Notices
V6 S197 General Discussion This section is for technical discussions pertaining specifically to the V6 variation of the 2005 and newer Ford Mustang.

18"s VS 17"s VS 16"s

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-24-2009, 07:25 AM
  #11  
Avalanch3
4th Gear Member
 
Avalanch3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,112
Default

What would happen if you get newer tires that reduce the overall diameter (getting lower profile)? Would that cause any problems?
Avalanch3 is offline  
Old 03-24-2009, 09:26 AM
  #12  
157dB
Cut & Paste Expert
 
157dB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 13,322
Default

I went from a 215/65 series 16" to a 235/55 series 17" to a 255/45 series 18".
I am selling the 16s and 17s.
More tread to the ground width wise and the same rolling diameter but with
less sidewall height for better feel of the road.
Yes, more rolling and sprung weight but the better handling
is an excellent trade-off. I dont notice any difference in take-off\
and such. My 1/4 times have improved from the increased traction during launch.
Its 275/40-18s next time and still keeping the OEM rolling diameter but
60mm wider than the 16s and 40mm wider than the 17s.

Last edited by 157dB; 03-24-2009 at 04:20 PM.
157dB is offline  
Old 03-24-2009, 12:32 PM
  #13  
07 Stang
6th Gear Member
 
07 Stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southeast Virginia
Posts: 6,409
Default

Since I ordered the Pony Package, mine came with 17" rims. As far as gas mileage, I just checked two days ago when I filled up and got 22.5 mpg in the city.

I think the posters above are correct in saying anything bigger you need more hp to compensate for the added weight.
07 Stang is offline  
Old 03-24-2009, 12:44 PM
  #14  
SatinSilverStang
2nd Gear Member
 
SatinSilverStang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 475
Default

i went from stock 16's to my DD 18's with very little ride comfort decrease. My MPG has stayed the same. and the new look is undeniably better. new setup is 18x9 front with a 255/40R18 and rear is a 18x10 285/40R18. I used BFG 's KDW2.

http://speedjunkies.org/garage/uploa...8394_thumb.jpg
http://speedjunkies.org/garage/uploa...8685_thumb.jpg
SatinSilverStang is offline  
Old 03-24-2009, 04:35 PM
  #15  
Sancho805
5th Gear Member
 
Sancho805's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,678
Default

illin, maybe the fan blades are heavier than your 18 bullitts?

anyone seen the 17" mach1 deep dishers? these are interesting.
Sancho805 is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 01:45 AM
  #16  
Mercury83
2nd Gear Member
 
Mercury83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 345
Default

Originally Posted by illin
This is where physics and practical application get fuzzy.

I put my wheels (17's to 18's) on AT the track (better tools) and had multiple runs both pre/post the install.

I will save the drama, but there was no difference. Runs varied by 1/8 second and were high/low on both ends.
look, all i know is i felt it myself. i'm not taking someone's word for it or making it up. i essentially drove two mustangs equally equipped....one with the fanblades and one with the seventeen inch stock bullits, and i'm telling you there IS a difference. someone called it a difference in rotational mass or something to that effect...
Mercury83 is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 08:01 AM
  #17  
ODDYSEY
Site Moderator of Fury!
 
ODDYSEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,104
Default

Originally Posted by Mercury83
look, all i know is i felt it myself. i'm not taking someone's word for it or making it up. i essentially drove two mustangs equally equipped....one with the fanblades and one with the seventeen inch stock bullits, and i'm telling you there IS a difference. someone called it a difference in rotational mass or something to that effect...
This is somewhat true.. but think about this.

Typically mass & weight are simliar... but if you have a larger rim (18") that weighs less than a smaller rim (16") then rotational mass does not mean much. Weight has a far worse affect on accelaration than rotational mass does.

Now before the flames... typicall larger rims weigh more so this would not be a true statement, but if you have a lighter larger rim, you have more rotational mass, but less weight therefore you have quicker accerlation.

There is oddy's words of wisdom for today...
ODDYSEY is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 11:25 AM
  #18  
Sancho805
5th Gear Member
 
Sancho805's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,678
Default

are aluminum bullitts available for our stangs? American Racing makes alum wheels for other makes.
Sancho805 is offline  
Old 03-28-2009, 12:52 AM
  #19  
sonicmetalicS197
2nd Gear Member
 
sonicmetalicS197's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 463
Default

Perf wise i say go 16 but it wont look very good. 17 is the best of both worlds, my next wheels will be 17's
sonicmetalicS197 is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 12:20 PM
  #20  
Albion47
 
Albion47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pasadena, Texas
Posts: 41
Default

As most have said it is not the wheel but the tire. It doesn't matter what wheel size you choose, if the tire is the same OD as stock there should be no noticable change at all.
Albion47 is offline  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 PM.