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.
So, whats the reason for 18 front, 19 rear if your only going to offset it with alternating tire height? There's a difference of 29mm or .14 inches overall diameter between the two.
2 hrs later I think it may have just dawned on me... is it so you can 40mm+ wider in the rear?
Last edited by jpuli28; Nov 17, 2011 at 04:09 AM.
Reason: light bulb
Why would the wheel diameter have any effect on how wide of a wheel you can run?
Turn that light bulb back off
My guess would be it's for aestethic reasons and the ability to run a taller rear tire (more contact patch/traction versus the same width tire that is shorter) without having a ton of sidewall showing.
I'm also not sure where you got a difference of .14 inches. The difference is 1.2 inches with 25.7" front and 26.9" rears.
Last edited by FloydSummerOf68; Nov 17, 2011 at 08:42 AM.
Your guess answers the first line of your post, I think lol. It also corroborates my "dawning". As you can see, it was also 2am, I was bored.
I compared the two tires on 1010tires.com calculator.
Sometimes it is safer to keep the lights out
why does the car come with 245's in the front and 285's in the rear? does anyone run the same width all around? i have that setup on my M3 and it made the car more neutral and more fun to drive than my C6.
Well my car runs a 345 in back...I certainly can't run that in front
Originally Posted by jpuli28
Your guess answers the first line of your post, I think lol. It also corroborates my "dawning".
I don't think it does, as the first line of my post was a facetious question.
Wheel diameter has nothing to do with wheel width and it certainly doesn't corroborate your coming to the conclusion that 18s are on front and 19s are on back is because a 40mm wider tire is on back.
Why would the wheel diameter have any effect on how wide of a wheel you can run?
Turn that light bulb back off
My guess would be it's for aestethic reasons and the ability to run a taller rear tire (more contact patch/traction versus the same width tire that is shorter) without having a ton of sidewall showing.
I'm also not sure where you got a difference of .14 inches. The difference is 1.2 inches with 25.7" front and 26.9" rears.
I remember reading about the C5 when it came out. Everything was about styling. They had a body design and the chassis and powertrain engineers had to design their respective components to fit the design. The low cowl and hood were a must and they spent a lot of money getting the engine low enough in the chassis(the ultra shallow oil pan with wings) to fit under the hood. The other was the wedge shape with the high rear end. They needed larger diameter wheels/tires in the back to keep the rear quarter panel proportions correct. The C6 was a carry over of this design, even though they raised the cowl height(and the roof height) in order to fit the larger DOHC Northstar engine under the hood for the XLR version. If you review the original C5 concept sketches, the staggered tires was really dramatic. They toned it down, a bunch, for the production version.
So, whats the reason for 18 front, 19 rear if your only going to offset it with alternating tire height? There's a difference of 29mm or .14 inches overall diameter between the two.
2 hrs later I think it may have just dawned on me... is it so you can 40mm+ wider in the rear?
Realistically? Just an aesthetics preference by the designers. The wheel arches and packaging space made the car look aggressive and (in the opinion of the designers apparently) needed the 19" rear wheels to fill them out. No real reason beyond that. Very few people make racing tires in that size so its kinda difficult to recommend any performance advantage over 18s. And 1.14" is quite a bit of difference front to rear visually.
I've always thought that it may be a deal with Goodyear as, I think, only they made the EMT tires in the OEM sizes at first (in '05/06) and then, later, Michelin came out with PS's to fit -- at a much greater cost.
It's possible Goodyear cornered the market for a couple of years. I can imagine having standard "performance alignment" specs specified which are known to eat tires and are of no benefit to 95% of the owners.
In exchange, Goodyear might have supplied the factory with a real cheap price on the 1st set -- or more -- using odd size tires that could have just as easily been existing sizes.
But, I'm just feeling a little conspiratory this evening.
I remember reading about the C5 when it came out. Everything was about styling. They had a body design and the chassis and powertrain engineers had to design their respective components to fit the design. The low cowl and hood were a must and they spent a lot of money getting the engine low enough in the chassis(the ultra shallow oil pan with wings) to fit under the hood. The other was the wedge shape with the high rear end. They needed larger diameter wheels/tires in the back to keep the rear quarter panel proportions correct. The C6 was a carry over of this design, even though they raised the cowl height(and the roof height) in order to fit the larger DOHC Northstar engine under the hood for the XLR version. If you review the original C5 concept sketches, the staggered tires was really dramatic. They toned it down, a bunch, for the production version.
It is all described in "All Corvettes are Red" the book that told how the C5 came about. The C6 is just an evolution of the C5 design. The book is a great read if you haven't read it. Must reading for any C5/C6 owner and maybe C7 owners.