How big of a wheel would you put on 4kq? *edit*
01-27-2005, 07:34 AM
#1
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How big of a wheel would you put on 4kq? *edit*
<center><img src="http://www.ronalusa.com/wheels/opt-images/r38/r48_4_lug.jpg"></center><p>
15, 16, 17, 18?
I'm looking into picking up some R38's and I'm not sure what size to get. I'm thinking 16 will be the perfect fit.
*I'm in love with the R38's*
15, 16, 17, 18?
I'm looking into picking up some R38's and I'm not sure what size to get. I'm thinking 16 will be the perfect fit.
*I'm in love with the R38's*
01-27-2005, 07:45 AM
#4
Lane Shark
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 23,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave/duandcc's write up about wheel weight & braking
<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/4000/msgs/78619.phtml">granted it's for 20", but same theory applies w/ each size increase over stock</a></li></ul>
01-27-2005, 08:43 AM
#5
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boone, NC
Posts: 920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 16s are good...
but you pay a lot more for the 205-45 tires and you have fewer tires to choose from. I would consider going with 15s if I had it to do over since the road I live on is hard on wheels/tires. Also, your ride quality and noise will be better with 15s.
I think Wes from Atlanta (quattros.org) is running 17s. Maybe he'll chime in and let you know what he thinks of them.
I think Wes from Atlanta (quattros.org) is running 17s. Maybe he'll chime in and let you know what he thinks of them.
01-27-2005, 09:27 AM
#7
Never go higher than 16
There are SO many reason not to put oversized rims on a car. Some troll asked about putting 20s on his car and I responded with:
The CGT came with 14" rims so 20"s would be a +6 fitament. That's insane. First you will absolutely kill the ride. Second, you'd have a SMALLER contact patch...the size you would need is 165/30/20 (yes, 165)...and even that would throw a 3% speedo error into the mix. If they made them, the "perfect" size would be 195/20/20 (yes, 20 aspect ratio), but they don't make tires that low profile. Now, lets assume for a second you decide that you are OK with 165/30/20s...the unspring weight of a 20 is going to be a LOT more than a 14". Every 1# of unsprung weight is = 10@# of sprung weight, so it's adding a TON of weight to an already slow car. You thyink your CGT is slow now? Count on the 20s adding at least 1-1.5 seconds to the 0-60 run. Also due to rotational inertia, your braking distances with by exponentially longer (to the point of being dangerous unless you do a big brake upgrade at the same time). The polar moment of inertia increases with proportion to the square of the radius. So given the same weight, the smaller radius wins. If the 17" wheel is a factor of 1.28 lighter however, they would be even (again, ignoring the moment of the tire). So to equal a 15" wheel which weighs 20 pounds you would need a 15.625lb 17" wheel.
OK, so 20s are a BAD idea...so what's a good idea? Well, for performance, you want 15s or MAYBE 16s...anything bigger is 100% pure BLING. Now, if you really like the looks of chuck wagon wheels with rubnber bands...then go for 17s. With 17s you'd be ruinning a 205/35/17 tire, you can't getmuch lower profile than that.
The CGT came with 14" rims so 20"s would be a +6 fitament. That's insane. First you will absolutely kill the ride. Second, you'd have a SMALLER contact patch...the size you would need is 165/30/20 (yes, 165)...and even that would throw a 3% speedo error into the mix. If they made them, the "perfect" size would be 195/20/20 (yes, 20 aspect ratio), but they don't make tires that low profile. Now, lets assume for a second you decide that you are OK with 165/30/20s...the unspring weight of a 20 is going to be a LOT more than a 14". Every 1# of unsprung weight is = 10@# of sprung weight, so it's adding a TON of weight to an already slow car. You thyink your CGT is slow now? Count on the 20s adding at least 1-1.5 seconds to the 0-60 run. Also due to rotational inertia, your braking distances with by exponentially longer (to the point of being dangerous unless you do a big brake upgrade at the same time). The polar moment of inertia increases with proportion to the square of the radius. So given the same weight, the smaller radius wins. If the 17" wheel is a factor of 1.28 lighter however, they would be even (again, ignoring the moment of the tire). So to equal a 15" wheel which weighs 20 pounds you would need a 15.625lb 17" wheel.
OK, so 20s are a BAD idea...so what's a good idea? Well, for performance, you want 15s or MAYBE 16s...anything bigger is 100% pure BLING. Now, if you really like the looks of chuck wagon wheels with rubnber bands...then go for 17s. With 17s you'd be ruinning a 205/35/17 tire, you can't getmuch lower profile than that.
Trending Topics
01-27-2005, 10:09 AM
#8
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol, well I would never go bigger than 16.....
I just through those number out there too be funny. But I was thinking that 16 would be pushing it. The car is pretty low stock and if I go lower a big wheel would make things very tight under there. I worry about 16's rubbing. I'm thinking I should be able to get away with 205/45/16.
01-27-2005, 10:21 AM
#9
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tirerack has a pretty good selection.......
<center><img src="http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/bfg/bfg_g_force_sport_ci2_l.jpg"></center><p>I'm liking the BFG G-Force sports. They are about $71 a piece.<ul><li><a href="http://www.tirerack.com/a.jsp?a=AR4&url=%2Fimages%2Ftires%2Fbfg%2Fbfg_ g_force_sport_ci2_s.jpg">http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/bfg/bfg_g_force_sport_ci2_s.jpg</a></li></ul>
01-27-2005, 11:11 AM
#10
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well according to Duandcc's write up on sizing, I got "pure bling" on the way.
I got my CGT going under the knife next week at 2Bennett for a set of coilovers & ASA 17"s.
Pure bling? Not really. Part of the reason is for coilovers is to raise the car back up 3/4" to get my spoiler to clear my driveway at home without ramps. But raising it back up creates more fender gap at the wheels, so 17"s it is. BTW I'll be running 205/40-17s (currently running 205/40-16) so the ride should be about the same.
My speedo may be off a few % but I drive off my tach anyway. Added weight? My MC1 should be able to handle it (actually the rims I am getting weigh very close to my current setup), and my big brake upgrade should handle the additional mass quite well.
More pics to follow.
J.
Current wheels:
<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/21637/cgtbrakes.jpg">
Coming soon:
<img src="http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheels/asa/swap/asa_ar1_ci3_l.jpg">
Pure bling? Not really. Part of the reason is for coilovers is to raise the car back up 3/4" to get my spoiler to clear my driveway at home without ramps. But raising it back up creates more fender gap at the wheels, so 17"s it is. BTW I'll be running 205/40-17s (currently running 205/40-16) so the ride should be about the same.
My speedo may be off a few % but I drive off my tach anyway. Added weight? My MC1 should be able to handle it (actually the rims I am getting weigh very close to my current setup), and my big brake upgrade should handle the additional mass quite well.
More pics to follow.
J.
Current wheels:
<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/21637/cgtbrakes.jpg">
Coming soon:
<img src="http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheels/asa/swap/asa_ar1_ci3_l.jpg">