18" or 19" wheels
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,050
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles CA
You have to have the tire heights at different sizes so it doesn't confuse the traction control. What different heights I can't remember. I know it's been mentioned before. If you buy from an approved forum vendor then they usually know the common setups and sizes needed. I bought my tires from TomZ Wheels. I told him the sizes of the wheels I was getting and he recommended tire sizes. I couldn't be happier with what I got.
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 43,084
Likes: 33
From: Raleigh / Rolesville NC
as long as the rear tire is slightly larger then the front then TC/ AH does not get confused.
I have run identical sizes on all four corners with out problems untill a high speed sweeper, then the TC kicked in and I thought "WTF is going ON?" OH hit the TC OFF button and no problems
go with 18s all around. They look great
I have run identical sizes on all four corners with out problems untill a high speed sweeper, then the TC kicked in and I thought "WTF is going ON?" OH hit the TC OFF button and no problems
go with 18s all around. They look great
Thread Starter
Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 596
Likes: 2
From: Houston Texas
as long as the rear tire is slightly larger then the front then TC/ AH does not get confused.
I have run identical sizes on all four corners with out problems untill a high speed sweeper, then the TC kicked in and I thought "WTF is going ON?" OH hit the TC OFF button and no problems
go with 18s all around. They look great
I have run identical sizes on all four corners with out problems untill a high speed sweeper, then the TC kicked in and I thought "WTF is going ON?" OH hit the TC OFF button and no problems
go with 18s all around. They look great
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 43,084
Likes: 33
From: Raleigh / Rolesville NC
What size rims do you have or what do you want?
My ideal choice for a C5 street use would be
18x10 front with 18x285/35
18x11 rear with 18x305/35 rear
any thing wider just wallows at slow speeds
My street set up is 18x10 with 18x275/35 front and 18x12 with 18x335/30 rear. 335 rear is too wide for street use
track use is 18x12 with 18x305/30 or 18x315/30 front and 18x13 with 18x335/30 or 18x345/35 rear, at slow speeds the car feels like a pig in the mud.
My ideal choice for a C5 street use would be
18x10 front with 18x285/35
18x11 rear with 18x305/35 rear
any thing wider just wallows at slow speeds
My street set up is 18x10 with 18x275/35 front and 18x12 with 18x335/30 rear. 335 rear is too wide for street use
track use is 18x12 with 18x305/30 or 18x315/30 front and 18x13 with 18x335/30 or 18x345/35 rear, at slow speeds the car feels like a pig in the mud.
Race Director
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,459
Likes: 48
From: Schaumburg IL
CI 7-8-9-11 Veteran
St. Jude Donor '06-'10, '13
I am running 19's all the way around
19x10 front with 275s
and 19x11 in the rear with 295s
ccw wheels
no issues like said above with traction control/AH as long as fronts are a bit smaller than rears.
19x10 front with 275s
and 19x11 in the rear with 295s
ccw wheels
no issues like said above with traction control/AH as long as fronts are a bit smaller than rears.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Every 2027 Corvette Engine Explained
Joe Kucinski
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Verdad Gallardo
10 Ugly Corvettes That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Administrator
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 66,409
Likes: 2,061
From: Bel Air (by way of Fort Worth, TX) Maryland
St. Jude Donor '12 thru '21
An 18"/19" set up should not pose any issues for you and you keep the sexy staggered look
Last edited by Chemdawg99; May 31, 2008 at 01:27 PM.
Tech Contributor
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,384
Likes: 87
From: Horncastle Lincolnshire, England
2023 C5 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
I was just re-reading "All Corvettes are Red"
Its interestiing finding out the background as to why the C5 ended up with 17/18s.
I'll leave that one hanging.
Its interestiing finding out the background as to why the C5 ended up with 17/18s.
I'll leave that one hanging.
Administrator
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 66,409
Likes: 2,061
From: Bel Air (by way of Fort Worth, TX) Maryland
St. Jude Donor '12 thru '21
Its also interesting how they decided to make the stock LS1 make 350HP
Administrator
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 66,409
Likes: 2,061
From: Bel Air (by way of Fort Worth, TX) Maryland
St. Jude Donor '12 thru '21
Tech Contributor
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,384
Likes: 87
From: Horncastle Lincolnshire, England
2023 C5 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
The Problem the Designers Faced
This doesn't quite answer the OPs original question but interesting all the same.
I've para phrased this from the book.
John Cafaro, the design guru for the C5 was a big tire advocate. He wanted bigger tires at the rear to give the car the racy nose down look. He also wanted wide tires at the rear to give the rear aspect the “Don’t Mess With Me” appeal. Dave Hill the Chief Engineer for the C5, was faced with a clay model that had 17s up front and 19s in the rear. The catch was that tires were one of the main aspects that would dictate ride and handling for the new model both of which needed improving over the C4.
The challenge they both faced was to get the C5 down to the coefficient of drag target of 0.29. The models were running 0.32 to 0.34 in the wind tunnel which was way too high. The combination of poor airflow nd a wide butt because of the fat tires was killing it.
One of the key areas was aerodynamic flow under the car. (Those of you who take off the air dams take note). The engineers were suggesting adding belly pans but these were adding weight and cost. The designers wanted to shorten the car cutting cost and mass. Their solution was a flat underside to the front fascia.
Dave Hill’s solution was to shave the side glass by ½” between the A pillar and the B pillar (windscreen and rear pillar) to stop aerodynamic break away. Romberg, another engineer pointed out that the rear width was the biggest factor and they needed to make the car trimmer in width at the rear.
The crunch was Dave Hill wanted 17s all round even though he knew that handling would deteriorate. Cafaro was hard over on the larger rears for design appeal. He played the handling card knowing the engineers would be unable to argue the fact.
Bottom line was the tires were a key part of a complicted design decision involving anumber of factors. In the end the compromise was 17s front 18s rear to give a balance between handling and looks.
Maybe E-T can add some more insight
I've para phrased this from the book.
John Cafaro, the design guru for the C5 was a big tire advocate. He wanted bigger tires at the rear to give the car the racy nose down look. He also wanted wide tires at the rear to give the rear aspect the “Don’t Mess With Me” appeal. Dave Hill the Chief Engineer for the C5, was faced with a clay model that had 17s up front and 19s in the rear. The catch was that tires were one of the main aspects that would dictate ride and handling for the new model both of which needed improving over the C4.
The challenge they both faced was to get the C5 down to the coefficient of drag target of 0.29. The models were running 0.32 to 0.34 in the wind tunnel which was way too high. The combination of poor airflow nd a wide butt because of the fat tires was killing it.
One of the key areas was aerodynamic flow under the car. (Those of you who take off the air dams take note). The engineers were suggesting adding belly pans but these were adding weight and cost. The designers wanted to shorten the car cutting cost and mass. Their solution was a flat underside to the front fascia.
Dave Hill’s solution was to shave the side glass by ½” between the A pillar and the B pillar (windscreen and rear pillar) to stop aerodynamic break away. Romberg, another engineer pointed out that the rear width was the biggest factor and they needed to make the car trimmer in width at the rear.
The crunch was Dave Hill wanted 17s all round even though he knew that handling would deteriorate. Cafaro was hard over on the larger rears for design appeal. He played the handling card knowing the engineers would be unable to argue the fact.
Bottom line was the tires were a key part of a complicted design decision involving anumber of factors. In the end the compromise was 17s front 18s rear to give a balance between handling and looks.
Maybe E-T can add some more insight
Last edited by DeeGee; May 31, 2008 at 03:57 PM.
Administrator
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 66,409
Likes: 2,061
From: Bel Air (by way of Fort Worth, TX) Maryland
St. Jude Donor '12 thru '21
This doesn't quite answer the OPs original question but interesting all the same.
I've para phrased this from the book.
John Cafaro, the design guru for the C5 was a big tire advocate. He wanted bigger tires at the rear to give the car the racy nose down look. He also wanted wide tires at the rear to give the rear aspect the “Don’t Mess With Me” appeal. Dave Hill the Chief Engineer for the C5, was faced with a clay model that had 17s up front and 19s in the rear. The catch was that tires were one of the main aspects that would dictate ride and handling for the new model both of which needed improving over the C4.
The challenge they both faced was to get the C5 down to the coefficient of drag target of 0.29. The models were running 0.32 to 0.34 in the wind tunnel which was way too high.
One of the key areas was aerodynamic flow under the car. (Those of you who take off the air dams take note). The engineers were suggesting adding belly pans but these were adding weight and cost. The designers wanted to shorten the car cutting cost and mass. Their solution was a flat underside to the front fascia.
Dave Hill’s solution was to shave the side glass by ½” between the A pillar and the B pillar (windscreen and rear pillar) to stop aerodynamic break away. Romberg, another engineer pointed out that the rear width was the biggest factor and they needed to make the car trimmer in width at the rear.
The crunch was Dave Hill wanted 17s all round even though he knew that handling would deteriorate. Cafaro was hard over on the larger rears for design appeal. He played the handling card knowing the engineers would be unable to argue the fact.
In the end the compromise was 17s front 18s rear to give a balance between handling and looks.
Maybe E-T can add some more insight
I've para phrased this from the book.
John Cafaro, the design guru for the C5 was a big tire advocate. He wanted bigger tires at the rear to give the car the racy nose down look. He also wanted wide tires at the rear to give the rear aspect the “Don’t Mess With Me” appeal. Dave Hill the Chief Engineer for the C5, was faced with a clay model that had 17s up front and 19s in the rear. The catch was that tires were one of the main aspects that would dictate ride and handling for the new model both of which needed improving over the C4.
The challenge they both faced was to get the C5 down to the coefficient of drag target of 0.29. The models were running 0.32 to 0.34 in the wind tunnel which was way too high.
One of the key areas was aerodynamic flow under the car. (Those of you who take off the air dams take note). The engineers were suggesting adding belly pans but these were adding weight and cost. The designers wanted to shorten the car cutting cost and mass. Their solution was a flat underside to the front fascia.
Dave Hill’s solution was to shave the side glass by ½” between the A pillar and the B pillar (windscreen and rear pillar) to stop aerodynamic break away. Romberg, another engineer pointed out that the rear width was the biggest factor and they needed to make the car trimmer in width at the rear.
The crunch was Dave Hill wanted 17s all round even though he knew that handling would deteriorate. Cafaro was hard over on the larger rears for design appeal. He played the handling card knowing the engineers would be unable to argue the fact.
In the end the compromise was 17s front 18s rear to give a balance between handling and looks.
Maybe E-T can add some more insight
Thread Starter
Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 596
Likes: 2
From: Houston Texas
the rubber is 13.75 mm higher in the rear which is approx. 1/2"