Anyone running 245/50/16's?

[jhelgesen]

Dreading the fact I need to find tires for my 8x16's. Tire rack only lists track rubber for the stock 245/45/16.

They have boat loads of 245/50/16's in stock. Anyone running this size?

[gunlover05]

check this place out...i bought some T1Rs in 245/45/16 for my 9s recently...

16

[Porchcar guy]

I am running 245/50/16 Kumho ASX on 8" rims on the rear of my 79SC with no issues..the fronts are 225/50/16 Kumho ASX on 7" rims and the left front pulled down the lip at the 12 oclock position so I will cut/roll the lip back on the fronts. They are very new so no info as to performance yet on this set but have used them on 2 other vehicles... good wear, decent handling , a bit slippery in the wet. YMMV

[KTL]

Think of it another way. Running a 245/50-16 is similar to running a 275/40-17 in terms of overall diameter.

Point being is the fitment will be fine from a width perspective, however the diameter will be about 1 inch larger than the 245/45. Not a big deal. Looks a bit fatter, but nothing to get all worked up about.

In all honesty i'd run a 225/50-16. It's technically a better fit anyway. From a performance standpoint, the goal is to run the widest wheel possible for a given tire size. In that realm, 225 is better than 245. 245 is better suited to a 9 in. wheel.

[rattlsnak]

Originally Posted by KTL

From a performance standpoint, the goal is to run the widest wheel possible for a given tire size.

Since you already have the wheels, the goal is to run the widest tires you can fit with the lowest aspect ratio. For street tires, yes a 50 will be more "sloppy/loose" than a 45 series tire in the same width.

[KTL]

Originally Posted by rattlsnak

Since you already have the wheels, the goal is to run the widest tires you can fit with the lowest aspect ratio. For street tires, yes a 50 will be more "sloppy/loose" than a 45 series tire in the same width.

I understand what you're saying with already having the wheels. But I don't agree with running the widest tire that'll fit on it. A 225 on an 8 in. wheel is a better fit than a 245 on an 8 in. wheel in my experience. The 245 has bulgy-ness hanging out past the rim. The 225 has a nice vertical sidewall. I bet if we measure the resulting tread width on each setup as installed on the wheel, the result is pretty close to being the same?

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by rattlsnak

Since you already have the wheels, the goal is to run the widest tires you can fit with the lowest aspect ratio. For street tires, yes a 50 will be more "sloppy/loose" than a 45 series tire in the same width.

It's a little more complicated than that,

when fitting tires you need to consider

1. the tire height or even better revs per mile
2. design rim width range
3. intended usage
4. width
5. aspect ratio

1 - affects the gearing, taller lowers the rate of acceleration and also lowers cruise rpm, lower increases the rate of acceleration and raises cruise rpm, a tertiary effect is the speed at which peak acceleration occurs

2 - for best performance use the narrowest tire that fits on a wheel, for best comfort use the widest tire that will fit on a wheel

3 - look at item 2, for track use sticky, low profile, short but wide tires on the widest possible wheel are preferred, for performance street use many of these items will need to be compromised

4 - wider is generally desired but so is lower

5- lower aspect ratio generally means lower slip angles which means better performance, taller means higher slip angles and lower performance at the edge but greater comfort.

JMO but on an 8" wheel 225/50 x16 is a far better compromise than a 245/50, a 245/45 is better suited to a 9 than an 8.

225/50 x16
design rim 6-8" 6 is the comfort wheel, 8 the performance wheel
height 24.9" rpm 836 consider this the base tire wrt acceleration curves

245/50 x16
design rim 7-8.5" 7 is the comfort wheel, 8.5 the performance wheel
height 25.7" rpm 806 acceleration wil be ~3.2% worse than a 225/50 x16

245/45 x16
design rim 7.5-9" 7.5 is the comfort wheel, 9 the performance wheel
height 24.7" rpm 849 acceleration will be ~.48% better than for a 225/50 x16

[andyt11]

I'm running 225/50/16 on 8" rims on the rear. I actually thought that was stock! (mine is an 88)

Anyway, they fit fine. I actually had 4 adults in the car a couple of weekends ago and expected to hear a scrub every now and then but they cleared just fine at all times.

[agfours]

I would also encourage you to look at the spec's of each tire you are choosing. Although the standard sizings are specified in millimeters, the actual measured specifications of each tire within a given size vary greatly in rolling diameter, height, width, tread contact patch width, etc. I had pretty good luck going up to Discount Tire and working with the guy on specs on tires they carried (as a for instance).

I have a Turbo-Look with the 9's in the rear, and the sticker specifies 225/50/16's as stock, although, I do like the wider profile of the 245's as a look with the fender flares to balance the visual stance. As mentioned, you may be able to find a wider 225/50 with closer tread width to a 245 based on brand / tire.

[rattlsnak]

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg

It's a little more complicated than that,

when fitting tires you need to consider

1. the tire height or even better revs per mile
2. design rim width range
3. intended usage
4. width
5. aspect ratio

1 - affects the gearing, taller lowers the rate of acceleration and also lowers cruise rpm, lower increases the rate of acceleration and raises cruise rpm, a tertiary effect is the speed at which peak acceleration occurs

2 - for best performance use the narrowest tire that fits on a wheel, for best comfort use the widest tire that will fit on a wheel

3 - look at item 2, for track use sticky, low profile, short but wide tires on the widest possible wheel are preferred, for performance street use many of these items will need to be compromised

4 - wider is generally desired but so is lower

5- lower aspect ratio generally means lower slip angles which means better performance, taller means higher slip angles and lower performance at the edge but greater comfort.

yes, I know, I was making a generalization.. I assumed he is running on the street. For everyday street use, I'm sorry, but very few people will notice a peformance difference in gearing running a slightly taller/shorter tire.
On the rears, I run 245/45/15 for AX and 275/40/17 for the track.

[McLovin]

I'm with bill, above.

For your 8s, you are better off with 225/50s.

That's why the factory used 225/50 on 8s, and 245/45 on 9s.

Just get the 225s. There are lots of those available.

(I have 9s and have to worry about finding 245s, I'd rather have 8s these days!)

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by agfours

I have a Turbo-Look with the 9's in the rear, and the sticker specifies 225/50/16's as stock, although, I do like the wider profile of the 245's as a look with the fender flares to balance the visual stance.

Your 85 Turbolook would have come from the factory with 8s, not 9s. That's why your sticker specifies 225.

Later Turbolooks came with 9s, and the sticker specifies 245/45.

If your car has 9s, it's because someone swapped the original 8s out at some point.

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by rattlsnak

yes, I know, I was making a generalization.. I assumed he is running on the street. For everyday street use, I'm sorry, but very few people will notice a peformance difference in gearing running a slightly taller/shorter tire.
On the rears, I run 245/45/15 for AX and 275/40/17 for the track.

Got to disagree, I can easily notice the relatively small difference between a 245/45 and 225/50 let alone the much bigger one for 225/50 to 245/50.

The smaller the engines the more noticeable it will be, when I had the stock 3.0 in my C3 the 245/45 was much appreciated but when I put in the first 3.6 the car was too under-tired for my taste. The same thing is going on w/ the current 3.0 SC race cars, many of the guys that had the 25.7" 275/40 x17 or 18s are going to 275/35 x15 for the smaller height and loving it.

But everyone needs to make the compromises that suit their taste and usage

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg

Got to disagree, I can easily notice the relatively small difference between a 245/45 and 225/50 let alone the much bigger one for 225/50 to 245/50.

I noticed the difference, too. My lap times were better with 245/45s on 8s than with 225/50s. Mine were in the front, but it was noticeable. Turn-in with the 245s was better than with the 225s. I've run the 245/275 combo and the 225/255 combo and I frankly didn't like the 225/255 set up as well - maybe the 245/275 set up just suites my driving style... The only thing I don't like about the 275s is the gearing impact.

[TargaHenry]

Resurrecting this thread rather than make a new one:

So I want to get some new tires ASAP, have 16", back is 9' w/ 245/45. Tire guy says 145/50 not a problem. (1984 911 Carrera Targa)

Any repercussions with a 245/50?

Could I run a 255/50, and would it be better than 245/50?

Edit: Tire boss man just called back said 245/50 would be too tall. Said call Tire Rack.

[KTL]

Well its not a problem in terms of fitment. It will fit the wheel no problem. But the 245/50 is approx. 1 inch larger in diameter. So you lose some gearing due to the increase in sidewall height. It'll look fairly fat/balloon-y in my opinion.

If you went with a 255/50, the balloon effect & gearing loss would be even more pronounced.

For most people's tastes, the low profile look and acceleration is what a street tire is all about. The 245/50 and 255/50 are a decline in performance from that taste perspective

[Joe Bob]

There is one decent 245/45 tire. If Tire Rack felt like it they could make a stink and get Kumho to come back in......but it looks like they don't really care.

I spoke with a Kumho rep awhile back he claims there isn't a big enough market.

POTENZA RE-11 - OnlineTires.com

Riken has one as well but the reviews on them aren't so good.

Both the above weren't available so I went with 245/50s......don't like them.

[LEAKYSEALS951]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

There is one decent 245/45 tire. If Tire Rack felt like it they could make a stink and get Kumho to come back in......but it looks like they don't really care.

I spoke with a Kumho rep awhile back he claims there isn't a big enough market.

POTENZA RE-11 - OnlineTires.com

Riken has one as well but the reviews on them aren't so good.

Both the above weren't available so I went with 245/50s......don't like them.

Hey Joe Bob, what 245/50 did you finally go with? Do you have any pics of them on the car? I'm trying to figure out what to get next.

[Joe Bob]

I prefer to use matched tire manufacturers. I run Kumho front and rear....they have always been.....consistent. I also have run them at speed at tracks.....I'm not the kinda guy that swaps out tires for a DE, I run what I brung.

Stupid to train with something that you don't use daily. 225/50 up front. Just my luck that they would discontinue both in the 45 series. I had to adjust my settings on the T-bars to accommodate the taller tires. I have adjustable spring plates in the rear, the fronts were easy.

I used to have a nice stance......I don't like the look and it has thrown off my speedo.

I have debated going to 17s.....

[LEAKYSEALS951]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

I prefer to use matched tire manufacturers. I run Kumho front and rear....they have always been.....consistent. I also have run them at speed at tracks.....I'm not the kinda guy that swaps out tires for a DE, I run what I brung.

Stupid to train with something that you don't use daily. 225/50 up front. Just my luck that they would discontinue both in the 45 series. I had to adjust my settings on the T-bars to accommodate the taller tires. I have adjustable spring plates in the rear, the fronts were easy.

I used to have a nice stance......I don't like the look and it has thrown off my speedo.

I have debated going to 17s.....

Thanks for the quick reply! That's an 8 inch rim? Right?