17’s 205/40 peeps

[MOZZalba]

Hi, do you guys notice a performance drop considering the slightly larger diameter? I am considering going for the much more expensive option of 195/40 but if the difference is tiny I would go for the 205/40.

comments welcome guys.

 

[brian182]

the width of the tire makes no difference its the going upto 17s from 16S that makes a difference , i have 205/40/17s on mine cant say i noticed that much with the performance but it does affect the handling , not as tight on the corners now

 

[MOZZalba]

the width of the tyre does make a difference because the 40 in this case is the aspect ratio of either 205 or 195 and therefor the 195/40 will be a lower profile.

 

[MOZZalba]

surely someone has an opinion!!

 

[Gary Brown]

Yep 205/40s blunt your acceleration - you may try to deny it, but when you put your 16s back on you fly! Ive stuck with the 17s because they make me smile whenever I look at the car sat still - it just looks so damned right.

 

[brian182]

the 40 part of the tire is the depth of the sidewall , doesnt matter if its a 195 or a 225 . depth is still 40 mm 195 /205 is the width of the tread

 

[MOZZalba]

sorry, but the 40 is the aspect ratio or % so a 205/40 has a slighlty higher profile than the 195/40. The second number is a percentage of the total width of the tyre.

 

[MOZZalba]

right where I am going with this is, I have a set of 7x17 (khan RSR) iirc in my garage left over from a previous car. The offset on them is ET35 and I propose to put them on my 172cup with a 195/40 and standard ride height. I know the cup rim offset is ET38/38.5 and I see most people going for an ET37/38 and 205/40/17 as a replacement. I know with an ET35 I will be 3mm ish wider than standard track but my thinking was a 195/40 width tyre will obviously be 10mm narrower overall giving me 5mm each side as it were and a slightly lower profile also so in theory should squeeze in without scrubbage!!!!! sound doooable? yes no maybe! lol

cheers

 

[Fred@BTM]

theyll fit striaght on anyway, just go for 205/40

LOWER THE CAR THOUGH!!!!!

 

[182_blue]

Quote: Originally posted by Fred2001Dynamic on 04 May 2005


theyll fit striaght on anyway, just go for 205/40

LOWER THE CAR THOUGH!!!!!

why bother its not a SL GULWING

 

[Alex_225]

I didnt notice a difference by putting 205/40/17s on my 172. I actually found that although the profile is lower because there was more tyre on a the road it gave a slightly less harsh ride. Not by much but definately noticed it.

Just for looks I think its worth any tiny sacrifice in acceleration, if there is any.

 

[Gareth]

there is a sacrifice in acceleration, there is no denying it. I must say however I really dont notice it in the lower gears, its when you are trying to reach !00 that you really notice the difference.

 

[Alex_225]

I assume thats on a private test track!!!

 

[David]

definitely made a difference to my acceleration imo

 

[geordiepaul]

195/40R17 are definately better than 205s

I had 205s on for a week but changed them for the 195s which were much much better (the place I bought them from did this for me at no extra cost) The 195s shouldnt be all that much more expensive just not that many people make them!

215/35R17 would be better still and I think they would fit without rubbing (depending on lowering) but you would have to make sure first

 

[BRUN]

Quote: Originally posted by brian182 on 03 May 2005

the 40 part of the tire is the depth of the sidewall , doesnt matter if its a 195 or a 225 . depth is still 40 mm 195 /205 is the width of the tread

not true

the 40 is 40% of the width

 

[brian182]

aspect ration 40/ , the sidewall hight of the tyre as percentage of its section width . taken from michelin website , so i guess we were both right lol

 

[Rob669]

One thing to consider. The Cup track cars supplied by Renault run on 15s. For full spec see the Renault sport web site.

 

[civic_legend]

http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.htmlTyre size calc for FOOLS!

Let that settle your arguments...