|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
It's a trade off that I can't fully explain and don't completely understand. SVT #1 15 lb wheels stereo in rear vs SVT #2 25 lb wheels no stereo Stock wheels = 20 lbs (for arguements sake) According to wavrdr's formula of: 1 lb of rotational mass lost equals approximately 8lbs of dead weight SVT #1 lost 160 lbs of dead weight over stock SVT #2 added 160 lbs of dead weight SVT #1 = -160 lbs over stock SVT #2 = +160 lbs over stock Throw in a stereo for SVT #1 that weighs 100lbs. SVT #1 = -60 lbs over stock SVT #2 = +160 lbs over stock Plus, SVT #1 should accelerate faster and handle better assuming equal driver. That's the best I could do. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 187
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 187 |
it is not the same, but when i changed sprockets on my R1 i lost about 6 LB. the turn in feel of the bike was like night and day. again rotating mass was reduced. the same with a car, with less weight at the corners the steering should be more responsive, and give an overall better feel of what the car is doing. yes quicker acceleration is a plus, but to me it is the total feel of the car. by the way i am looking at the slipstreems by Rota on zxtuner. com.
anyone seen these on a contour. thanks
HORSEPOWERIC= ALL THE POWER IN THE WORLD STILL AIN'T ENOUGH
98 silver svt, modified y,ngk(indexed),pulley's,shifter,redline. future plans,custom borla exhaust, bilstein/h&r, rota slipstream 16x7 13 lb"s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
If you had an ATX zetec, you'd understand. The acceleration is vastly slower and top speed before a lotta my engine mods was 115mph, now with more mods but heavier tires, it's 110mph. It's noticeable for sure, just not everyone is into their car as some of us are. I would love some lightweight 15"s.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by Sitin on 19's:
I am kind of starting understand but tell me this. How many of you have subwoofers in your trunk. Or how many of you are on the heavier side weight wise ( i am not being rude just trying to get a better grip on it)
No subs, and temporarily no back seat. And got some other weight lightening things going on. Every little bit helps though the little things aren't really noticeable unless you do them all at once.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 803
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 803 |
cant wait to get my new wheels only 16.5 lbs each
FORSALE - 17" FSVT Wheels, TRubendz catback w/magnaflow muffler PM ME
02 celica GT-S 6-spd w/ TRD bodykit
Greddy evoII exhaust, DC sports header
Injen Short ram intake, TWM short throw shifter, 18"centerline storm wheels, Tein basic coilovers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,660
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,660 |
It's not so much for acceleration (though there is some effect) as it is for handling. Wheels = unsprung weight = what the suspension pieces have to control the motion of. Less weight = more precise control = better handling and ride. Simple.
I definitely noticed the difference from 22# stock steel wheels to 14# forged BBS alloys (also stock items, though limited production) on my old Miata.
Scott
Troll! '99 BMW 328i
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867 |
Originally posted by Pigeon:
It's not so much for acceleration (though there is some effect) as it is for handling.
I guess it depends on what your focus is, but the beauty of light wheels is that they have such an impact, really, on 3 things:
1. Handling (via reduction in unsprung weight)
2. Acceleration (via reduction of rotating mass in the driveline)
and
3. Looks.
And to answer another question, no big noise generators anywhere, but if I did, I'd have all the more reason to improve performance elsewhere. And, I shaved a good 20 lbs out from behind the steering wheel last year. Can't feel the difference in the car, but I sure feel better.
(Reminds me of road cyclists that spend $$$ on the latest unobtanium shift-lever to shave 20 grams off the bike, but "really need to lose about 20 lbs" to get to their "optimum weight.")
Function before fashion.
'96 Contour SE
"Toss the Contour into a corner, and it's as easy to catch as a softball thrown by a preschooler." -Edmunds, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
No airbag? I'm gonna do that soon too I think, don't need it with a harness. 
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 51
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 51 |
Less unsprung weight for better handling as mentioned before and less rotational mass (also mentioned before, but mostly negligible). One thing to keep in mind is, if you get a lighter rim that is wider, chances are you will be going with a wider tire that will be heavier then the ones before and may negate some if not all the weight savings.
Henry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
No airbag? I'm gonna do that soon too I think, don't need it with a harness.
Airbag is intact. Driver "shaved and heat-cycled."
Function before fashion.
'96 Contour SE
"Toss the Contour into a corner, and it's as easy to catch as a softball thrown by a preschooler." -Edmunds, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
