|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
OP
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
I got my tires mounted onto my rims today, for some reason my 17's look really really small..I went with the 225/45/17..looks very odd, i was hoping it be like a little low profile but dammmn..heres a quick pic from my phone since I didnt have my digi with me..it just looks funny to me, or maybe it'll look different on the car..  
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 674
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 674 |
I'm sure hugo would chime in, but the dsl is plugged into my computer right now  Anyway, he always say's his 17's look small because the spokes on the axis ne-o's tuck in instead of going to the complete outer edge like the RS5's or something. Maybe you are experiencing something similar?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,974
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,974 |
Looks good but you should have went with a lower profile tire.
Aaron
AKA NVS SVT
98.5 Silver/Blue SVT#4553
Yeah it's modded
98 T-Red/Blue SVT Contour Totaled 06/05/06
03 3L,VCN 2000,CAT Cams,MSDS Headers w/Y-Pipe,XCal2 and lots more
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
left: 225-40/18
right: 225-45/17 (I think)
Originally posted by NVS SVT:
Looks good but you should have went with a lower profile tire.
Disagree completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
Originally posted by NVS SVT:
Looks good but you should have went with a lower profile tire.
Aaron
there wouldnt have ben a major difference with the 215 or 225 except for the 10mm..I was just talking it over with tony (csvt1214) and we believe its the lip..the lip on my rims is pretty big thus giving the rim a smaller look..less room for spokes..more for the lip..maybe thats why
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
well i would've went 215/45,the tire would've been a lower profile then a 225/45...kinda like ford did with the svt wheels 205/55 to 215/50..although the e1's have a lower side wall raiting,they are still the same profile as the 55 series
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
you guys are looking at the wrong number. a 215/45 and a 225/45 have the same sidewall. a 215-225/40 for example would have a shorter sidewall. go 35 and the rubberband series starts. 
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Originally posted by Mikey Boy:
you guys are looking at the wrong number. a 215/45 and a 225/45 have the same sidewall. a 215-225/40 for example would have a shorter sidewall. go 35 and the rubberband series starts.
Exactly!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
so now the new question is, what would be a nice low-profile tire that will fit that rim since we all see how the 225/45 looks like?
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
Originally posted by Mikey Boy:
you guys are looking at the wrong number. a 215/45 and a 225/45 have the same sidewall. a 215-225/40 for example would have a shorter sidewall. go 35 and the rubberband series starts.
Exactly!
...no they dont...215/225 is the width...45 is the percentage of the width...so if the 225 is wider than the 215(which it is) than 45%of 215 is would make a shorter sidewall than 45% of 225..for example,if 215 was a 6.5" tire and 225 was a 7" tire than take 45% of each one and see which one would be taller?!!? make sense, i live a sad work life at the moment,selling tires right now,i stare at a set of 205/50516 potenza's and some 215/50r16's gta's..they are def. not the same hieght
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Chris,
You are right and wrong, as are Mike and I. But Mike and I are more correct than you are. While width does effect sideall height, the 2nd number (aspect ratio) effects the sidewall height twice more than the width.
225 x 0.45 = 101.25
215 x 0.45 = 96.75
4.5mm difference
225 x 0.45 = 101.25
225 x 0.40 = 90.00
11.25mm difference
Therefore the common belief and used practice is to increase or decrease the 2nd number (aspect ration) to determine sidewall size.
In addition, it's smarter to change sidewall size.
Why? Because you do not sacrifice width for height. By doing so you get less rim protection on your wheels, increasing the chances of damaging/bending a wheel - especially "curb rash".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
true,but certain tire manufac. make tires that have a small lip that sticks out to help protect the rim..i know that the second number is what makes the biggest difference in sidewall height,i was just saying that a 215/225 45 tire would have different sidewall heights even though the aspect ratio was the same
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
That's true. Also, by reducing the overall tire size, you increase the overall wheel gaps.  225-40/18 is the look Goonz is looking for. See this thread for many pics1. fills the wheel wells perfectly 2. perfect width - both visually and to protect wheels 3. perfect height - no rubberband or 4x4 look
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
i agree.but he got 17's...
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Originally posted by tour96se:
i agree.but he got 17's...
j/k Goonz  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
i am right and thats that. 
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639 |
on a 17 i wouldnt consider a 40series though some guys use 235/40 successfully. so its likely were talking about 45. 215/45 would give a slightly lower profile look on the 17. 225/45 is a great size for a daily driver. dont worry goonz. those pilot sports will wear out soon enough  and u can replace them with 215/45
the only plus is the spokes are black and make it easier to see the spokes and where they meet the lip. i think this'll help them not look as small when u put them on your car.
Hugo AIM:omegazodiac
95 gl & 99 contour svt #1750/2760
my profile pics stuff for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
Originally posted by hmouta:
on a 17 i wouldnt consider a 40series though some guys use 235/40 successfully. so its likely were talking about 45. 215/45 would give a slightly lower profile look on the 17. 225/45 is a great size for a daily driver. dont worry goonz. those pilot sports will wear out soon enough and u can replace them with 215/45
the only plus is the spokes are black and make it easier to see the spokes and where they meet the lip. i think this'll help them not look as small when u put them on your car.
actually if the whole rim was black it would "blend" in with the tire..helping it look bigger..thats why my e1's are black...when they were white they looked tiny..which they are
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,659
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,659 |
Usually deep dish rims/rims with lips look smaller cause of the design of the rim. So You should of gone with an 18inch rim. But they still look good. mount them and you get a different feel.
"Do what you like, Because you have to drive it!"-Me
99 Contour LX
95 Mustang GT Convertible
97 Z24 Cavalier
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,616
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,616 |
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
That's true.
Also, by reducing the overall tire size, you increase the overall wheel gaps.
225-40/18 is the look Goonz is looking for.
See this thread for many pics
1. fills the wheel wells perfectly
2. perfect width - both visually and to protect wheels
3. perfect height - no rubberband or 4x4 look
That looks really nice! 
How is the ride compared to 17"? In comparison, I'm running 215/45/17 on ATS Comp Lites (17x7.5)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Originally posted by Mod-Deth:
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
Also, by reducing the overall tire size, you increase the overall wheel gaps.
225-40/18 is the look Goonz is looking for.
See this thread for many pics
1. fills the wheel wells perfectly
2. perfect width - both visually and to protect wheels
3. perfect height - no rubberband or 4x4 look
That looks really nice!
How is the ride compared to 17"? In comparison, I'm running 215/45/17 on ATS Comp Lites (17x7.5)
I would venture to say that I've had more wheel and tire combos than anyone on CEG. I've had 15s, 16s, 17s, 18s and 19s on the SVT.
I wont break down each, but here's a quick review:
=15s, 16s=
no need for review
=17s=
215/45-17
- If you looked at the tread of the wheel, it was a slightly / \ with the tire.
- Slight "rubber band" look
- Wheel well gap was increased in comparison to E1s due to smaller sidewall
- Reduced wheel protection due to reduced width and sidewall
225/45-17
Much, much better. All of the above concerns I had were taken care of. The wider tire slightly increased sidewall height..
- view of tread tire was now more | | than / \
- more wheel protection
- reduced overall wheel well gap
- no more rubber band look on a 17 (not a good look at all IMO)
Another reason I would avoid a 215:
Originally posted by RogerB:
Originally posted by Rara:
Vehicle load capacity. Every car requires each tire to carry a certain amount of weight, which is carried by the cushion of air inside the tire. When you increase diameter, you typically decrease the tire section height, which in turn decreases the air cushion size, decreases its load capacity. The less load capacity you have in your tires, you run a much greater risk of damaging the wheel or even suspension components over time.
And that's why you need to go wider when you go to lo-pro. (The load capacity is based on the total volume of air inside the tire.) You can compensate, to a point...
=18s=
225/40-18
IMHO, the perfect wheel and tire size. Going from 225/40-18 to the 17" FSVT wheels, the car felt like complete trash - body roll, cornering, etc. etc. Anyone who says that 17s handle just as well as 18s is wrong. I think stepping down a wheel size is when you REALLY feel the difference - especially on a car that has a good amount of suspension work done. Obviously the drawback is a slightly bumpier ride, but I didn't mind it.
=19s=
The ride was just too harsh for me - especially on GCs and Konis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,616
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,616 |
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
Originally posted by Mod-Deth:
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
Also, by reducing the overall tire size, you increase the overall wheel gaps.
225-40/18 is the look Goonz is looking for.
See this thread for many pics
1. fills the wheel wells perfectly
2. perfect width - both visually and to protect wheels
3. perfect height - no rubberband or 4x4 look
That looks really nice!
How is the ride compared to 17"? In comparison, I'm running 215/45/17 on ATS Comp Lites (17x7.5)
I would venture to say that I've had more wheel and tire combos than anyone on CEG. I've had 15s, 16s, 17s, 18s and 19s on the SVT.
I wont break down each, but here's a quick review:
=15s, 16s=
no need for review
=17s=
215/45-17
- If you looked at the tread of the wheel, it was a slightly / \ with the tire.
- Slight "rubber band" look
- Wheel well gap was increased in comparison to E1s due to smaller sidewall
- Reduced wheel protection due to reduced width and sidewall
225/45-17
Much, much better. All of the above concerns I had were taken care of. The wider tire slightly increased sidewall height..
- view of tread tire was now more | | than / \
- more wheel protection
- reduced overall wheel well gap
- no more rubber band look on a 17 (not a good look at all IMO)
Another reason I would avoid a 215:
Originally posted by RogerB:
Originally posted by Rara:
Vehicle load capacity. Every car requires each tire to carry a certain amount of weight, which is carried by the cushion of air inside the tire. When you increase diameter, you typically decrease the tire section height, which in turn decreases the air cushion size, decreases its load capacity. The less load capacity you have in your tires, you run a much greater risk of damaging the wheel or even suspension components over time.
And that's why you need to go wider when you go to lo-pro. (The load capacity is based on the total volume of air inside the tire.) You can compensate, to a point...
=18s=
225/40-18
IMHO, the perfect wheel and tire size. Going from 225/40-18 to the 17" FSVT wheels, the car felt like complete trash - body roll, cornering, etc. etc. Anyone who says that 17s handle just as well as 18s is wrong. I think stepping down a wheel size is when you REALLY feel the difference - especially on a car that has a good amount of suspension work done. Obviously the drawback is a slightly bumpier ride, but I didn't mind it.
=19s=
The ride was just too harsh for me - especially on GCs and Konis.
Excellent Pete...just what I was looking for. Thorough yet concise. I too have run a myriad of wheel/tire combinations, and am still looking for that right combo.
Question: Are the OZ 18" you're running 7.5, 8, or 8.5 wide?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 663
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 663 |
Sorry Haroon, I hate to be that guy but............ . . . . . . . .  I told you so. j/k just givin you a hard time. Again though, you think they look small now, just wait until you put them on your black'd out car. Sell em on Ebay for hopefully what you paid for em, and just get some bigguh rims man.
Keith P.
Killed in action-4/27/06
'99 CSVT
#2369/2760-7/28/99
New Recruit-
1998 EO CSVT
# soon to come
Black 106,xxx
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
Originally posted by Manch-VegasSVT:
Sorry Haroon, I hate to be that guy but............
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I told you so.
j/k just givin you a hard time.
Again though, you think they look small now, just wait until you put them on your black'd out car.
Sell em on Ebay for hopefully what you paid for em, and just get some bigguh rims man.
I wanna put them on my car for a sec to see how they look, if they look bad then I'll sell them..I need the proper lugz..
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 663
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 663 |
you might as well, you have a garage so why not...
put em on, pull the car out into the driveway and take a good look(from near and far).
Keith P.
Killed in action-4/27/06
'99 CSVT
#2369/2760-7/28/99
New Recruit-
1998 EO CSVT
# soon to come
Black 106,xxx
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
BTW, I know these have a smaller diameter, which makes the speedometer fast, but I have no idea why Simon chose them... Maybe a fitment issue with the car being lowered, I dunno, so instead of experimenting I just went with what was on it.
215/40-17 on 17x7.5" rims. Sidewalls are straight up and down.
Pretty low profile (86mm sidewall).
These were the tires on it when I got it... now I have ho-hum Cooper Zeon 2XS's on there:
Last edited by Kane; 01/04/06 06:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60 |
I was thinking of running 225/45s on a set of 17x7.5s, but I have heard of issues with rubbing?
I know that the rubbing is only in one spot, and it is a spot that is easily fixed; but is it a problem pre-rolling?
Ideally, I would love to go with a 235/40, but the tires that I really want aren't offered in that size.
So, on some 17x7.s with 225/45s on a CSVT with the BAT kit, would I be rubbing badly? Also, the wheels have an offset of +40mm. With this offset, should I worry more about rubbing the fender or rubbing the strut?
Choosing tires is so GD hard...
1999 Tropic Green SVT - Rolled 1/24/06 She will be missed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756 |
I'll refer those with questions about rubbing and whatnot to Offset Sticky . Remember, what works for one person may not for the next person, even if they have the same exact setup. Just the way it is sometimes. And to counter SVTST2bornot2bTROLL PETE, IMHO 235/40 17's is the best combo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60 |
I've read every thread in this section and the archive that deals with wheels...
None of them answered my question 100%. The answers always beat around the bush or vaguely pass over it.
I'm trying to get a definative answer before I spend $1000 on wheels and tires that don't work on my car.
So, maybe I should start with the first part of the question?
Who is running 17x7.5s?
1999 Tropic Green SVT - Rolled 1/24/06 She will be missed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
left: 225-40/18
right: 225-45/17 (I think)
Originally posted by NVS SVT:
Looks good but you should have went with a lower profile tire.
Disagree completely.
correction...both 7" wheels
left: 225-40/18
right: 215-45/17 Continental Contisport (bald)
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
i'll just stick with the ones i have..oh well..18's maybe next year
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
Chris,
You are right and wrong, as are Mike and I. But Mike and I are more correct than you are. While width does effect sideall height, the 2nd number (aspect ratio) effects the sidewall height twice more than the width.
225 x 0.45 = 101.25
215 x 0.45 = 96.75
4.5mm difference
225 x 0.45 = 101.25
225 x 0.40 = 90.00
11.25mm difference
Therefore the common belief and used practice is to increase or decrease the 2nd number (aspect ration) to determine sidewall size.
In addition, it's smarter to change sidewall size.
Why? Because you do not sacrifice width for height. By doing so you get less rim protection on your wheels, increasing the chances of damaging/bending a wheel - especially "curb rash".
The common practice is to increase wheel size while maintaining as close to the original diameter as stock unless one is willing to have the speedometer recalibrated.
example:
stock SVT
Wheel: 16"x6.5"
Tire: 215/50-R16
Width: 215mm (8.464567")
Sidewall: 4.232283" (50% of width 215mm)
Diameter: 24.46457" (sidewall x 2 + 16" wheel)
+1 (upgrade from 16" to 17")
Wheel: 17"x7"
Tire: 215/45-R17
Width: 215mm (8.464567")
Sidewall: 3.809055" (45% of width 215mm)
Diameter: 24.61811" (sidewall x 2 + 17" wheel)
+2 (upgrade from 16" to 18")
Wheel: 18"x7"
Tire: 215/40-R18
Width: 215mm (8.464567")
Sidewall: 3.385827" (40% of width 215mm)
Diameter: 24.77165" (sidewall x 2 + 18" wheel)
On the same car all of the above combos will look pretty much exactly the same when it comes to wheel gap weather the car is lowered or not. The only difference will be the decrease in sidewall/wheel size, the diameter will remain basically the same. With that you get improved performance/handling but less comfort as the smaller sidewall will create a harsher ride. Now if you don't mind a change in speedometer reading then people will increase the sidewall persentage to help close the wheel well gap. However if you venture off the +1, +2, +3 rule of thumb you will change the diameter of the tire and change the output of your speedometer.
If you can handle more width you can also adjust tire size to near the same diameter by playing with larger width tires and different aspect ratios. A safe bump in this direction has been proven to be the 225mm tires in all sizes.
example:
tire: 225/50-R16
width: 225mm (8.858268")
sidewall: 4.429134" (50% of width 225mm)
diameter: 24.85827" (sidewall x 2 + 16" wheel)
difference between 215/50-16 & 225/50-16
width: 0.393701"
diameter: 0.393698"
A little over 3/8" in diameter and not enough to make a big change in speedometer reading so a safe upgrade in most cases. Note: in the above example a bump to a 235mm tire from 215mm would need a change in aspect ratio to 45% and the difference in overall diameter would be around 1/8". Nothing to worry about IF you can handle the width.
same goes with the 18's 215/40-18 & 225/40-18
tire: 225/40-R18
width: 225mm (8.858268")
sidewall: 3.543307" (40% of width 225mm)
diameter: 25.08661" (sidewall x 2 + 18" wheel)
difference between 215/40-18 & 225/40-18
width: 0.393701"
diameter: 0.314964"
less then 3/8" in diameter...again nothing to worry about.
It's all very simple...just do the math.
1st convert "width" mm to "inches" (215mm = 8.464567", 225mm = 8.858268", 235mm = 9.251969")
2nd multiply "width" x "aspect ratio" (50 =.50, 45 =.45, 40 =.40)
sum = "sidewall" (1/2 overall)
3rd multiply "sidewall" x 2 + "wheel diameter" (16", 17", 18")
sum = "tire diameter"
This will get you in the ballpark 99.9% of the time. If you don't care about all this stuff then put on whatever you want to get the look you like. Just be prepaired to get your speedometer recalibrated or face a speeding ticket for not knowing how fast you are going
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Originally posted by scottd60:
If you don't care about all this stuff then put on whatever you want to get the look you like. Just be prepaired to get your speedometer recalibrated or face a speeding ticket for not knowing how fast you are going
I'll not care because it's easier than reading your post!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
Originally posted by scottd60:
If you don't care about all this stuff then put on whatever you want to get the look you like. Just be prepaired to get your speedometer recalibrated or face a speeding ticket for not knowing how fast you are going
I'll not care because it's easier than reading your post!
time to go to bed
later 
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756 |
Originally posted by Shawnb:
Who is running 17x7.5s?
I currently am.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756 |
Originally posted by scottd60:
It's all very simple...just do the math.
1st convert "width" mm to "inches" (215mm = 8.464567", 225mm = 8.858268", 235mm = 9.251969")
2nd multiply "width" x "aspect ratio" (50 =.50, 45 =.45, 40 =.40)
sum = "sidewall" (1/2 overall)
3rd multiply "sidewall" x 2 + "wheel diameter" (16", 17", 18")
sum = "tire diameter"
Not as simple as using an online tire calculator .
http://www.1010tires.com/tiresizecalculator.asp?action=submit
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,616
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,616 |
Originally posted by 1314:
Originally posted by Shawnb:
Who is running 17x7.5s?
I currently am.
Me too. I've run 17x7.5 Kosei, 17x7.5 FSVT, and am currently running 17x7.5 ATS Comp Lites, all with 215/45/17's. Tho when I switch back from my winter set-up (nasty 205/60/15's on ASA's) I'm gonna run 225/45/17's (in Falken Ziex 512 flavor).
Oh...none of the 215/45/17's rubbed, probably because the extra .5" stretched out the tire and reduced the over-all height of the tire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by 1314:
Originally posted by scottd60:
It's all very simple...just do the math.
1st convert "width" mm to "inches" (215mm = 8.464567", 225mm = 8.858268", 235mm = 9.251969")
2nd multiply "width" x "aspect ratio" (50 =.50, 45 =.45, 40 =.40)
sum = "sidewall" (1/2 overall)
3rd multiply "sidewall" x 2 + "wheel diameter" (16", 17", 18")
sum = "tire diameter"
Not as simple as using an online tire calculator .
http://www.1010tires.com/tiresizecalculator.asp?action=submit
There you go...awesome, I'll add that to my other online performance calculators
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Informative and that's it. No chance I would actually use that to determine what size tire to put on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756 |
 I did. When I was trying to decide between a 225/45 or a 235/40, I wanted to be as close to stock in diameter as possible. That calculator showed that the stock diameter of a 215/50 16 is 24.46. The 225/45 is 24.97 and the 235/40 is 24.40. The 235's were closest and that's what I went with and haven't had a single problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by 1314:
I did. When I was trying to decide between a 225/45 or a 235/40, I wanted to be as close to stock in diameter as possible. That calculator showed that the stock diameter of a 215/50 16 is 24.46. The 225/45 is 24.97 and the 235/40 is 24.40. The 235's were closest and that's what I went with and haven't had a single problem.
That is exactly how it should be used/done...
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
Informative and that's it. No chance I would actually use that to determine what size tire to put on.
your a bone head troll
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 710
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 710 |
Yup... using a calculator is the smart way, otherwise you have no idea just how tall the tire is.
btw, 225/40-18 is about .7" taller than a 235/40-17 (or .63" taller than stock). Those are wagon wheels... nearing the height of Cadilac tires! I find it hard to believe that that sized 18 would handle better than the 17" size I listed. Unless there was crappy tires on the 17" and decent ones on the 18", but how much weight are you gaining with a 1" taller rim and .7" taller tire? For 18's, I'd think 235/35-18 would give you better performance, but with that sidewall you might as well just pour rubber cement on the rim and forget the tire.
morbid
2000 Contour SVT (black)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Originally posted by scottd60:
Originally posted by 1314:
I did. When I was trying to decide between a 225/45 or a 235/40, I wanted to be as close to stock in diameter as possible. That calculator showed that the stock diameter of a 215/50 16 is 24.46. The 225/45 is 24.97 and the 235/40 is 24.40. The 235's were closest and that's what I went with and haven't had a single problem.
That is exactly how it should be used/done...
Trust me, I've used those calculators in the past and like I said, they are informative, but not accurate.
Using that calculator, here are some examples.
Stock:
215/50-16 - 24.46
Most commonly used 18" tire:
225/40-18 - 25.08
Tire calculator:
225/35-18 - 24.20
No thank you. Not enough tire.
Tire calculator:
225/30-19 - 24.31
No chance on earth I'm putting that rubberband on 19" wheels. I had 225/35-19s and thought they weren't wide enough.
I've never understood the small minority of people who sacrifice wheel protection, appearance, ride comfort to keep their odometer as accurate as possible / "be as close to stock" diameter. Is 1.5mph at 60mph really that important?
In addition, I'm not trying to knock people who do use the calculator, but until you've tried as many wheel and tire combinations as I have you're giving poor advice by telling people to use the calculator to determine tire size.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
this will make a good FAQ
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,194
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,194 |
I'm running 215/45/17s on my SVT Focus wheels. Sometimes I like the thin sidewall and sometimes not.
BTW I chose my size by using the tire calculator.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
Originally posted by Mod-Deth:
Originally posted by 1314:
Originally posted by Shawnb:
Who is running 17x7.5s?
I currently am.
Me too. I've run 17x7.5 Kosei, 17x7.5 FSVT, and am currently running 17x7.5 ATS Comp Lites, all with 215/45/17's. Tho when I switch back from my winter set-up (nasty 205/60/15's on ASA's) I'm gonna run 225/45/17's (in Falken Ziex 512 flavor).
Oh...none of the 215/45/17's rubbed, probably because the extra .5" stretched out the tire and reduced the over-all height of the tire.
Me three! (pic earlier)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756 |
Quote:
they are informative, but not accurate.
Actually, they're informative and accurate. They're not miscalculating the sizes that you input. It's up to the user to decide if they want to use the sizes given by the calculator.
Quote:
I had 19s
That's the problem right there.
Really, we shouldn't be comparing 17's to 18's to 19's because there's going to have to be a sacrifice somewhere, be it in the small size of the sidewall or the possibility of rubbing with a tire too big.
With 17's and having tried quite a few different sizes, I've found my currect size to suit me fine. If I go 18's, I'll probably shoot for 225/40. I'd like to go 235/40 again, but with an 18" tire I may rub.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by Troll Pete:
Originally posted by scottd60:
Originally posted by 1314:
I did. When I was trying to decide between a 225/45 or a 235/40, I wanted to be as close to stock in diameter as possible. That calculator showed that the stock diameter of a 215/50 16 is 24.46. The 225/45 is 24.97 and the 235/40 is 24.40. The 235's were closest and that's what I went with and haven't had a single problem.
That is exactly how it should be used/done...
Trust me, I've used those calculators in the past and like I said, they are informative, but not accurate.
Using that calculator, here are some examples.
Stock:
215/50-16 - 24.46
Most commonly used 18" tire:
225/40-18 - 25.08
Tire calculator:
225/35-18 - 24.20
No thank you. Not enough tire.
Tire calculator:
225/30-19 - 24.31
No chance on earth I'm putting that rubberband on 19" wheels. I had 225/35-19s and thought they weren't wide enough.
I've never understood the small minority of people who sacrifice wheel protection, appearance, ride comfort to keep their odometer as accurate as possible / "be as close to stock" diameter. Is 1.5mph at 60mph really that important?
That is just plain silly, you are saying the calculator is inaccurate...that is completely false. It tells you exactly what you ask for based on what you enter. These two examples you gave are pointless.
Quote:
Tire calculator:
225/35-18 - 24.20
No thank you. Not enough tire.
Tire calculator:
225/30-19 - 24.31
Why would anybody go down in tire diameter especialy when going up in wheel size neither of these are standard/common wheel/tire upgrades from a stock SVT 215/50-16 tire 
Nobody driving a Contour in all reality should be running 19's unless it is for show...while I like the 18's on my car they are borderline on the big size and definitly not optimal for performance/handling on a Contour, I'd say it is a reasonable compromise for looks/handling. Generaly when autocrossing or putting a car on road course/track you would not go up 3 wheel sizes from stock for performance , +1 or +2 in wheel size with propper fitting tires would be about it in most cases. Also a 225mm tire is pushing it on a 7" rim, should really be 7.5-8" in most wheel/tire application charts. Impropper wheel width will also change handling and tire wear by creating a poor contact patch.
Your adviceis to add tire sidewall/increase the overall diameter of the tire to compensate for the need to use huge oversized wheels and not look like rubber bands That is only going for a look and not for optimum handling which is fine if thats what you want. But IMO that is really poor advice. If you don't like the sidewall/rubberband look then stick with a smaller wheel and use the propoer tire size for the car that best suits your need.
The goal should always be to try and maintain the the original tire diameter in most cases unless you have a 4x4, drag car or show car. You say 1.5 mph really isn't that important...yeah if you drive like an old lady. If you regularly speed then 1.5 mph can make the difference between a $275 ticket and a $500 ticket, 3 points and 5 points, suspended liecense or not...thust me I know. Been driving for 29 years and have had my share of tickets, suspensions, & driving class...not that I'm pround of it I just like to drive fast 
Quote:
In addition, I'm not trying to knock people who do use the calculator, but until you've tried as many wheel and tire combinations as I have you're giving poor advice by telling people to use the calculator to determine tire size.
Not trying to knock you either troll but...
Not even close, you know I have a lot of cars currently in my stable (00 SVT, 89 TTA, 02 SuperCrew, 01 A4, 93 Civic, 94 TransSport, 87 S-10 V8 lowrider, 02 Sonata) and have had 8 others before that for a total of 16 cars over the last 29 years. Most have had different wheels and tire combinations several times over the years. The contour is on the 3rd set (16x6.6 E1's, 17x7 FSVT, 18x7 OZ's). I was running 50 series tires when most people didn't even know they existed back in 1979 on my 68 Firbird (255/50-R15 on 15x10" wheels). I autocrossed regularly for about 5 years at the time 13" light weight wheels were what most ran. I also have drag raced on and off ever since I was 16. I have gone through LOTS of tires and wheels...so not really much of a comparison if you ask me
You still the man, brother in BLUE
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Scott,
1. You and 1314 are taking my "inaccurate" statement incorrectly. Yes, it's accurate for trying to match the overall diameter of the OEM size. NOT what's optimal for the car-wheel.
2. The reality is that what the calculator suggests is not what should be used. You think Ford or any other manufacturer puts the optimal wheel and tire size on every car? Seriously unlikely. Ford thought a 16" wheel was optimal for the handling and performance STOCK. We don't even know if that was why - it could be that they wanted to be cost efficient. Who knows. You've upgraded suspension right? Beefier, stiffer, etc. Upgraded speed right? Faster, more acceleration, etc. Now the vehicle is most likely better suited/can handle a bigger wheel right?
3. Your statement of "going down in tire diameter".
Happens all the time. Because people want to as you even stated "be as close to stock diameter as possible".
4. You replied with 19s are overkill. Did I say they weren't? I was refuting your point that using the calculator is the way to go. Doesn't matter WHY a 19" wheel is being put on. The point is that the calculator offers a size that would ruin the wheel. But now you're making excuses why the calculator doesn't apply because you think 19s only belong on show cars - give me a break.
5. You also neglected to retort the commonly overlooked point of load capacity. By upgrading from 16 to 17 or 18 the calculator recommended 215/45 and 225/35 maintains stock diameter, but does not take into consideration the air cushion size and load capacity. Those sizes decreases air and load. The 225/45 and 225/40 I and many other prefer provides a little extra air and load in addition to looking better and protecting the wheel better.
6. 18s not optimal for handling? The true test is for you finish your suspension and have it as tight as I had mine. Then to drive on the 18s for awhile and really toss it around. Then step down to a 17" wheel and tell me that the handling isn't worse. On the SVT I stepped up and down 16-17-17 (diff tire size)-18-15-16-19-18 (diff tire size)-18. Every time I went down, the handling was definitely not as good. On a tighter suspension, the difference is more noticable. (We're talking handling here, not speed.)
7. Why don't you hit up some really high performance handling vehicle forums like Porsche and suggest to them to step down to 17s or 16s because they are better handling sized wheels than 18s. Simple logic tells you that more sidewall = more flex. Less sidewall = less flex = better handling. I can point you to numerous articles stating that it is common for people to upgrade wheel size for better handling.
8. As I pointed out, based on the calculator, the optimal size is for 18s is 225/35-18. Have you seen that tire size on the 18" OZ Superleggera? I trust not. I've seen it and tried it. I felt it didn't provide enough width to protect the wheel. That's why I had them removed. The 225/40 gives just enough additional width and sidewall to offer more protection to the wheel. It's peace of mind to protect a $350 wheel.
------------------------------------------------------------
You can speed with your rubberbanded wheels that offer less wheel protection, less visually appealing, and less air/load. I'll take better wheel protection, more comfortable ride and look better doing it.
We can agree to disagree. And agree that you are in the minority in your opinion! Seriously though, I think we've both made our points, and can let this one go now. If you want, we can take it to the track and settle it there.
Oh, and I don't care what most ran in Autox in the 50s! Just because they did it "back in the day" doesn't mean it's right!
Nah, you da man - I don't have a car for every day of the week.
------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. I'm entitled to them jsut as Scott is entitled to his just as everyone is entitled to their own. What might look like to me might be to someone else. Opinions are like [censored], everyones got one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,756 |
Originally posted by scottd60:
You still the man, brother in BLUE
Unrelated, but what's that mean?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 710
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 710 |
18's might give you better performance on a newly paved race track, but there are bumps on city streets... even on most skidpads. If you don't have any sidewall (18's and up) and have stiff suspension, then the tire might bounce off the pavement (while turning fast), instead of absorbing the bump. For that reason, I've seen many autocrossers who drive on the street with their factory 17's, but swap on 16's when they autocross. How much would a 25" tall tire alter the final drive ratio vs a 24.4" tire? Guess if you have a 3.0 or turbo, you could go the route of tall tires instead of the 2.0 final gear. So if you don't care about performance (cornering and/or drag racing) then I guess the motivation to purchase 18's are cosmetic based.... so do what you want. Just don't tell me I'll cut faster autocross times if I went from 17's to 18's.
morbid
2000 Contour SVT (black)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
I'll again repeat my points: 1. You can't put too much into the tire calculator 2. 18s do handle better (again IMO from personal experience) I guess you overlooked the part where I said that I was referring to how the car handles - not speed - that's another discussion entirely. My car was a daily driver that I drove in a spirited fashion - not autoX. Taking turns and offramps with my suspension, the 18s had less body roll and felt more responsive. In addition, my car was in fact faster with 18s because I went from heavy 17s to lightweight 18s.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
IT VERY dependant on sidewall stiffness, generally lower profile tires will have a stiffer side wall, BUT when comparing identically sized tires, the sidewall construction and therefore STIFFNESS will vary from one typre manufacturer to the other so don't think all tires are the same cos they are the same size.
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
From Tire Rack...Tire Tech Selecting the Right Tires http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=31 What is the right size for my vehicle?Buying the correct tire size can get complicated, especially if you decide to upgrade from your vehicle's Original Equipment size. The expert sales team at The Tire Rack is always ready to offer performance and fitment advice. Call 888-541-1777. A tire's first requirement is that it must be able to carry the weight of your vehicle. No matter how good a tire you select, if its capabilities are "overworked" just carrying the load, it will have little reserve capacity to help your vehicle respond to quick emergency. So when you are in the selection process, make certain that your new tire's size is designed to carry the weight of your vehicle! Don't undersize. The other size consideration is overall tire diameter. Since many of the functions of today's vehicles are highly computerized, maintaining accurate speed data going into the computer assures accurate instructions coming out. And an important part of the speed equation is your tire's overall tire diameter.For cars and vans, staying within a 3% diameter change is desirable. Pick-ups and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) are usually engineered to handle up to a 15% oversize tire. Most tire dimensions can be calculated. For more information review the Tire Tech article, "Calculating Tire Dimensions." While at first a 3% diameter increase or reduction in tire diameter may sound very limiting, in most cases it allows approximately a 3/4" diameter change. Additionally to help with the selection of substitute sizes, a system called "Plus Sizing" was developed. We use Plus Sizing to take into account the diameters of the available tires and the wheels, and then helps select the appropriate tire width that ensures adequate load capacity. Maintaining the tire's overall diameter helps maintain accurate speed data going into the computer.
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 540
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 540 |
What tiny little brakes you have! All kidding aside, those look good!
'98 SVT Red/midnight blue - a few mods
E0 wheels for sale - PM me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
Originally posted by Hdbngr8:
What tiny little brakes you have!
All kidding aside, those look good!
oh i agree with you, im soo glad I test fitted them
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 636
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 636 |
Wow you jacked that car up with the factory jack?!! Yor crazy man, crazy. I hate those little things. If you've ever gotten stuck on the side of the road changing a tire with one of those you know what I mean. My SHO had the same style and damn no fun.
-Mike
98 Contour SVT
Toreador Red #49 of 6535 Built on 3/25/97
WR Headers, Borla Cat-Back, Torsen T2 LSD, K&N Short Ram, S-AFC and Focus Shift Tower
85 Camaro
1969 358ci, 97 TA interior, 91 Z28 GrdEfx and Aero Wing 255rwhp
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by 1314:
Originally posted by scottd60:
You still the man, brother in BLUE
Unrelated, but what's that mean?
The seceret is finally out... look here
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
