I currently run the stock 215/60 16" tyres. I'm nearing the point of contemplating my next tyre purchase and I can't afford new rims so I was thinking of putting a wider tyre on the stock wheels.. now based on what this tyre size calculator (http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html) tells me if I go to 225/60's my speedo will be 1.8% too slow (100 indicated, 101.8 actual speed) but if I get 225/55's it will be 1.6% too fast (100 vs 98.4).

It seems to me that in terms of straight line performance I'm gong to be better off going in one direction over the other, but I don't know which.. anyone?

Get the 225/55's. The fact that your speedo will be faster than you is a good thing. Helps to not get speeding tickets :)

My speedo is about 5km/h fast. But I still speed :P

Generally speaking, with a tyre that has an overall diameter lower then
stock give better acceleration just the same as lower gearing gives better
acceleration. But it looses out on top end power and speed. Another thing
is that the 225's have a higher rolling resistance. Its all black magic.

yeah, id go with the 225x55's along with having lower diameter giving better acceleration the reduced wall depth will/should give less tyre roll, producing better handling!!! it will sacrifice a little bit of ride comfort though, but this shouldnt be a problem!

Wider tyres make you more prone to aqua plaining as well

Wider tyres make you more prone to aqua plaining as well

thats why you dont get cheap tyres :)

and keep your pressures up!

[quote:a7254650a6="rdraginbilly"]Wider tyres make you more prone to aqua plaining as well

thats why you dont get cheap tyres :)[/quote:a7254650a6]

dunno about the price thing.... my hankook K406's are easily the best tyres i've had in the wet (they do have quite and agressive tread pattern), and this is compared with....
Pirelli P4000 (weren't 'bad', just did not rate for the price they asked!),
Bridgestone RE92 (not bad in dry, lacked somewhat in wet),
and some dunlop jobs (they were really crap alround)....

the best bit, the hankooks were also the cheapest!!!

oh and they are pretty good in the dry... i'd rate close to the P4000's and better than the other two!

dingo,

What did the hankook set you back per tyre?

I'm just about to go around pricing 235/45's for my new 17's.. I don't have a clue what to get.

-Dan

dingo,

What did the hankook set you back per tyre?

I'm just about to go around pricing 235/45's for my new 17's.. I don't have a clue what to get.

-Dan
err, umm, $105... but that is for 215/60/15's (yeah i still have crappy 15's :( )
but in comparison to all the others, minimum of $120 per tyre... it was pretty damn good!!

just went and checked out hankook Oz...http://www.hankooktyre.com.au/ and the K406 doesnt come bigger than 16's so that rules them out.....

dunno about the price thing.... my hankook K406's are easily the best tyres i've had in the wet (they do have quite and agressive tread pattern), and this is compared with....
Pirelli P4000 (weren't 'bad', just did not rate for the price they asked!),
Bridgestone RE92 (not bad in dry, lacked somewhat in wet),
and some dunlop jobs (they were really crap alround)....

the best bit, the hankooks were also the cheapest!!!

oh and they are pretty good in the dry... i'd rate close to the P4000's and better than the other two!

just a quick note motor or wheels had a wheel comparison. pirelli didnt fair well in fact they came bottom or almost bottom on all tests wet and dry etc. i dont think hankook was in the tests so my guess would be anything is better than pirelli's :lol:

yeah, the Pirellis i had were reasonably good.... against the others i've had...

from memory those tests were all fairly close and some guy wrote in with adjusted results (which the mag resposible acknowledged but basically said they couldnt be stuffed doing it in that much detail), anyway when it was done his way the Pirellii came higher up the list....

and also as they were fairly close anyway... like all within a few % which means close to shit between you and me!!!

mind you, they price of the Pirellis definately means they should be a shit load better, so a being average just doesnt cut it!!!

Don't know what test you were looking at. The P6000 was about middle in the dry and right up the top in the wet in one of the motor tyre tests.
Pzero Nero did pretty well in the high performance test too.

If you know of a tyre that's better than the P6000 and comes in 205/65/15 for around $125 (though price isn't so important), tell me and I'll try it out some time soon.

mind you, they price of the Pirellis definately means they should be a shit load better, so a being average just doesnt cut it!!![/quote:1c41bc86b6]

Or it just means they have to be transported a long long way to get here. More expensive doesnt always mean better, usually when somethings more expensive yur just paying for the name, which is a big wank factor anyway.
*a bit off topic*
Its like when ppl buy Ducati's because they look so 'good' and its a Ducati so it must be good, and its more expensive. When in actual fact they rate alot shitter compated to Jap Sportsbikes.
Or like getting a Momo steering wheel, as opposed to an Autotecnica, they look almost identical but one cost $150 more, im sure they both do the same job.