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.
Wasn't only the wheel size but the front tire was narrower too. The big reason was that the narrow tire helped with keeping the front tires from wandering or grabbing when they encountered ruts in the road surface. Some road surfaces will have ruts in them from constant heavy truck traffic or many years with out re-surfacing.
Those ruts would grab the tire and force it towards the bottom of the rut or force it to climb to one side. The narrow tire helped to fix that handling issue.
Wasn't only the wheel size but the front tire was narrower too. The big reason was that the narrow tire helped with keeping the front tires from wandering or grabbing when they encountered ruts in the road surface. Some road surfaces will have ruts in them from constant heavy truck traffic or many years with out re-surfacing.
Those ruts would grab the tire and force it towards the bottom of the rut or force it to climb to one side. The narrow tire helped to fix that handling issue.
On my 95 I was thinking about going to 275's in the front and 315's in the rear. would that still work for the wandering and grabbing?
From: St. Louis, Mo......... 1993 Torch Red w/White Interior...2006-07 Bloomington Gold 2005-ZR1/C4 Gathering, 2001-2012 Funfest
Originally Posted by c4cruiser
Wasn't only the wheel size but the front tire was narrower too. The big reason was that the narrow tire helped with keeping the front tires from wandering or grabbing when they encountered ruts in the road surface. Some road surfaces will have ruts in them from constant heavy truck traffic or many years with out re-surfacing.
Those ruts would grab the tire and force it towards the bottom of the rut or force it to climb to one side. The narrow tire helped to fix that handling issue.
....this is correct.
I put 9.5/275's all the way around on mine and I did notice a little difference in more grabbing on bad roads.
But now I can rotate them.....
Wasn't only the wheel size but the front tire was narrower too. .
It would have to be, 275 on a 8.5 is too wide, very mushy in the corners caused by the V out on the side wall. 255 is recommended max on 8.5
Originally Posted by joesgulfstream
On my 95 I was thinking about going to 275's in the front and 315's in the rear. would that still work for the wandering and grabbing?
275's is stock on 9.5 wheels for 92 & back. I guess the trick is keeping the rear wider than the front, as since 93, all Vettes come standard that way. Many do what you want to do, so I'm assuming there's not much of a problem.
It would have to be, 275 on a 8.5 is too wide, very mushy in the corners caused by the V out on the side wall. 255 is recommended max on 8.5
275's is stock on 9.5 wheels for 92 & back. I guess the trick is keeping the rear wider than the front, as since 93, all Vettes come standard that way. Many do what you want to do, so I'm assuming there's not much of a problem.
From: Formerly from the Great White North but now residing in the Desert Southwest NM (The Land of Dis-Enchantment?)
There were two reasons
First, the above described tracking problem on less than perfectly smooth roads, and
GM wanted more understeer...they wanted you to go off the road nose first rather than looping and going off backwards...
Except for the ZR1/GS options, whenever there was a performance suspension option like Z51 or Z07 on C4's, they went with a square set-up on tire/wheels.