Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

New Photos - Alloy w/Stain Silver & the Sat. Antenna


Recommended Posts

Very nice color combo.

 

But - the more I see the OEM rims - the less I'm liking 'em. This car needs at least 19's.

 

And - once again - the ride height is driving me nuts! :rant:

 

What are they thinking?

 

 

I can agree with the ride height!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But the OEM wheels with a dark color just plain suck. Dark color cars need more "flash" from the wheels IMHO.

 

The size looks right when there isnt so much room in the wheel well.

 

Look at this pic for an example. Sure she is taking that twisty section kinda hard but look at the stance!

 

446.jpg

 

Those 18's look good to me son.

 

Now same location different color (MY FAVORITE COLOR!)

 

445.jpg

 

See what I mean? :roses:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there is a big dif in the actual ride height of the white/bl vs red/wh 500s. At first I thought it was just the turn or one under power/other not... but if you look at the distance from the top of the rims to the fender lip, the white 500 is far more hunkered-down then the red one. And the dif is even more than it appears since the physical size of the white car in the pic is larger too (so it's smaller rim-lip distance is even smaller still relative to the red car).

 

Maybe the crew in the white GT500 weigh 300lbs each? yeah, that's it.. :hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice color combo.

 

But - the more I see the OEM rims - the less I'm liking 'em. This car needs at least 19's.

 

And - once again - the ride height is driving me nuts! :rant:

 

What are they thinking?

 

 

 

Rufdraft - Couldn't agree more with you about the ride height and (somewhat) about the rims. When I read a list of the differences from a standard GT (magazine article) - it said that they lowered the front by "x" inches, but didn't lower the back! What gives? It looks stinkbug-like to me butt up in the air. The REAR needs to be lowered! I agree that the rims don't seem to fill out the wheel wells too much and that 19's would be better - I do like their style though. Maybe the designers thought that they wanted to stay fairly retro w/o rapper bling wheels!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the first 2 things most of us will change are springs and rims. This car needs to be lower and needs rims with a lip (staggered. too) and more rubber on the road. :shift:

 

Wait and see when some of us get the cars and start posting pics. You'll see. :happy feet:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice color combo.

 

But - the more I see the OEM rims - the less I'm liking 'em. This car needs at least 19's.

 

And - once again - the ride height is driving me nuts! :rant:

 

What are they thinking?

 

 

 

I am with you on that. 19" wheels I think will be the ticket for me. If you watch the spy vids, the rims look good while the car is rolling. It sucks they can't look like they do rolling, standing still :rant: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you on that. 19" wheels I think will be the ticket for me.

 

 

A problem with wider tires and rims will be effecively reducing the 3.31 rear-end ratio even further. For example, if you go to 10-10.5" wide rears (assuming they fit the fenders, etc) and trade your 285/40s for 305/35s you'll still be taller overall (i.e. the lower profile won't compendsate for the wider tire since the tire series numbers are ratios, not absolute depth from ground to rim)! And put those on taller 19"ers and it's substantially worse (you'd be down to equivalent of about 3.05 rear at best.

 

That's no way to go faster in the 1/4-mile!. But if you reflash to adjust for the taller loaded radius AND set the speed-limit higher, it will get you to about a 188mph top speed if you don't run out of power/aerodynamics, downforce (or nerve) first :) And you can't fix that ratio shift with lower ride height, though it would look very cool.

 

To go faster in the quarter, you'd be better off going to 16" 325/35s on 10.5" rims... the wider tires, even tho a lower 'series' will still be a little fatter ground-to rim, but the 16" rims will more than offset that and get you to about 3.44 or so... which would help 1/4 mile times I suspect.

 

Remember tire series are ratios, not absolute sizes and, on wider rims (not taller) the same series tire will be taller overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about this, 68.

 

I went from 17's to 19's on my Z - and maintained the overall diameter of the tires front and rear. I didn't need any computer changes to compensate.

 

That's the plus 1, or 2, or 3 concept. You keep the overall size - but reduce the sidewall aspect - while increasing the footprint. :shift:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about this, 68.

 

I went from 17's to 19's on my Z - and maintained the overall diameter of the tires front and rear. I didn't need any computer changes to compensate.

 

That's the plus 1, or 2, or 3 concept. You keep the overall size - but reduce the sidewall aspect - while increasing the footprint. :shift:

 

 

Well, Bryan, maybe if you had tall profile tires to begin with, like 60-series 17s and and went to 35 series 19s (same width), maybe then.

 

But the Shelby is already 40-series. Going to 35 series on a 1" WIDER rim alone will negate the 35-series profile change since the roughly 10% wider rim will cause the 35-series to be 10% taller (loaded radius) than if it were on the original diameter rim, which more than negates the 5% aspect ratio change. And going to 19" AND wider rims, you'd need approximately 10-series tires to come out with the same rolling radius. Of course 10-series doesn't exist because you'd pinch the tire sidewall too easily, not to mention throw your back out on tar strips :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A problem with wider tires and rims will be effecively reducing the 3.31 rear-end ratio even further. For example, if you go to 10-10.5" wide rears (assuming they fit the fenders, etc) and trade your 285/40s for 305/35s you'll still be taller overall (i.e. the lower profile won't compendsate for the wider tire since the tire series numbers are ratios, not absolute depth from ground to rim)! And put those on taller 19"ers and it's substantially worse (you'd be down to equivalent of about 3.05 rear at best.

 

Remember tire series are ratios, not absolute sizes and, on wider rims (not taller) the same series tire will be taller overall.

 

The correct formula for tire dimensioning is as follows.

The section width in mm divided by 25.4 = section width in inches. This measure is then multiplied by the aspect ratio as a percentage to get section height. This is then multiplied by two (since there is one section height between the rim and the road and another between the rim and the quarter panel/fender. This number is then added to the rim height to get overall tire diameter. Although not perfect for two reasons (#1 - one section height will be "squashed" by the weight of the car, so the dynamic measure will be slightly different #2 - There is a recommended rim width...and variation from this width will cause slight differences...think of a narrower rim "squeezing" the tire to a taller height), this will get you very close to the proper tire diameter.

 

Let's see an example using the above numbers:

Using 285/40R18 ---> 285 / 25.4 = 11.22" x 40% = 4.488" x 2 = 8.976" + 18" = 26.98"

Using 305/35R18 ---> 302 / 25.4 = 12.01" x 35% = 4.203" x 2 = 8.406" + 18" = 26.41"

 

In fact, the 305 tire is shorter by about 1/2", contrary to what is stated above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...
...