Square VS Staggered.

[qube 3568]

Im sure there are a million posts about this but im specifically after some first hand experience between

running a square 235/40/17 front and rear tyre size on the 17x7.5 front and 17.8.5 rear m3 wheels on the e36

OR running 225/45/17 front and 245/40/17 rear, which is what bmw changed it to after a certain year of production i think?

on the door sill of my 1995 e36 coupe it shows 235/40/17 as the only tyre option for 17". some other options are printed for 16" only.

i currently have 225/45/17's all round and dont like how the rears stretch over the 8.5" wheel. so im planning to go for the 225/245 setup.

Thoughts?

[Ahmedsinc 414]

I noticed slightly sharper turn in response when running E39 style 66 8" front & 9" rears on my E36 sedan. 225/45 front & 255/40 rear. Not sure whether it was the staggered setup or the extra track gained by the 20mm / side offset decrease or entirely psychosomatic.

The tyre sticker on the sill will only be relevant to the 17" options for the 328i, should be able to disregard safely given you're using M3 Contours (nice wheel BTW!)

245s on the wider rims is a good idea, you'll probably see an increase in rear grip given you'll gain a little sidewall flex, though I'm guessing it won't be noticeable unless you're hooning around a track Won't look as 'hellaflush' tho

Edited July 14, 2015 by Ahmedsinc

[qube 3568]

i care little for the "stanced" look, i prefer it to look nice and straight. wide tyres are nice too (more expensive though)

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2122]

I have 235/255 on my e34 on the schnitzers, handles better than 235/235, more confident powering out of corners etc

[qube 3568]

Im a safe sensible driver. Think ill go with the 225 245 set up. Cheers all

[E30-323ti 66]

225/245 is the correct combo for the 7.5"/8.5" rims (per the 3.2l M3's)

235's all round was the the 7.5" rims only (per the 3.0l M3's)

235's all round on the staggered rims (and visa versa) wouldn't be a nice combo.

[MattA 162]

Your selection should be good Kyu

E46 330i, stock M-sport suspension as best as I can tell, running 225/245 can bang it into almost anything and it just goes round (not right round), gets the tick from me.

E34 540 235/235, on 17" rims great can chuck it at anything and it sticks, its a little low and the sway bars made the biggest difference, great for the roads we have. When it had the 18" M-pars (can't recall the tyre size) it didn't handle well, plenty of lateral grip but it tracked around like a dog on a sent, you had to wrestle it into line.

The 18" setup was crap on the road, to little tyre wall and IMO not well matched to the chassis with the suspension set up that was there, different setup who knows may well have been better.

my 2c

[E30-323ti 66]

Out of genuine interest why do you say this? I'm planning on putting 235 or 245 track tyres (edit: square) on my M3 17x 7.5 and 8.5 rims, stock offset.

Transitional behavior (feel) of the tyre will be different between the different rim widths.

If you went to say a 245 on a 7.5" rim up front, the steering would be quite vague and sloppy with the tyre being more pinched onto the rim (prob' outside the recommended fitment range too).

The 235 on a 8.5" is the opposite, albeit not as drastic, but will have a much more positive feel than the same tyre on a skinnier rim.

In the real world we are not running 10/10th's at a trackday in our street cars, you probably won't even notice.

But it's nice to remove the known variables / compromises.

My 2c, find another pair of 8.5's and run 235/40's all-round for track days.

[Event Horizon 12]

E30 info, so YMMV: I ran 205/215 on a 7.5/8.5" E30 M3 suspension setup and it tamed the renowned E30 tail happiness somewhat. The M3 suspension is a shitload better than stock with the differing suspension turret angles, but there's a reason that every single tuner moved away from BMW's square setup.

[qube 3568]

i know performance and feel is very important for me, looks wise, 225s look 'right' on a 7.5" and 245s on the 8.5. currently got 225s front and rear and the rear stretched look is bugging the hell outta me. its not like im running 215 stretched falkens on a 19x9.5 going for the stanced look so it doesnt make any sense to me.

now the real choice is what tyre brand to go for. i dont want to spent a fortune but still want something decent. looking at hankooks/kumho/toyo. i think michelins, bridgestones, conti's and pirellis are out of my price range

[qube 3568]

I was thinking more around the $6-700 mark so jumping upto 1200 is not so easy for me. The tyres will cost nearly as much as the car! Lol.

[gjm 3194]

Bear i mind the profile of the tyre - by which I mean shape, not height - can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. I'm running 17x7 all round and initially found a 215/45-17 to look and feel over-tyred. Very comfortable, but turn-in was slow and it generally felt like they were running under pressure. I don't recall the manufacturer but will see if I have a note somewhere.

We've since fitted Hankooks. Same size, but a completely different story. Really nice 'look', and feel great when driving. Cost $780 fitted (including old tyre disposal), IIRC.

[Apex 693]

225 front. 235 rear based on rim size.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[qube 3568]

Graham gjm:

what model hankooks are they and where was it? pm me if you like

Graham apex:

http://www.1010tires.com/Tools/Tire-Size-Calculator/225-45R17/245-40R17/235-40R17/235-45R17

i think given that i am 100% certain on staying with 225/45/17 on the fronts, i think 245/40/17 is the closest diameter wise rather than going 235/45 or 235/40

Dave:

i think eagle f1's are only good if they are made in germany? and made in thailand (i think) ones were regarded as no good.

either way, im not really a big fan of directional tyres for some reason.

Ron:

I can afford to spend 1k on tyres, but doesnt mean that i want to or necessarily feel the need to, especially with my car at the moment.

I said 6-700 for budget cuz i think i will be okay with something like hankook/kumho/toyo or maybe even achilles atr sports because its pretty good bang for buck.

Ive had dunlop sport maxx before and not really a fan, as you said they are quite soft.

[Apex 693]

I have eagle F1's on my Clio. They are perfectly acceptable and were cheap. Pleasantly surprised TBH. Put it this way, the car is slow and has never been overtaken on a B road. Would trade again.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gjm 3194]

Graham gjm:

what model hankooks are they and where was it? pm me if you like

PM'd with my phone number.

[westy 614]

I always liked my 235/40/17s on 17x8s all round.

So there.

[qube 3568]

Ron:

You are absolutely right regarding the notches between the sport maxx and the other brands i mentioned. I was more referring to performance vs value and i think sport maxx are not that great bang for buck.

Dave:

Didnt mean to sound absolute but in this day and age we tend to take the words of the internet as facts whether we like it or not. Anyway, after finding some eagle f1s for a good price i was about to click buy now but turned out they werent made in germany ones. Lots of internet discussions about different compound used when they moved factories over to asia.

Anyway i just picked up a pair of falken ze912s in 245 40 17 sizing for the rear.

Going to throw out these rubbish rotellas on the front and move the altenzo sports comforts from the back to the front in the meantime then consider buying another pair of the ze912 falkens new to make it a complete set.

[Ahmedsinc 414]

Anyway i just picked up a pair of falken ze912s in 245 40 17 sizing for the rear.

No idea what the pro opinion is on the ZE912 but using them on the rear of the 530i as well, very happy for price / performance / road noise

[gjm 3194]

Just for future reference:

Hankook H457s, 205/55-16 - 4 new tyres fitted and balanced: $500

Hankook Optimo N426, 215/45-17 - 4 new tyres fitted and balanced: $780 (including disposal of old tyres)

Neither of these are the last word in performance but they aren't marketed as such: they are a 'Grand Touring All Season' tyre. After many thousands of kms, I'm happy to say they are very good. Not great perhaps, but we've not been looking for the last few % of performance. They grip well in the dry, and give no cause for concern whatsoever in the wet, even last night on SH1 with a moderate to heavy swell and whitecaps driven by high winds from the south. (If you were out there, you'll know what I mean! A boat would perhaps have been more suited to the conditions.) They wear well, too and let's face it - with our mileage that's a consideration.

[qube 3568]

^where can i get them for $980? (for future reference)

[gjm 3194]

Graham, sort of proves my point

$780 for a set of 215/45-17 tyres that Hankook list as their "lowest grade tyre" compared to:

$980 for a set of 225/45 & 245/40 17 Re002's which Bridgestone list as a high performance tyre.

One suspects the difference in price for same sizes would be minimal which makes the 002's a bargain and the Optimo's by comparison overpriced.

And yes I have wear rate challenge as well, typically end up doing 3 sets of tyres annually over two cars but chucking the X5 in a ditch would be far more expensive than the difference between tyres I can rely on rather than tyres I need to be careful on - but then my terrain is all open country road, lots of banks and ditches , no cruising the expressway.

I agree - there is no doubt the Bridgestones should be a much better tyre. Does the $980 include all the fitting and disposal? Good price, regardless.

Unfortunately I didn't have the opportunity to shop around or the price may have been lower, or the solution different. I had bought a set of rims and tyres and despite a thorough check of the tyres (tread, cracks, age, manufacture) suggesting they were fine, it looks as though they may have been fitted to a car which was parked with the tyres flat for a long period of time - all were misshapen, out of round and similar. In the absence of a reliable way to spin them up, it is sadly the sort of thing you find when driving, rather than looking. Replacement tyres were essential, immediately, and at a time when we didn't have money to buy them. Good, cheap tyres were the order of the day. (There are many much cheaper ones we might have been able to get, but I won't fit something if I am unsure of the quality and safety.)

Hankooks are typically good. Bridgestones are typically better.

As Ron points out, it is important to look at the driving you're doing. 200km+ per day at ~100km/h on SH1 is very different to spirited driving on a more rural road.

[qube 3568]

just got hankook ventus v12 fitted on the fronts and falken ze912 on the rear and drove roughly 20kms home through traffic so couldnt notice much difference yet.

BUT, i love how the 245's look on the rear SO MUCH better than silly stretched 225's.

i kind of want to get matching falkens for the front but these will do for now, much better than before.

will post up an opinion in the next few days after i drive it more

[Herbmiester 909]

I am looking at 003's in 225/45/17 and 245/40/17 for my e46, Tony's quoted $920 in Wellington. Personally I can't stand the stance look and prefer my tyres to match the rims with a square sidewall. I am reliably informed that's the way they are designed to work.

[qube 3568]

First impressions:

the car feels slightly heavier than before, and when cornering the rear feels more stable and grippy. not sure if its the tyres itself or the sizing difference but i gotta say i love the look and feel of the 245 rears WAY more than having 225.