Skip to main content

39 replies

17" Tires: Options getting fewer & and your opinion on 285/40/17 size?

rbarkley671rbarkley671Member
The 17" tire options in our sizes are getting slim! Neither TireRack.com or onlinetires.com show any 335/35/17 tires. The Kumho ecsta XS is, depending who you talk to, either discontinued or "on back order". They had a 315/35/17 (with a matching 235/40/17) tire that I was planning on getting but haven't been able to find any. It is rumored that they are being replaced with the new v720 model (due out this month) but the current V700 and V710 are track tires, so who knows, and in what sizes they'll be available.

So I started looking for options. The only other non competition option in those sizes (or any other for that matter with a 315/35/17 rear) are the Nitto N05 and they aren't that far from being a competition tire and terrible in the wet.

So, looking for other options I started with 285/40/17 with a matching set of fronts (245 or 235/40/17 or 225 or 215/45/17). There are not a whole lot of choices there either. But there is a good one: Continental ExtremeContact DW which gets great reviews from the Porsche, Corvette, and BMW crowd, and TireRack and Car and Driver. A friend with a chevy (600+ HP) powered Porsche has the 285/40/17s on the rear and thinks they are great. I've heard that Mad Dog has them in the 285/40/18 size on his Pantera and really likes them. The Conti's come in 245/40(24.7") , and 225/45(25"), 215/45(24.6") and 205/45 (24.3" but they are recommended for max 7.5" wheels) sizes. While not a primary concern, the cost of the Conti's are pretty reasonable at about $175 and $120 (for the 225/45). A complete set at TireRack is $586 +~$70 shipping(no tax), online tires $664.57 w tx+shipping (local warehouse $11 shipping). Our local America's Tire store is $727.18 "out the door" which includes instal & lifetime balance and a prorated road hazard guarantee.

While I want a tire that handles well, I'm not looking for ultimate performance, and dry/wet balance and ride/noise quality are important to me. I'm coming off MICHELIN Pilot SX MXX3 in the 335/35 and 235/40/17 sizes. Given that the MXX3 design is close to 20 years old, I wouldn't be surprised if the Conti's are close to their equal in dry performance and much better in wet and ride quality.

Any thoughts, opinions, or options are welcome.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

George PGeorge PAdmin.
I've been considering the 285/40r17 tire myself, paired with the 225/50r15 up front. Available as a matched set in the Pirelli P Zero model. In my opinion the 285/40R17 (26" diameter) is too small in diameter to pair with any front tire larger than 24.3" diameter.

The chart details options where you can acquire the same make and model for all 4 corners, with good availability, correct diameters, etc.

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • ContempoTireSets_zps551441b4
rbarkley671rbarkley671Member
quote:
Originally posted by Joules:
Tirerack is showing Michelin PS2 in 335/35-17, admittedly less than 11 available, but you only need two!

Julian

Hmm, I thought I checked that yesterday and found none. Anyway, now there only 9 left. Someone must have seen your post Wink. Or maybe I didn't mention them because a set would cost $1,472.34, more than twice as much as the DW's $638 and the matching front is a 235/45 (listed as NA dia but probably about 25"). I'd prefer a slightly smaller dia 245/40(24.7").

Also the Conti DWs out scored them on the test track: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...Display.jsp?ttid=140
tajontajonMember
I have a hard time with the final results of many of these tests. When you look at what made the tire score low, most often its because it doesn't represent what the tire is intended for. Take for example the Kuhmo tire (keep in mind I'm biased as they are on my car) but it scored lower than others based on the poor / wet weather traction. Who cares I say!! My car is never intentionally driven in the wet and if I do get caught in inclimate weather I drive so slow it doesn't matter. But what does matter is that it was the only tire to pull more than 1.0 Gs of lateral excelleration. That should make it the winner.
With that said and my rant over, I'm bummed that they are on back order, hopefully I can find some more.
rbarkley671rbarkley671Member
quote:
Originally posted by George P:
I've been considering the 285/40r17 tire myself, paired with the 225/50r15 up front. Available as a matched set in the Pirelli P Zero model. In my opinion the 285/40R17 (26" diameter) is too small in diameter to pair with any front tire larger than 24.3" diameter.

The chart details options where you can acquire the same make and model for all 4 corners, with good availability, correct diameters, etc.


George, Yes but.... I'd like to get at least one or two more tire cycles out of my 17" front and rear wheels. I understand and agree with your ~2" F/R size difference preference but, I doubt if I (or most people) would notice the 0.2" in radius difference between 24.3"(205/45) and a 24.7" (245/40) tire. But I'm sure they'd notice the 9.8" vs 8.4" section width. Eeker And I think the handling difference would be substantial as well.
rbarkley671rbarkley671Member
quote:
Originally posted by tajon:
I have a hard time with the final results of many of these tests. When you look at what made the tire score low, most often its because it doesn't represent what the tire is intended for.....


I totally agree. That's why I always look at the detailed test results and do my own weighting. What I usually see are relatively small differences. Also, when the test is of a tire size you may not be buying, they are somewhat questionable. Also, while the test results show measurable differences (in tests like lap times, cornering g's etc.) many of the scores are subjective (steering response, braking modulation, etc.).

The Kumho XS's scored 1st in two of the 18 tests: skid pad g's (by 2%) and cornering stability by 1%. You'd think that would give them the best track results but you'd be wrong: they lost slalom by 1.5% and lap time by 0.05%. The point here is not that the Kumhos are not great tires, but that all the tires in the test were pretty darn good and almost everyone (including me) would be hard pressed to tell the difference in a "blinded" test.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...Display.jsp?ttid=118
George PGeorge PAdmin.
I'd like to share two bits of experience:

When I installed the 18"/20" tire combo on 6018, the front tires were 245/35r18 (24.8" OD) and the rear tires were 325/25r20 (26.4" OD). The front tires had a slightly taller sidewall than the rear tires, 3.4" high sidewalls up front verses 3.2" high sidewalls in the rear. The 0.2" difference in sidewall was noticeable with the naked eye. And having rear sidewalls that were shorter than the front sidewalls didn't look right to my eyes. But my point has nothing to do with sidewall heights which would only be a consideration for someone using wheels that are 2" different in OD front to rear. My only point is that 0.200" differences in wheel/tire dimensions were discernible with the naked eye. This was unexpected, like you I didn't think such a small difference in dimension would be discernible. If the difference had only been 0.100" I don't think it would have. This is admittedly a minor point, I don't intend to be contentious in sharing this.

A major point is to keep the front/rear tires equally spaced within the fender arches while maintaining the proper chassis "stance" (i.e. a level chassis). When I purchased 6018 it was equipped with 245/40r17 front tires (24.7" OD) and 315/35r17 rear tires (25.7" OD). There was only 1" difference between front and rear tire diameter. To prevent the car having a "nose-up" attitude, and to correct the altered axis of the control arms, the previous owner (or the shop that did the work) lowered the front of the car on the suspension using the adjustable shocks until the chassis was level. The result was the front tires were no longer centered within the fender arches, instead the fenders sat "over" the front tires; i.e. the tops of the front tires were hidden up inside the wheel houses. It just didn't look right to me. This is why I warn about keeping the difference between front & rear tire diameter within 1.7" to 2.3".
Last edited by George P
rbarkley671rbarkley671Member
Here's a pretty cool tire calculator. http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/tirecalc.php

First, lets look at the original tire sizes: 215/70/15 and 185/70/15 Those are the sizes for the cars that came with Pirelli tires (mine). (AFAICR the Michelin equipped cars had 225/70/15s on the rears). I plugged the original size:
http://www.tacomaworld.com/for...=215-70r15-185-70r15

So the OEM sidewall height difference was 0.83" with a 1.65" diameter difference (or larger for the Michelins)While different tires may vary a bit from these numbers, they are probably "typical".

I put in the "recommended" 335 - 235 17" sizes.
http://www.tacomaworld.com/for...=335-35r17-235-40r17
As you can see, the sidewall height difference is almost an inch (0.92)! or ~20%! Yes, that would be apparent to the naked eye but very similar to the OEM tires! The diameter difference was 1.83"

For anyone interested, in the 285/40/17 match-ups, the 245/40s come in at 0.63 sidewall with a 1.26 diameter difference. Dropping down to 225 or 215/45s doesn't change things much. While maybe not ideal from George's perspective, I doubt that the casual observer (i.e. folks admiring your car) would even notice Eeker
B bdudMember
quote:
Originally posted by George P:
I've been considering the 285/40r17 tire myself, paired with the 225/50r15 up front. Available as a matched set in the Pirelli P Zero model.

Great minds think alike! Just got my P Zeros mounted on my freshly powdercoated wheels.
The rears are 17" x 11" from Republic Wheels who I would never recommend.

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • IMG_1405
George PGeorge PAdmin.
Thumbs Up! Looks good Brian, how about a straight-on side view? When you get a chance, no rush.

One aspect I'm interested in seeing is how well the clones match the oem front wheels.

In regards to Republic wheels, its a shame they have the custom sized Campy clone market to themselves. A business which treats its customers poorly will eventually go out of business. Custom size Campy clones will cease to be available if that happens to Republic Wheels.
Last edited by George P
George PGeorge PAdmin.
quote:

Originally posted by 73 l:

... does your daughter ... design engineer or both. and can they do custom wheels ...



April engineers parts (including wheels) based upon customer specification, and she engineers the custom tooling to manufacture them.

Her employer (Advanced Structural Alloys) prefers to supply the component parts to the end manufacturer, and allow them to perform the finish machining. But they do manufacture finished parts as well. However, their minimum production run is 40 units. If your requirement is different sized wheels for the front & back, that would be 40 front wheels and 40 back wheels.


PM me if you're still interested in contacting her.
Last edited by George P
B bdudMember
George just for you. I cannot get a good picture of the side of the car, this was at a MustangUnlimited car show last weekend. It almost looks like the wheels are a different color but they are both powder coated the same color. Let me know if you want me to try again. Smiler
My engine is out at the moment, ah..

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • IMG_0005
Next

Add Reply

Views: 2,841
Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×