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.
Hello all, I have a question about tires. I have a 1992 base C4. The previous owner installed oem 1993 spec rims and tires. My rears are wider than my fronts. I have incurred a rear flat tire that is not repairable. Ultimately I would like to get the car back to oem 1992 spec wheels. which if I understand are the same wheels and tire front to back which would allow me rotate front to back.
My initial plan is to just buy two rear tires for the car and continue to drive. My issue is that I have found that there is VERY limited options for a p285 40 r17 tire which is on the rear. It looks like there are many options for a P275 40 R17 my question is will a P275 40 R17 fit my oem 1993 rear saw blade rims
There were slim pickings when I was looking for stock '93 tires a year ago. I wanted all-weathers but wound up buying a set of Continental Extreme Sports from Tire Rack. This means I park the car if the temp gets much below 25F.
Are your wheels 8.5 front and 9.5 width rear? If so, 275/40/17 are the perfect size for the rear. If you pick up two more 9.5's for the front you will be good to go.
275's are fine on the rear. The staggered setup drives better on regular roads. You won't save much by being able to rotate IMO. Better money is spent on a good road spec alignment.... you can easily get 30k out of tires without rotating but with a good alignment.
With that said I do like the same wheels and tires on all 4 corners if you happen into a great deal on 2 wheels
The RPO codes on my 92 show that it came with 275 40 17s and 9.5" rims on all four. I replaced my tires with the Mickey Thompson street ets and like the look and performance. I'm in So Cal where we don't get much rain so I can't comment on the winter performance.
If I look at the rims where would I see any identifier for the rims size. The previous owner told me he installed wheels from a 1993 on the car so I know I don't have the wheels the car left the factory with. I was under the impression that a 1992 came with all 4 wheels the same size. When i search tires for a 1993 on tire rack I have one option, when I search for a 1992 there are many options and all 4 tires are the same size.
sam
As others said check the stamps for size but if you currently have a staggered set up, they are likely 8.5 fronts and 9.5 rears. If you wanted to keep the staggered set up, and just get tires, Continental makes the extreme contact sports which are awesome tires and are available in 285/40r17 for rear and 255/45r 17 for front. Those are the factory sizes for the staggered set up and are within spec for diameter front to rear (almost exactly same). If you want 275’s all around, you would have to get 9.5’s for the front. The Continental tires I mentioned are on tire rack.
This is where I am I am going to check the rim sizes to verify what I have. I am leaning towards a square set up with no stagger. I do not "performance" drive the car. I would rather be able to buy lower price point tires with more options. So I am thinking I would go back to the 1992 OEM set up that I believe would be a square non staggered setup.
Sam
This is where I am I am going to check the rim sizes to verify what I have. I am leaning towards a square set up with no stagger. I do not "performance" drive the car. I would rather be able to buy lower price point tires with more options. So I am thinking I would go back to the 1992 OEM set up that I believe would be a square non staggered setup.
Sam
Let us know. The issue isn't that "stagger" gives you better performance: the stagger from 93-96 was achieved by making the front tires narrower, and GM fitted taller and "balloonier" tires to them. The "square" 17x9.5 wheel set with 275/40/17 tires all around is the better performing option, and there are lots of choices in that tire size. If you just replace the rears now and you have 255/45/17 tires up front, you'll have taller tires on the front than on the rear. It looks a little weird. There are options for the 285 and 255 tire combo, but not many. A lot of people (including myself) stepped down to 245/45/17 in front and 275/40/17 in back, where there are better tire choices. Or, as someone else said, you could look for two more 9.5 sawblades for the front if you want 275s "square." So check your front and rear wheel sizes and let us know what you have and we'll get some good tire recommendations up here for you.
Let us know. The issue isn't that "stagger" gives you better performance: the stagger from 93-96 was achieved by making the front tires narrower, and GM fitted taller and "balloonier" tires to them. The "square" 17x9.5 wheel set with 275/40/17 tires all around is the better performing option, and there are lots of choices in that tire size. If you just replace the rears now and you have 255/45/17 tires up front, you'll have taller tires on the front than on the rear. It looks a little weird. There are options for the 285 and 255 tire combo, but not many. A lot of people (including myself) stepped down to 245/45/17 in front and 275/40/17 in back, where there are better tire choices. Or, as someone else said, you could look for two more 9.5 sawblades for the front if you want 275s "square." So check your front and rear wheel sizes and let us know what you have and we'll get some good tire recommendations up here for you.
I like the "stepped down" option. There are options with many price points.
My concern, would there be a reluctance from tires shops to not install a "non OEM" size combination, potentially citing liability issues?
I see there is a nice price-point sumitomo HTR A/S P03 all season set on tire rack. Also I found a "performance summer" tire from kumho ecsta PS31 on Amazon for a nice price. Both of these are available in the "stepped down" size noted by Mathew
I like the "stepped down" option. There are options with many price points.
My concern, would there be a reluctance from tires shops to not install a "non OEM" size combination, potentially citing liability issues?
I see there is a nice price-point sumitomo HTR A/S P03 all season set on tire rack. Also I found a "performance summer" tire from kumho ecsta PS31 on Amazon for a nice price. Both of these are available in the "stepped down" size noted by Mathew
Any thoughts?
I don't think a tire shop will balk at putting the step-down sizes on your wheels. They are well within the rim width recommendations for the tire sizes we are discussing. If a place does give you a hard time, look around: someone will want your business!
As for thoughts on actual tire recommendations, let's narrow down your use of the car first. Do you use it in winter conditions (snow, ice, or weather below 20F)? If not, you don't need an all-season. Most Corvette owners only drive when it's nice out, so most can use summer tires. But if you drive yours year-round in MA, then you'll want an all-season. A good summer performance tire is good in dry or rain down to 32F (really 20F, but everyone freaks out about cold temps), but they are bad in snow or ice.
Among the all-seasons on Tire Rack:
The Sumitomo is a good budget tire for rainy conditions. The Riken Raptor is actually faster in the dry and fairly close in snow. It's also $80 cheaper for a set ($480) and they are a subsidiary of Michelin and therefore the quality is pretty good. I used these as my street/winter tires on my C4, and they are a great budget tire. Unless you drive in rain a lot, I would save the money and buy the Rikens over the Sumitomos.
The Kumho PA51 is faster still, and I've had good luck with this brand (though I've not use this model myself). It's $660/set, so still not expensive. It performs at least as well in the dry than the General G Max AS-05 and better than the Cooper Zeon RS3-G1, and it's a little cheaper than both.
The best-performing all-season in your size right now is the Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4 (the Continental DWS isn't available in these sizes). It's the OE tire on base C8s. It's a little better performing than the Kumho PA51 in the dry, and it will have impeccable quality. It's also $920/set. The Kumho and Rikens look like the value leaders here!
Among summer performance tires:
The Kumho PS31 isn't a very good performer, even in the dry. I honestly think the PA51 all-season is better, based on TR's test results! I'd skip the PS31.
The Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 continues to be a good performer at a decent price ($638). It's okay-ish in the rain. If you don't need an all-season, this will provide better grip in the dry and give sharper response.
By far the best overall performer in the class will be the Continental ExtremeContact Sport. It's fast in the dry and it's by far the best rain in this size - grippier in rain than any all-season. It's so good that a lot of autocrossers use it as a "rain tire" in classes that mandate street tires. It's $940/set, but the real problem is the 275/40/17 is on backorder. You'd have to call around. OTOH, this tire is available right now for a similar price in the OE sizes for your wheels of 255/45/17 and 285/40/17. These are such good tires that it's impossible not to recommend them if you are willing/able to pay for them.
So to sum up, if you need an all-season the Riken is the budget choice, the Kumho PA51 is your mid-tier choice, and the Michelin is the premium choice. For a summer tire, the Riken Raptor is still your budget choice (even though it's called an all-season), the Firestone Indy 500 is a solid mid-tier choice, and the Continental EC Sport is your premium tire (and darn well worth it).
Hello all, to put closure on my post I have new set of Nitto Motivo tires. I went with the step down size. 245/45R17 front 275/40R17 rear. I have driven the car for about 25 miles and I like the tires so far. Thanks to all for input.