Mike Owens

if I install 17's vs.16's, the car will need to be lowered to look "right". 17's on a 2000 A6 Quattro give the optical illusion that the car was raised, which will make the car look worse than with the 16's.

I'm right in the middle of lowering my new Mercedes CLK430 Cabriolet with H&R springs and having a set of 18" HRE's made for the car, so I will probably just go with 16's on the Audi right now, since the CLK customization is costing me so much.

I did see a set of Azev Type H wheels at the wheel shop I went yesterday, and they come in 16x7.5 at a cost of approx. $275 each. They look real nice to me, and I may choose to go that route, and install a set of 225/50-16's vs. the 205/55-16's on the car now.

DD

Eddie: Will 17" MM R5s be available any time soon?

DD

Below is the link for the SP9000s I'm considering upgrading to.

Maybe this is particular to this tire, but Dunlop seems to be recommending the 225/45ZR17 with 7.5" rims (like stock S4) and 235/45ZR17 for use with 8" rims (like the Rondell Design 64).

Do we know something the tire manufacturer doesn't?

DD<ul><li><a href="http://www.dunloptire.com/sp9000/spec.html">Dunlop SP9000 Specs</a></li></ul>

Adam S

You have to remove the "nospamx!" to get my real email address. I do this because the level of spam I receive seemed to increase after posting my real email address on the forums.

I'm still leaning towards the 16" wheels. I have the non-sport suspension and I'm not planning on lowering the car so I think the 16" wheels would actually look better on my Avant. I've seen 17" and 18" wheels on non-sport A4's and they do look a bit funny (raised). I'm not sure if this would be the case on my Avant as the longer lines seem to negate that effect somewhat.

Anyway, thanks for all your help!

DD

Scenario 1, Current SP8000 205/55ZR16s + Design 64 16"x7.5":

Wheel Weight: 24.2 lbs
Tire Weight: 23.4 lbs

Total: 47.6 lbs

Tire Profile: 112.75 mm = 4.44"

Scenario 2, New SP9000 225/45ZR17s + Design 64 17"x8":

Wheel Weight: 26.4 lbs
Tire Weight: 22.5 lbs

Total: 48.9 lbs

Tire Profile: 101.25 mm = 3.99"

Scenario 3, New SP9000 235/45ZR17s (8" rim size reommended by Dunlop) + Design 64 17x8":

Wheel Weight: 26.4 lbs
Tire Weight: 24.3 lbs

Total: 50.7 lbs

Tire Profile: 105.75 mm = 4.16"


Using Dunlops's recommended SP9000 tire size for the 17"x8" rim and looking at the Plus One (16" up to 17") numbers, we get:

16" -> 17" weight difference: +3.1 lbs (unsprung)

16" -> 17" profile difference: -.28 inches


Definite Fact: Increasing unsprung weight will reduce acceleration and braking performance, as well as decreasing gas mileage.

Possible Fact: Decreasing profile might increase cornering performance. But is a measly .28 inches enough of a decrease to notice a change?

Hmmmm, by going to 17", I'd be:

1. Definitely increasing unsprung weight. Minus.
2. Definitely increasing angular momentum. Minus.
3. Definitely increasing susceptability to rim damage. Minus.
4. Definitely incurring more costs, by about $716 (new tires). Minor minus.
5. Increasing cosmetic appeal. Plus
6. *Possibly* increasing corner performance. Minor Plus due to uncertainty of only .28" decrease on cornerning. Possibly more of a difference just from changing tires (8000s -> 9000s).

When all is said and done, I can't find any reason for upgrading to 17" beyond cosmetic reasons, in this particular case. The performance numbers seem to be something of a wash (increase in unsprung weight with decrease in profile, neither with truly known results).

Does anyone have any real data that is NOT anecdotal that paints a different picture?

Really, I'd like to upgrade to 17" for cosmetic reasons, but the scientist in me needs more convincing...

Torn,

DD

jasyn

"Given the 8" width, wouldn't a 235 tire offer more protection to the rim?"

i thought you were referring to the 235 tire being 8" wide. i assumed pothole (vertical) protection when you meant curb(horizontal) protection. yes dunlop is correct in saying 235 would offer more protection. it's a little less then .5in wider than the 225. that translates to about .25in more protection on the outer edge. nothing to write home about imo.

but what i said still goes. you _may_ have problems with tire rub against the inner fender well. dunlop recommends tire sizes according to wheel specs and do not take the a4 into consideration. it's just a general recommendation.

in that sense .. yes, we do know something the tire manu doesnt.

one more thing .. all manufacturers measurements are not equal. 235 tire by one manu may be wider than another. if the 235 fits and doesnt cause any rubbing then go for it. otherwise just get the 225/45 and park carefully.

good luck

99.5 1.8tqms apr
-jasyn

CraigB

The NSX has 16" front and 17" rear, that's probably why you can't decide. 8^) Actually, since you can't decide to go for the 17" for looks alone, I'd go with 16" if I were you. You may change your mind later, but you'll be happy for now. You can only analyze it so much anyway.

CraigB