I know this has been asked before, but here goes again. What would be the purpose or benefit to staggering the tires? Is it all about looks with the fatter tires in the rear or do they serve a purpose or added benefit to the performace or driveablity of the vehicle? I noticed the Saleen stang (presumably built for performance) staggeres the tires; and I have noticed performane cars like Vettes and even Porsches stagger the tires. If there is no significant gain, then why do it?
More tire on the back will help keep the rear planted during spirited driving. It can also change handling characteristics as far as oversteer vs. understeer.
__________________
DHG #01434 Bullitt - full JLT intake, MGW shifter, Accel coils (I wish I had 4.10s, o/r H, tune)
Black 89 LX(the drag car) best 8.75 at 80 mph in the 1/8
97 Mountaineer V8 AWD
More tire on the back will help keep the rear planted during spirited driving. It can also change handling characteristics as far as oversteer vs. understeer.
The wider footprint in the rear I understand. But then why not just go to a wider footprint (as wide as you can go) on all four corners as opposed to just the rear. Are you saying that simply having a wider footprint in the rear compared tot he front, will give you better traction under hard acceleration? In other words, you would have better traction if the rear were say 275 (or even 285) and the front were less than that? Or is it just generally the wider the footprint overall, the better the traction? What about this under/oversteer? What kind of problems come up with using a wider tire upfront in this area? It seems to me it would be better to simply put the widest footprint your vehicle can handle on all four corners. Or is it the Mustang is physically designed to handle a wider tire int he rear than inthe front?
The Mustang will fit a bigger tire in the rear than the front. My 275/40/17s on my 97 rub a little in the front, (I'm lowered 1.5 inches)but I have more room in the back. Some people put 315s on the back with no problems. I'm not sure how much room the new cars have but you could get away with wider all the way around if you want. This way you can still rotate them if needed. The thing to keep in mind is the overall height of the wheel and tire combo so you don't throw the speedo off to bad.
__________________
DHG #01434 Bullitt - full JLT intake, MGW shifter, Accel coils (I wish I had 4.10s, o/r H, tune)
Black 89 LX(the drag car) best 8.75 at 80 mph in the 1/8
97 Mountaineer V8 AWD
Does the Mustang have suffer from oversteer vs. understeer?, and doesent the FR500C have the same size tires on the front and rear?
__________________
05, Premium, Auto, Mineral Grey with Tan, IUP, Shaker 500, Tinted Windows, Plenum Cover, Red White and Blue Pony, Sequential Signals, Infinity Speakers
If I am not mistaken, the GT500 has staggered tires, 245/45ZR18 front and 285/40ZR18 rear. So that is what makes me wonder if there is a reason for such.
I know this has been asked before, but here goes again. What would be the purpose or benefit to staggering the tires? Is it all about looks with the fatter tires in the rear or do they serve a purpose or added benefit to the performace or driveablity of the vehicle? I noticed the Saleen stang (presumably built for performance) staggeres the tires; and I have noticed performane cars like Vettes and even Porsches stagger the tires. If there is no significant gain, then why do it?
On cars with extreme weight distribution, such as the Porsche 911 and NSX, staggering the tires serves a useful purpose, in this case to reduce the oversteering tendency inherent in rear engine and rear weight-biased cars. On a nose-heavy car like the new Shelby it is purely cosmetic and, in fact, deletrious to a certain extent because it encourages more understeer. I seem to recall that the early Shelby prototypes had 255's front and rear but engine torque proved too much so they increased the width of the rears. Steeda and Roush have 275's front and rear. One of the supercharged front drive Pontiacs actually has wider fronts than rears in a rare case of a manufacturer actually putting function before form.
On cars with extreme weight distribution, such as the Porsche 911 and NSX, staggering the tires serves a useful purpose, in this case to reduce the oversteering tendency inherent in rear engine and rear weight-biased cars. On a nose-heavy car like the new Shelby it is purely cosmetic and, in fact, deletrious to a certain extent because it encourages more understeer. I seem to recall that the early Shelby prototypes had 255's front and rear but engine torque proved too much so they increased the width of the rears. Steeda and Roush have 275's front and rear. One of the supercharged front drive Pontiacs actually has wider fronts than rears in a rare case of a manufacturer actually putting function before form.
I see. So there is no benefit in staggering the tires and if I want to put 275 on the rear, I should also put the 275 on the front as opposed to putting 245 or 255 in front? Can the S197s handle 275 in front?
If you have fat tires in the front, the car will "track" on uneven pavement. My Lightning did it alot on roads with any real traffic wear (295's all around).
On the 05, I've got 295's out back and 255's up front.
Staggering is really personal preference. I'm running the same sizes as the Shelby mainly because I wanted more rubber than standard and I knew they would fit and not throw off the computer. The understeer/oversteer characteristics of the car can be tuned via the suspension.
I have 255/45s front and 285 /40s back,KDW-2 G Force with 18" wheels. I think Staggered tires are a must for this car. They fit the wells nice and any handling characteristics can be handleled accordingly (as earlier stated). If You S/C, you better have some meat in the back
On cars with extreme weight distribution, such as the Porsche 911 and NSX, staggering the tires serves a useful purpose, in this case to reduce the oversteering tendency inherent in rear engine and rear weight-biased cars.
Absolutely correct.
Porsche has a nice line to explain it. "You put the widest tires under the heaviest end of the car to keep it from sliding more than the light end". The mustang is something like 51/49 for weight distribution [front/rear] and before I took delivery, I figured out that I needed a 70 pound weight, in the trunk, to make my car handle as perfectly as it could. Turns out it handles great. Also, unlike my Jaguar XJ12 [50/50 weight distribution], you don't sit directly between the front and rear tires, your body weight is somewhat more on the rear than the front, *kinda* making up for the difference.
Wide tires look cool.
Drag racers put wider tires in the back because when you launch, your weight distribution changes, in that your front tires come up and your rear tires "plant" during acceleration [which is why you will never see a front wheel drive, top-fuel dragster]. Wide, sticky tires on the drive wheels help you accelerate faster without the tires spinning.
F'rinstance, I believe 5TWENTY was just saying, at the strip, he launches at 6,000RPM with a 150hp shot of nitrous. That's a 50% increase in power over our Mustangs [stock] and he is "popping the clutch" at twice the engine speed, at which my car would smoke the tires.
Porsche has a nice line to explain it. "You put the widest tires under the heaviest end of the car to keep it from sliding more than the light end". The mustang is something like 51/49 for weight distribution [front/rear] and before I took delivery, I figured out that I needed a 70 pound weight, in the trunk, to make my car handle as perfectly as it could. Turns out it handles great. Also, unlike my Jaguar XJ12 [50/50 weight distribution], you don't sit directly between the front and rear tires, your body weight is somewhat more on the rear than the front, *kinda* making up for the difference.
Wide tires look cool.
Drag racers put wider tires in the back because when you launch, your weight distribution changes, in that your front tires come up and your rear tires "plant" during acceleration [which is why you will never see a front wheel drive, top-fuel dragster]. Wide, sticky tires on the drive wheels help you accelerate faster without the tires spinning.
F'rinstance, I believe 5TWENTY was just saying, at the strip, he launches at 6,000RPM with a 150hp shot of nitrous. That's a 50% increase in power over our Mustangs [stock] and he is "popping the clutch" at twice the engine speed, at which my car would smoke the tires.
Drag racers also put skinnies in the front to lower rolling resistance. According to Car and Driver the GT's weight distribution is actually 52.5/47.5 which is pretty well-balanced for a front-engined car. Unfortunately in the Shelby that big cast iron lump of a block shifts it to 57.7/42.3 which compromises handling. Still it's better than the 69 Mach I CJ428 which was 59.3/40.7. That was pretty hopeless.
i had 18x10 rear 18x8 front. now 18x10s all around. 285/40/18. does not pull any more than with the 8s, and it handles MUCH better. i would not stagger on this car, just put fat meats on all around.
Staggering tires question? 
