When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Was just wondering about tire size and handling for the front tire? I have 235/60/15 on front and rear ( came that way when I bought it) if I go yo a 235/70/15 on front would it handle better or worse.
The width of the tire is the same 235mm but the sidewall will be taller so I would think the ride would be slightly softer and the handling slightly less but I also do not think it will even be a noticeable seat of the pants difference.
Was just wondering about tire size and handling for the front tire? I have 235/60/15 on front and rear ( came that way when I bought it) if I go to a 235/70/15 on front would it handle better or worse.
OE tires for the later C-3s, after 1976, I seem to recall, were 225/70/15s, and in 1978, 255/60/15s were added as an option, both tires on 8" wide rims. (both of these tires are approximately 27" OD)
235/60, in reality are way too short, and 235/70s a little too tall. If the car is a daily driver type of car, I'd recommend the 225/70s all the way around. Your speedo will be accurate, and you'll be able to rotate the tires whenever necessary.
From: Graceland in a Not Correctly Restored Stingray
60 aspect tires will tend to have better sidewall stability than 70's.
That said, IMCO any halfway serious discussion about better handling road tire fitments for 8" x 15" rims ought to include 245/60R15s or 255/60R15s. My $.02
before i went to 17" wheels i ran 255/60/15 fronts and 295/50/15 on rear. granted the car has a complete vbp suspension upgrade but handling was amazing
60 aspect tires will tend to have better sidewall stability than 70's.
That said, IMCO any halfway serious discussion about better handling road tire fitments for 8" x 15" rims ought to include 245/60R15s or 255/60R15s. My $.02
I respectfully disagree, assuming you're saying a 60 series tire vs. a 70 series tire, on the same width rim, and the same OD, such as the sizes originally offered on a C-3. The 70 series tire, being narrower in section width, has it's sidewalls "stretched" to meet the beads of the rims, keeping them more perpendicular to the tread. The wider section width of the 60 series tire has it's sidewalls "pinched" to a rim that's almost too narrow for the tire.
As a part-time business, back in the mid 70s-early 80s, I used to sell tires. At the time, I had a '77 Pontiac T/A, and had a number of different tires on it, alternating between 225/70/15, 245/60/15, and 255/60/15s. The 225/70s and 255/60s were on the car "back to back" on the same 8" rims, and while the 60s looked 10X better, the 70s handled more crisply.
From: Graceland in a Not Correctly Restored Stingray
To clarify, I was refering to tires with the same P#. And, FWIW I'm one of the guys who most frequently points out that TRA wheel width standards for 15" tires shouldn't be mistaken as recommending narrow wheels for performance applications.
In any event, IMOE once you get smaller than a 245/60R15 radial on an 8x15 rim you start moving past the point of diminishing returns as to any further increase of sidewall stability verses overall handling characteristics (including available traction). As for the 255s, they're noticeably better on 8.5x15 rims. YMMV
all i know is , i have 255-60-15 front and 275-60-15 rear cooper cobras . it handles well until, someone spits on the road then its donut city . i wonder if someone makes a 15" tire with better wet grip. i have 8.5 width rims.
As a part-time business, back in the mid 70s-early 80s, I used to sell tires. At the time, I had a '77 Pontiac T/A, and had a number of different tires on it, alternating between 225/70/15, 245/60/15, and 255/60/15s. The 225/70s and 255/60s were on the car "back to back" on the same 8" rims, and while the 60s looked 10X better, the 70s handled more crisply.
Interesting. Is that just your subjective opinion or did you do testing to come to those conculsions? I would have thought the lower aspect ratio with the wider contact patch would have more grip and therefore better response to steering input.
Last edited by 3JsVette; Nov 23, 2013 at 11:07 PM.
Interesting. Is that just your subjective opinion or did you do testing to come to those conculsions? I would have thought the lower aspect ratio with the wider contact patch would have more grip and therefore better response to steering input.
That's my subjective opinion, since I didn't/don't have access to test tracks or testing equipment. A simple test, for those who have a mixture of tires on your cars...lean back and forth against a fender of your car and see how much the sidewall "rolls", and tries to roll the tread with it.. Compare the roll between the wider tire vs. the narrower tire....
Better yet, because the visual is easy, take a look at a current Formula 1 car's tire width compared to it's rim width. The sidewalls are stretched out to meet the rims, providing the maximum tread stability. I'm pretty sure that if a narrower rim, with the sidewalls "rolling in" to meet the rim provided greater cornering force, these "state of the art" race cars would be doing it.
FWIW, back in the 80s, when I was involved with an oval track car, we ran tires with a 13" tread width, mounted on a 15" wide rim. If a 10-11" wide rim would have worked better, we would have been running with them....