Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-21-2012, 02:13 AM   #1 (permalink)
mikehallbackhoe
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: weaverville, california
Posts: 126

honda crx - '84 honda crx 1300
90 day: 55.83 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
another rim width question.

I researched rim width, but never found an answer. will running the same size tire on a wider rim lower the heighth of the tire. if that is the case, a wider rim should lower mpg. my crx has 4" wide rims, but one of them looks like it has been replaced. I haven't determined if it is 4", or 4.5". it is on the front. . I am thinking I should switch it to the rear until I can determine the width, or find a replacement rim. Am I worrying about nothing because of the small difference?

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-21-2012, 04:21 AM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,683

The SCUD - '15 Fiat Scudo L2
Thanks: 178
Thanked 652 Times in 516 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehallbackhoe View Post
I researched rim width, but never found an answer. will running the same size tire on a wider rim lower the heighth of the tire.
Depends on the situation.
Ideally the sidewall is near vertical, and the tyre isn't stretched out or pinched in to fit the rim.

If I look at my own tires, 205/55R16, these may be fitted on 5.5 to 7.5 in wheels according to Tire Size Calculator - tire & wheel plus sizing so that's 5 rim widths.

Even though the fitment might be totally fine, a wide rim will angle the sidewalls out , while a narrow rim angles the sidewalls in, both giving a marginally lower sidewall height (when measured vertically).


Starting with a pinched-in situation, a wider rim might pull the sides more vertical.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 07:46 AM   #3 (permalink)
Tire Geek
 
CapriRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Let's just say I'm in the US
Posts: 796
Thanks: 4
Thanked 393 Times in 240 Posts
Not enough to worry about.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 04:24 PM   #4 (permalink)
Mechanical engineer
 
Vekke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kitee (Finland)
Posts: 1,272

Siitin - '98 Seat Cordoba Vario
90 day: 58.56 mpg (US)

VW Lupo 3L --> 2L - '00 VolksWagen Lupo 3L
Diesel
90 day: 104.94 mpg (US)

A8 luxury fuel sipper - '97 Audi A8 1.2 TDI 6 speed manual
90 day: 64.64 mpg (US)

Audi A4B6 Avant Niistäjä - '02 Audi A4b6 1.9tdi 96kW 3L
90 day: 54.57 mpg (US)

Tourekki - '04 VW Touareg 2.5TDI R5 6 speed manual
90 day: 32.98 mpg (US)

A2 1.4TDI - '03 Audi A2 1.4 TDI
90 day: 45.68 mpg (US)

A2 1.4 LPG - '02 Audi A2 1.4 (75hp)
90 day: 24.67 mpg (US)
Thanks: 270
Thanked 841 Times in 414 Posts
What about the aerodynamic effect. Shouldnt you also try to get same 10 degree "kammback" shape on to the tire to lower their aerodynamic resistance?

That I will try to test this summer also on my Lupo. Try to stretch the rubebr to 10 degree angle.

I agree that effect to diameter does not have measurable effect, but what about the aero?.

I have my own eco tire designed for less aerodynamic drag wise plus some other tricks, but Nokian Tyres did not see that that kind of tire would fill their requirements for tires they have.

I can send the file to any tire maker who is willing to make the first tire to my lupo size spec .
__________________


https://www.linkedin.com/in/vesatiainen/

Vesa Tiainen innovation engineer and automotive enthusiast
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 12:57 AM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
larrybuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: sw Washington (state), a little north of Vancouver
Posts: 1,154
Thanks: 298
Thanked 122 Times in 88 Posts
It is obvious this is bothering you, so move that wheel to the rear.

You KNOW you will sleep better. Now, in your dreams, count the left, and right sweepers,
and sharper corners you take in your travels. Picture yourself coasting rapidly down those mountain roads when the pavement is wet.

Now you know which side of the back to put it on for a little extra insurance of control!

(you know I'm partly teasing here; right?)
__________________
06 Chev MonteC JG#24tribute car 30mpg 00 Honda Insight 63MPG 98 Buick Park Ave3.8 33MPG 89 Toyota Corolla wag 60MPG so far 81 VW Rabbit diesel pu 50MPG+ 80 Mercedes 240D stick 30-ish 90 vette 6-speed,29ish 07 Honda ST1300 55MPG 83 Honda 650 GL 64MPG 19 Suzuki dr200 88MPG23 HondaGrom?+Tow K10D Sub 26mpg NEVER,NEVER GIVE UP!
PUMP THOSE TIRES UP!
DRIVE IN YOUR SOCKS FOR SENSITIVITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SLOW DOWN AND SMOOTH UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![SIGPIC]
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 02:19 AM   #6 (permalink)
mikehallbackhoe
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: weaverville, california
Posts: 126

honda crx - '84 honda crx 1300
90 day: 55.83 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
my main concern was difference in diameter between the two drive wheels. but if they are close enough to not make a difference, I am not going to worry about it. thanks for the info
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 03:34 AM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588

Ladogaboy - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
Team Emperor
90 day: 27.64 mpg (US)

E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
I wonder if a potential difference in weight/drag could affect the driveline? It's probably inconsequential too, though.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 10:35 PM   #8 (permalink)
mikehallbackhoe
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: weaverville, california
Posts: 126

honda crx - '84 honda crx 1300
90 day: 55.83 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
okay, I kept looking at that front tire, and how it looked so much wider than the other tire. I pulled it off ,and weighed it. 29lbs. pulled the corresponding rear tire and weighed it. 26lbs. I put the wider rim on the rear. It seems to steer easier, and it is probably my imagination, but it seems to have more power. my stock rims are 4.5", I located another 4.5" rim , and am replacing the 175 70 13 tires with 165 70 13 tires monday. the larger rim was only .5" wider, but it sure looked out of place compared to the other rims.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2012, 03:35 AM   #9 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588

Ladogaboy - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
Team Emperor
90 day: 27.64 mpg (US)

E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
So strange... I'm guessing the person couldn't find a stock replacement?
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2012, 12:53 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,683

The SCUD - '15 Fiat Scudo L2
Thanks: 178
Thanked 652 Times in 516 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehallbackhoe View Post
I pulled it off ,and weighed it. 29lbs. pulled the corresponding rear tire and weighed it. 26lbs. I put the wider rim on the rear. It seems to steer easier
I can feel the weight increase through the powersteering when I put my heavier summer tires on.
It's no imagination.

__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com