, which was obviously no good.

I never had wheel hop, so in your case, the 2.3s were just awful to begin with on meaty tires, and the spin-induced 2.1s were acceptable, though still bad in terms of drag racing. Whereas they seemed BETTER than the sticky setup, they really were only better because you were cutting such bad 60's to begin with.

 

The lower the diameter on the rims the better. Rally cars have tendency to run the lowest diameter posible, unfortunately the disc brakes limits this factor.

You always want a lo center of gravity for better handling, you always want to go wide, unfortunately the cosmetics is more important issue for most of the people but in reality lower and wider rules.

 

With the 18's and 35 series tires, I would spin all of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and the beginning of 4th on C16 @ 22-25psi and would still trap 110mph.

On pump gas(93) @ 21psi my car put down 315whp and 320trq, the 330 whp and 330trq on C16 is just a guess. I was guessing low because I don't want to post some fictional numbers. 15whp increase and 10 trq is probably estimating on the low side for such a jump in octane.

Warrtalon, I respect your answer but 2.1 60 ft. with 18 in rims, 35 series tires, and crappy wahnlin(sp) tires is not considered a crappy 60 ft. Keep in mind they were cheap tires and not drag radials. That is pretty decent time for FWD vehicles. With drag radials I think I could've cut 1.7-1.8 60ft with no problem.

 

 

I said the original 2.3 60's were crappy, but that the 2.1s were acceptable, especially for being on bling rims/tires. As for expecting a .3-.4s improvement with drag radials, I wouldn't be so sure considering the 2.3s on the previously-mentioned "meaty" tires, unless I misunderstood what you meant. I had assumed that those were on par with NITTO 555Rs or at least close. My 555Rs were daily driven, too, so although they were great, they weren't a race-only set that I put on at the track.

Altogether, the whole point is that more rotational mass = lessened performance. Your example was circumstantial and not indicative of this law of physics, so I wanted to point that out in case any noob was on the fence when deciding on ridiculously-large 19" rims.

 

its all about the stock 17;s

 

No problem! I thought you were insulting my 2.1's on crappy tires. The 2.3's were pretty crappy.

What kind of 60ft #'s did you put down with your FWD on regular street tires, not drag radials?

 

correct me if im wrong but wouldnt how the weight is distributed on the rim/tire also come into play? ie: most of the weight on the outer portion of the rim would be WORSE than weight centered more towards the hub. so in effect, rim design would also have to come into play?

 

As I said, the 555Rs were my daily driven tires, so there were never any other tires I drove on or raced with. I bought it used for 3k with 130000 miles, slapped on the S-AFC/FMIC from my other Talon, and ran 12.58 on the stock 14b. Ended up selling it to Slowboy racing who then made it into a 600+ whp beast...