Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-16-2015, 02:29 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,079
|
Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
I will be purchasing a set of 35" tires soon to complete my project. I'm planning on using a set of 15x8 aluminum wheels I already have.
I was just wondering if there was any advantage to looking at a smaller aspect ratio with larger wheels. It would seem to me that the 15" wheels would provide the softest ride and would suffer a bit in the "handling" department. Not planning on taking corners at 100mph, but is there any reason that newer vehicles generally use a smaller aspect ratio besides to fit bigger brakes and to look "cool"?
__________________
-- Josh Instagram: @americanmusc1e OLD SKOOL-- 1970 C10. 454/Th400/3.07 posi Build Thread FARM TRUCK----1949 Chevrolet 3800 Power Wagon Hauler Build Thread 1999 4wd OBS Tahoe - daily. DM me if you can't see photos i posted |
04-16-2015, 08:47 PM | #2 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Blossvale NY
Posts: 202
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
I have 35x12.5x15 tires on my truck. It handles better than I expected it would. No street racer but it holds the road well. It's kind of rough riding on rough paved roads, but I'm not sure if that is mainly attributed to the tires or the extra positive arch lift springs up front.
Curious, are you finding narrower 35" tires that will ride comfortably on your 8" wide rims? IDK if the pancake profile tires on huge rims are a benefit in braking or handling, but it certainly seems trendy. I'll pass though, not on my truck.
__________________
Who needs a Hemi when ya got a Chevy! Last edited by RIDE-RED 350r; 04-16-2015 at 08:54 PM. |
04-17-2015, 05:45 AM | #3 |
Special Order
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mt Airy, MD
Posts: 85,851
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
There is no advantage to larger wheels/shorter tires on trucks. It is simply a trend for appearance. a truck rides so much better with some tire between the rim and road, as well as the rim is better protected from bad spots in the road. 15-16" diameter ties have been handling loads, road handling, and anything that's been thrown their way for over half a century just fine. Sizes were changed to roll with the gangster look and it has taken over. Now all tires cost way too much since tire companies have to produce so many different sizes in shorter runs
__________________
"BUILDING A BETTER WAY TO SERVE THE USA"......67/72......"The New Breed" GMC '67 C1500 Wideside Super Custom SWB: 327/M22/3.42 posi.........."The '67" (project) GMC '72 K2500 Wideside Sierra Custom Camper: 350/TH350/4.10 Power-Lok..."The '72" (rolling) Tim "Don't call me a redneck. I'm a rough cut country gentleman" R.I.P. ~ East Side Low Life ~ El Jay ~ 72BLUZ ~ Fasteddie69 ~ Ron586 ~ 67ChevyRedneck ~ Grumpy Old Man ~ |
04-17-2015, 11:37 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,907
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
I went with 17" because I wanted a better selection of off road tires from the 16.5". I don't use the truck for work(much, I actually found myself with a pallet of bricks and few bags of spec-mx the bed last week tires were fine but I took out my overloads) anyhow, I was hoping for better tire selection and to not have any issues with upgrade to disc brakes. Which I was concerned with if I got 15"s. I think a taller sidewall is better for getting a nice ride. But if you want to canyon race then go low profile. Or you just go with 2ft rim and 1/4" profile.... that's the super forklift tire look!
In the end it depends on how tall a tire you want. I have 33s and they can tolerate the 17" and still give me some decent sidewall profile. I like a good amount of sidewall. I like air in my tires.
__________________
White K20 |
04-18-2015, 05:48 AM | #5 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Louisville,Ky
Posts: 5,811
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
I would run the smallest rim that will clear my brakes.A 15 or 16 would work depending how big your brakes are.Look up the tires you like and the size you want for both rim size.To me only way id run a 20 inch rim is rockwell axles and they would be beadlocks lol.
|
04-18-2015, 08:01 AM | #6 |
Special Order
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mt Airy, MD
Posts: 85,851
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
The point of low profile tires is track performance. Lower profile sidewalls give less lateral deflection. Great for Porche and Ferrari but doesn't relate to a truck. The purpose of wheel diameters getting bigger was to accommodate larger brakes and give better cooling. again, great for a Porche or Ferrari bearing down on curves at 180+ mph, but doesn't relate to trucks. Look to trucks for what's best for trucks. What do you see on heavy duty trucks?
__________________
"BUILDING A BETTER WAY TO SERVE THE USA"......67/72......"The New Breed" GMC '67 C1500 Wideside Super Custom SWB: 327/M22/3.42 posi.........."The '67" (project) GMC '72 K2500 Wideside Sierra Custom Camper: 350/TH350/4.10 Power-Lok..."The '72" (rolling) Tim "Don't call me a redneck. I'm a rough cut country gentleman" R.I.P. ~ East Side Low Life ~ El Jay ~ 72BLUZ ~ Fasteddie69 ~ Ron586 ~ 67ChevyRedneck ~ Grumpy Old Man ~ |
04-18-2015, 10:51 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: sw colorado
Posts: 2,720
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
there is a definite advantage. the same advantage that is witnessed by any other automobile with lower profile tires and bigger diameter wheels. perhaps the sizes changed to accommodate the appeal of the majority as much as anything, but the advantages are still there.
track performance, road performance. same thing. lateral deflection is still an issue in a truck. if you want a sturdy feeling vehicle on the road then stiffer is better. the suspension is supposed to do the work, not the tires. if the tires are adding an effect of suspension to the equation you cant build a suspension to do what it is supposed to. while maybe not a large issue on a truck whose suspension is supposed carry a load primarily and not take corners like a freight train the benefit is still there. letting the suspension do the work is best for road feel and handling. i converted my 1972 chevy to use the front brakes from a '03+ dodge. physically i cannot use a wheel less than 17" because of the added brake diameter. so regardless of any argument, the bigger wheels are a performance enhancement requirement. i get a much more updated brake package and a firmer wheel and tire. win win. i dont particularly like the 22" wheel look on a 4x4 either but a 33 on a 17 does not look out of place. 18s are fine too. step up to a 35 with a truck that needs to haul some weight and i wont consider a 15. way to much sidewall to hold the momentum in corners and to much sidewall to flex under load. flexing a tire like that at road speed is a great way to prematurely age the carcass of the tire and i dont want blow outs when i have a trailer hooked up or the bed full of sand. personally i like a certain amount of sidewall for a truck. to much and it gets ugly and sloppy. to little and it is hard and not appealing visually. i really want to increase the wheel diameter on my jeep. it has 40s on 16.5s. i feel those things flex on the road and on the trail. i dont want to eliminate to much sidewall to protect the wheel as Tim said, but to much flex is no help to me either. Quote:
this is one of those questions where personal preference plays as much into the answer as performance. you want the absolute best performance? get the tire and wheel combo with the least sidewall you can safely run and use that. the rest of the choice is about your preference. you like less sidewall, run a bigger wheel. more sidewall? run the old skool sizes. for me, if budget allows it i will have nothing less than 17s on any truck. compatibility with the rest of the fleet is one consideration and i like the look better. |
|
04-19-2015, 12:08 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 1,813
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
I agree with ryanroo. You have to consider the particular tire construction of each tire. My 315/75r16 toyos are heavy as hell beacuae they have stiff, string sidewalls (E rated). Thats why i selected that paticular tire. They are mounted on 8" wide wheels and there is no detrimental sidewall flex or lateral movement when inflated properly. Compare that to say a BFG All Terrain that is C rated and nearly half the weight, with sidewalls that are much more flexible.
Then there is the other part: correct inflation pressure for the terrain. Thirdly, low profile tires are great for race cars, but don't offer a realistic or practical advantage for most street vehicles.
__________________
Jason M. @argonaut62 1972 K5 Blazer CST, Turquoise 1966 K20 Short Fleet Pickup, Big Ugly 1964 C10 Short Fleet, Gertrude 2001 Porsche 911 Carrera 1996 Ford Bronco XLT 1980 Jeep Wagoneer 2008 Honda CBR1000RR 2005 Honda RC51 1981 Honda CB750C No dis-assemble Johnny Five! No dis-assemble! |
04-27-2015, 02:43 PM | #9 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lompoc Ca,
Posts: 22
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
I'm sorry, but I laugh at all the yahoo jokers who put low profile tires with big tall
wheels on their 4X4's.... They obviously know nothing about 4 wheelin'! You want & need as much sidewall with as much flex as possible. Both for rim protection, and ability to put the rubber to the road as you haul butt over rough roads, & crawl over rocks etc. after you air down. You can get plenty good brakes that fit in 15" wheels...... Don't be one of the sheep following the crowd who've been sucked into buying into a farce created simply to make the wheel & tire companies more $$ from folks replacing wheels that work better than fine, plus both tires and wheels cost more too! Not to mention the extra cash they make replacing broken rims due to they're misleading folks.... Not that I have an opinion about this or anything........Steve
__________________
70 Custom K-10 LWB w/ mild build 350 Sm465 & 205 +GM truck 12 bolt rear Dana 44 up front....3.08 ratio 33" 12.50 15 on 8" rims 46" front leafs 52" rear leafs |
04-27-2015, 05:03 PM | #10 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Posts: 755
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
There are many aspects to "ride quality". Nobody has mentioned, a 40 inch tire is much easier to balance on an 18-inch wheel than a 15-inch wheel.
__________________
I know a little about cars, but if you have a question about electricity or sport quads, I'm your man!!! |
04-27-2015, 09:14 PM | #11 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Blossvale NY
Posts: 202
|
Re: Tire Aspect ratio vs. Price, Performance, and Ride quality
I don't think balancing wheel/tire combos is all that difficult with modern balancers these days, no matter how much rubber you are playing with..
I get the handling and braking aspect of short sidewalls and big rims....on a road course racer... Not a lifted 4wd truck. Who the hell needs to run Watkins Glenn in a lifted square riding on 35's???? Giant rims+big rubber+tiny sidewall+lifted truck=Fail
__________________
Who needs a Hemi when ya got a Chevy! |
Bookmarks |
|
|