max2000jp

No, but I can calculate the difference in height btwn the 2. All Ford had to do was lower the car .XX inches from the factory to accomidate the sidewall difference. Ford used the "drag racing" excuse to not use an IRS, which is BS. Cost was the main reason not to use the IRS. The taller sidewalls offer greater traction and a better ride, it's basic knowledge.

PACETTR

No, but I can calculate the difference in height btwn the 2. All Ford had to do was lower the car .XX inches from the factory to accomidate the sidewall difference. Ford used the "drag racing" excuse to not use an IRS, which is BS. Cost was the main reason not to use the IRS. The taller sidewalls offer greater traction and a better ride, it's basic knowledge.
[/b][/quote]
They could also have lowered the car .xx inches last year or at any point before, but this usually results in reduced ride quality, which you argue they are trying to reduce by using a taller tire. :scratch:

Where do you find this "basic knowledge"?

max2000jp

It would have been really easy for Ford to lower the ride height during the engineering phase of the S197. Lowering a car doesn't always affect ride height, assuming you have a properly dampened shock. Why do you think that luxury cars have taller sidewalls? Simple, they provide more sidewall flex, which basically smooths out the imperfections and bumps better than a low profile tire. It's not a hard concept to understand.

dtoups

[I know this thread is worthless without pictures.]

BUT ... I picked up my car yesterday and put 255/45/17s on it today. The tire is supposedly almost an inch shorter than stock, though when I stuck them side by side the difference looked to be about a half inch. The weight of the car probably accounts for the difference.

[I know this thread is worthless without pictures.]

Mounted, I can't tell the difference in wheel gap. It certainly doesn't look any worse (but the extra inch of width looks suhweeeeet).

[I know this thread is worthless without pictures.]

In any case, the Eibach kit goes on tomorrow and I bring the Xenon ducktail to the body shop for paint.

[Tons of pictures once it's finished.]

PACETTR

One more time...

Quote:

"lowering a car doesn't always affect ride height"

... :scratch: ...interesting

Quote:

Why do you think that luxury cars have taller sidewalls? Simple, they provide more sidewall flex, which basically smooths out the imperfections and bumps better than a low profile tire. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Quoted post

So now it's not for "better 60' times"? Those Town Cars really get out of the box...must be that thar sidewall flex... :bang:
I'm sure Ford's main purpose in tire selection was "ride quality"


For the last time...I am basing my info on FACTS, you are basing yours on "guesses"...the question was posted to elicit a factual answer, which I gave. Most would try to keep from arguing their opinion against FACTS.




<!--QuoteBegin-dtoups@February 24, 2005, 6:31 PM
[I know this thread is worthless without pictures.]

BUT ... I picked up my car yesterday and put 255/45/17s on it today. The tire is supposedly almost an inch shorter than stock, though when I stuck them side by side the difference looked to be about a half inch. The weight of the car probably accounts for the difference.

[I know this thread is worthless without pictures.]

Mounted, I can't tell the difference in wheel gap. It certainly doesn't look any worse (but the extra inch of width looks suhweeeeet).

[I know this thread is worthless without pictures.]

In any case, the Eibach kit goes on tomorrow and I bring the Xenon ducktail to the body shop for paint.

[Tons of pictures once it's finished.]

Quoted post

[/quote]


























Someone had to do it...

max2000jp

Can you read? I pointed out that taller sidewalls are better for 60' times and ride quality. This is a fact. You don't know why Ford chose the tires, since you probably weren't part of the chassis design team for the S197. Ride quality is ALWAYS a factor in choosing tires amongst a manufacturer, that is a fact.

max2000jp

double post

PACETTR

Can you read? I pointed out that taller sidewalls are better for 60' times and ride quality. This is a fact. You don't know why Ford chose the tires, since you probably weren't part of the chassis design team for the S197. Ride quality is ALWAYS a factor in choosing tires amongst a manufacturer, that is a fact.
[/b][/quote]

I can read, as well as listen, as I did to Killol Bhuta and Paul Russell, Marketing Managers for Mustang at FORD, and they made no mention of 60' times or ride quality when asked specifically about the difference in tire size between 2004 and 2005.

Did you speak with someone at FORD who gave you this great information?

NO

Did I get my information directly from someone who works for FORD, specifically on the 2005 Mustang?

YES


And ride quality, while a concern on new vehicles (some more than others), is not ALWAYS a factor in choosing tires amongst a manufacturer. Lambo? Ferrari? I realize these are extreme cases, I only point them out to prove a point...ride quality was NOT first and foremost on the Mustang team's list of priorities...

If you find facts that pertain to the subject matter at hand, please direct me to them. All I have to go by is what the marketing managers for Mustang said specifically about this subject; I'm sure they carry a little more weight than your guess...

Fordracing200

Someone had to do it...
[/b][/quote]





LMAO

max2000jp

Again, you talked to marketing personel, whom had no decision in choosing the tires. Did you talk to the chassis engineers who were responsible for suspension tuning and tire selection? You didn't mention it, so no. I hold a marketing degree and I can tell you that odds are they had nothing to do with tire choice.

You are using extremes, but I am sure that Ferrari engineer thinks about ride quality too. They might not ponder over it as much as a Town car engineer. A Ferrari 430 Modena won't sell well if the suspension is race car harsh and the tires have exteremely stiff sidewalls. Engineering street cars is all about comprimises. The Ferrari Enzo and McLaren F1 had comprimises built into them, simply because they had to serve duty as street cars.

Also, you and I failed to point out the main reason why Ford didn't make wider/ smaller profile tires standard.......COST. Say Ford saves 10 bucks per tire vs a wider/lower profile performance tire, that's 40 dollars more profit per vehicle. $40 per vehicle equals to more profit in Ford's pocket.

PACETTR

Again, you talked to marketing personel, whom had no decision in choosing the tires. Did you talk to the chassis engineers who were responsible for suspension tuning and tire selection? You didn't mention it, so no. I hold a marketing degree and I can tell you that odds are they had nothing to do with tire choice.

You are using extremes, but I am sure that Ferrari engineer thinks about ride quality too. They might not ponder over it as much as a Town car engineer. A Ferrari 430 Modena won't sell well if the suspension is race car harsh and the tires have exteremely stiff sidewalls. Engineering street cars is all about comprimises. The Ferrari Enzo and McLaren F1 had comprimises built into them, simply because they had to serve duty as street cars.

Also, you and I failed to point out the main reason why Ford didn't make wider/ smaller profile tires standard.......COST. Say Ford saves 10 bucks per tire vs a wider/lower profile performance tire, that's 40 dollars more profit per vehicle. $40 per vehicle equals to more profit in Ford's pocket.
[/b][/quote]

So I'm still wondering where you came up with your info? I'm certain the marketing managers didn't make any of the engineering decisions, but I believe they are alot more likely to know why the decisions were made than you. If cost were an issue, why did they make 17" wheels standard? Did they not use a 245/45 last year? Maybe they didn't want to cut costs last year...

Again, my info came from what most would consider a valid source...I'm still wondering where you got yours? wn3d:

max2000jp

Common sense is where I get my information from. 17" tires come standard because it's becoming common standard equipment, such as ABS or power windows. Many of the mustangs competitors offer larger wheels, so Ford offered larger wheels to get in on the trend. If you actually did some research a 245/45/17 Pirelli PZero Nero M/S tire cost 12 bucks more per tire compared to a 235/55/17. That's a net saving of 48 dollars per every GT sold. Companies exist to make a profit and increase shareholder wealth, this is what dictates a lot of decisions within Ford or any company as a matter of fact.

Again, marketing executives probably didn't sit in on the meeting where tire choice was discussed amongst engineers. The reason you stated are basically marketing reasons, rather than engineering choices.

I am sure there are plenty of reasons why Ford choose these tires and I am sure what you were told is valid, but it's not the top reason why they were chosen.

PACETTR

You can have your guesses, er, common sense...I'll stick to the facts...we'll agree to disagree...

dave_bought_another_black_stang

The 05 car itself has better handling components and it does not need to rely on tires to handle good. Mustangs from the 70's on have been known as tire shredding machines and not just from burnouts but because of suspension issues. the S197 platform does not rely solely on good handling tires to handle better therefore they did not need the width.
I learned this from my old roomate who had a 911 carrerra that had the tallest tires and i could not understand how that car could handle like it did without wide tires and he showed me a porsche historical book that explained the concept.