OAC_Sparky

And on that I agree.

There is a place for taller tires, that doesn't negate the benefit of lower profile tires. And no, I'm not talking about rubber band 30 profiles on 22" rims (ie rappas and gangstas). We're talking about the 19" Brembos (That's why we are talking about this in the first place, right?), they're comparatively low profile but they're hardly "gangsta".

Which, if you look back, really was the root of this "side discussion".

Everything is a balancing act, cost vs performance, acceleration vs handling. If I was tracking the car every weekend, I would go with the smallest wheel that would fit over my brakes, not for performance, but for cost. I'm not, but I do enjoy driving twisty Niagra Escarpment roads, the Brembos will be just fine for me.

Nokternal

Yeah that rubber band profile on a 22" is what I was initially referring to with the joke.

I too enjoy driving the twisty Niagra Escarpment roads, but I have only done so in my S2000. Cant wait to ride my new Pony on them!

HoosierDaddy

Well considering that Formula 1, GP2, etc. cars use small diameter wheels with very tall sidewalls and that a LOT of people put low profile tires on because they like how they look, there's nothing wrong with liking how not-so-low profile tires look.

Nokternal

^ I agree. I personally think think a not-so-low profile tire is the best look on a beefier looking retro-ish car like a Mustang or a Challenger.. just like I think body builders look better in swim trunks as opposed to g-strings.


edit: I added a jester face so everyone in the thread would know that last part was a joke

bob

actually the technical definition of an all-season tire is simply a tire that remains pliable in temps below 40 degrees. What is popularly considered an all-season tire is actually a tire branded for mud and snow. If an all-season tire doesn't have an M+S designation (thats what Michelin, BFGoodrich and Uniroyal use) or something similar (Goodyear used to use a funky symbol) it wont do squat in the snow.

Now if I had to guess on all-season tires that didn't come with a M+S rating, I'd bet back in the 80's and maybe even the 90's there were tires branded as such mainly for performance cars expected to operate in places where temperatures got below 40 degrees but were not expected to be operated in snowy conditions. Heck it might have even been common place in the 70's when radials were still pretty compromised in thier design (radials up until the early 90's suffered from belt flutter which generated alot of heat toward the outside of the tire which would result in wear that looked like under inflation) and they used a coupled tread design to overcome heat problems in the tires.

OAC_Sparky

You can't compare the two applications. F1's brake, tire and wheel size is strictly regulated, which defines that appearance and the tire compounds barely resembles what you would expect out of a street tire. The sidewall "bounce" is also integral to the car's suspension. But notwithstanding this even F1 tires run 55 profile fronts and 45 profile rears. F1 tires have a stiffer sidewall and at the same time a bigger contact patch combined with stickier tire (far stickier than any street tire) that makes up for any sidewall flex. If you ran tires like that on a street car you'd have to tub the trunk and you'd have so much rolling resistance you'd kill your gas mileage and be replacing them monthly.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/1

That argument is along the same vein as "why don't they run fuel injection in NASCAR?" I doubt anyone here would argue that a carburetor is as efficient or produces more power than an FI car.

OAC_Sparky

I would like to imagine you mean that in a like=admiration definition.

CO_VaporGT_09

Y'all are silly.... Xanax is spelled with two x's (alprazolam). But you might both try a Klonopin or two as well (clonazepam). It's funny seeing people so riled up on a forum.

But you both have valid points.

Mustang ain't no sports car, it's a pony car, there's even a badge on the grille with a pony, so obviously...

But it's a great pony car, and competes with many European/JDM GT cars, and beats many. Can nearly hang with many pure sports cars, which in my mind means 2 seater (the dinky things in a 911 don't count).

Grassroots Motorsports did a test of plus sizing a few issues back, I think on a compact FWD like a GTI or Civic, and found that the 17" gave the best overall performance, if everything else is kept equal (same wheel/tires, just upsized diameter), though I believe the 18" gave max grip. That was balanced by decreased acceleration and increased braking distances due to the increase in rotational inertia.
This makes perfect sense as it's the best balance of weight and sidewall deflection, depending on the overall tire diameter ( a 36" overall diameter won't do best with a 17" wheel as far as cornering is concerned due to the large sidewall deflection and lack of support directly over the contact patch).

BUT, if they are very lighthweight wheels, increases in diameter can pay off in better steering feel due to less sidewall deflection, but above 18" with a stock 27" diameter like what we have, that's not a big deal.

Most spec series limit wheel diameter specifically to limit brake rotor diameter, so that the brakes don't completely overpower the tire compound at every opportunity; the tire manufacturers and designers then have to take into account the taller sidewall in their designs. The only big reason to increase diameter there is for larger brakes, especially if they are iron and not carbon/carbon as the iron disc's braking effectiveness will fade when heated past its ideal.

Nokternal

Interesting. I actually didn't want to say it earlier but my S2000 CR actually does do a bit better on the track with the 18" wheels I have than it does with the 17" ones.. but the 17" ones however are slightly heavier (by about an once each). But if I was driving it on the street with out knowing which wheels were on the car before I got in it there is no way I'd be able to tell the difference, as long as I was driving in an anywhere-close-to-legal style.

When it comes down to it, on the street it's all about personal preference.

Some of us want our daily driver to handle like a track ready race car, but then some of us would sacrifice a small bit of handling at the limit for increased daily ride quality, and sometimes even for aesthetic purposes.

I personally like more of a dull "wummp" when I hit a pot hole. I hate hitting a pot hole and having a hard "BANG!" so loud my teeth get jarred out of my head and I have to check my wheel to make sure I didn't bend it or anything (this has actually happened to me)

r1rider98

Your insurance company has it categorized as a sports car so it must be cause they know it all. Ferrari has a pony on it. LOL

Ministang

That hasn't been my experience. Even without the M+S or snowflake symbol, the all-season tires I've been on in the last 20 years have been quite passable in the snow around here. Certainly not as good as true snow tires or some of the better M+S all-season tires at full tread, but they certainly did "squat" in the snow.

OAC_Sparky

Well, I didn't bring it up before because I didn't want to sound sacreligious. What other car do you know of is termed as a "pony car"?

I can only think of the Mustang. The phrase was coined with the Mustang in mind.

Is a Jeep an offroader? Yes. But not all offroaders are Jeeps. Just like the Mustang is a sportscar.

tom281

LOL...

CO_VaporGT_09

Now that's just funny...

I wonder what that new Ferrari hatchback/shooting brake will be labeled as? A station wagon?




I think the insurance company will classify a Volvo C30 as a sports car cause it has only two side doors...

Nokternal

OMG the insurance company labels it a sports car???

THEN IT MUST BE ONE!! I stand corrected and shamed!


Unless.... maybe they are just labeling it as such in some mad plot to raise rates and therefore get more money out of people! My god, could it be??
Are our lives nothing but a string of endless lies designed to nickle and dime us from the day we are conceived in the womb until the day we are buried in the ground? I can't believe it..

But the insurance companies say a Mustang is a sports car..
Apparently I have some serious meditating to do on life.

Nokternal

Have you never heard of the Camaro?

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...maro_a_history

OAC_Sparky

Yes, they make them here. Never hear people call them "pony cars" any more, mostly "muscle cars". Then again, i don't really feel Mustang is much of a pony car either -- it's gotten too big for the nickname. "Pony" implies somewhat compact. In case nobody's keeping track a 2011 Mustang is 4" longer than a 2011 Ford Edge and less than a foot shorter than a Toyota Sienna minivan.

Itravelalot

Holy cow. The mustang needs to go on a diet. I knew it was big, but it does not seem that big. The 2011 Sienna is so roomy that it seems like a tank. You would think with that length, Ford could find just a small amount more leg room in the back.

Nokternal

Yeah you could use the hood as a landing zone for remote control planes.

OAC_Sparky

Mounting the engine and transmission transversly saves a good deal of real estate, both in hood length, and in interior cabin space (no or very smal transmission hump) Of couse, the Edge and Sienna are also both much taller letting people sit more upright as well.

But 2011 vs 1964.5, the '11 is about 7" longer, 5" wider overall and 1000 pounds heavier. And it's been a long time since I've been in the 68 Cougar Eliminator my dad had but seems to me there was quite a bit more trunk sppace/elbow room.

Not complaining, I like the '11s (or '12s), wouldn't be buying one if I didn't. I understand this is what happens over nearly 5 decades of safety and engineering advancements. But you can hardly call it a "pony car" anymore in the strictest sense. A '64.5 was relatively short/small for its time. An '11 is not. IMO