My Testarossa was originally equipped with 255/50ZR16 225/50ZR16 Goodyear tires. I have replaced them in the past with Michelin Pilots and Dunlops. I am currently looking for a matched set of replacement road tires (not racing tires) and I have not been able to find than at the Tire Rack or Discount Tires. Do you know where I may be able to find a set (preferably Michelin or Pirelli) in the US? Many thanks.
Michelins are available from Coker tire and are very expensive. Tire Rack does offer BFG in the correct sizes. Lost of discussion on exactly that topic here in the TR section. A search will easily turn up all that is known.
There is a pretty good discussion here exploring available options for a 16" tire. http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=303950&highlight=tires I will be going with the Kumho's the next time around. Keep in mind the Kumho Ecsta XS # Size: 265/45R16 Sidewall Style: Blackwall Serv. Desc: 99W Load Index 99 = 1709lbs (775kg) per tire Speed Rating W = 168mph (270kph) UTQG: Treadwear: 180 Traction: AA Temperature: A180 AA A It's soft tire and will give really good grip, much better than the Goodrich. It's a newer technology tire with better compounds. Dimensionally they are only 1/10 of an inch shorter in diameter than the B.F.Goodrich and slightly wider. They will wear out long before they get old but at 160.00 a pop from Tire Rack who cares? Consider the front to rear weight ratio on a TR and you WILL want maximum grip in the rear. It's a tail heavy car and the center of gravity is a bit high from a racers standpoint (engine above transmission). Inertial shift in the corners is noticeable. I am seriously considering the Kumho for TR on the next go around if nothing better shows up..
Some more info on determining the actual speed rating of a tire, While a Z-speed rating still often appears in the tire size designation of these tires, such as 225/50ZR16 91W, the Z in the size signifies a maximum speed capability in excess of 149 mph, 240 km/h; the W in the service description indicates the tire's 168 mph, 270 km/h maximum speed. 225/50ZR16 in excess of 149 mph, 240 km/h 205/45ZR17 88W 168 mph, 270 km/h 285/35ZR19 99Y 186 mph, 300 km/h Most recently, when the Y-speed rating indicated in a service description is enclosed in parentheses, such as 285/35ZR19 (99Y), the top speed of the tire has been tested in excess of 186 mph, 300 km/h indicated by the service description as shown below: 285/35ZR19 99Y 186 mph, 300 km/h 285/35ZR19 (99Y) in excess of 186 mph, 300 km/h As vehicles have increased their top speeds into Autobahn-only ranges, the tire speed ratings have evolved to better identify the tires capability, allowing drivers to match the speed of their tires with the top speed of their vehicle. __________________
Yep, I went with the Kumhos. They're a perfect fit width wise even if the rating (265) is slightly larger. I bet if you measured them, they're prob same as stock. The shorter rear sidewall will contribute to some speedo error but try not to let it bother you. They look good, grip good, and are really reasonably priced.
What is this speed-o-meter you speak of? A tenth of an inch in overall diameter of a 265/45 Kumho vs a 255/50 B.F.Goodrich wouldn't even show up on the notoriously inaccurate Ferrari instrumentation. Think nothing of it and enjoy the drive.
I have been using BF Goodrich G-Force Sport 225/50/ZR16 front and 255/50/ZR16 in the back. But these tires are hard to find. Now BF Goodrich produces a new version G-Supersport, which are very similar as as good as the G-Force Sport tires.
I just put a set of those on for a car here. They fit very well and for normal use I am sure they will be just fine. I suspect if compared to a brand new set of the OE Goodyears they are prob better. I do like to take advantage of new tire tech though and the BFG's are just OK compared to other tires out there. I went to the expense of getting Pilot Sports a while ago from Coker and love them. Great year round tire for the car.
If the G-Supersports are using a new rubber compound there is hope yet. I just wish they would make them softer than 340 treadwear rating. (They need to make a 275/50-16 for the rear too).
Spasso, I am thinking the same as you about the Kumhos. But how about these Toyo Proxes TQ jobbies? You can get them in 275/45r 16" and unlike the Michelins from Coker, you won't have to borrow an extra a$$ to work off in order to afford them. Or are 275s going to look a little too ballooney for the stock rim? http://superbuytires.com/tires/model/Toyo/Proxes+TQ/ Best, Neil
Not all 255's are the same nore are all the 275's. Different sizes from different manufacturers will have different actual measurements. The BFG 255's fit very well are are wider that the Michelins PS 255's by a noticable amount. Without seeing them I think a BFG 275 would look odd and not be an optimal fit to the wheels. Any benefit from the additional tread width would be thrown away by the additional side wall flexing under lateral load.
Brian, thanks for confirming what I suspected. The dealer here in town had a Testa in the shop a few weeks ago with the stock sized BFGs and I thought they looked like they had the 'right' amount of beef on them. When I got home, I looked at my Falkens that are the same size, but I thought they somehow looked way skinnier. I thought that my eyes were just playing tricks on me - you know how things can sometimes look different in a Ferrari dealership If I don't end up getting new wheels, I will likely just go with the BFGs. Cheers Neil
Forget the Toyo Proxes TQs, those are street legal drag racing tires, not designed for performance cornering. You'll find yourself in the weeds on the first hard corner you take. Looking at rim width versus tire width charts I figured that a 265/50-16 would be just right for the 10" rim on the back of the TR. Nobody makes that size so it's a moot point. Currently the sidewalls on my 255/50-16 BF Goodrich tires (on the rear) taper IN from the rim to the tread. It looks wrong, (is wrong as far as I'm concerned). Ideally the tread should be the same width as the rim. I think the 265/45-16 is a good compromise, a little more width (in theory) with a slightly shorter side wall than the 255/50-16, (by .10" overall diameter according to the specs)
I agree on tires being different sizes from different manufacturers. I used to sell them, all kinds, for quite a few years. I haven't seen the Michelins on a TR. Curious that they would be smaller yet. To me the BFGs are the bare minimum I think it was Steve Magnusson that originally suggested the 275 tire for the back of a TR. I'm pretty sure a 275 puts it at the upper limit of the 10" rim chart if not over. Again, I would be all over a 265/50-16........................................
For looks (to better balance the bulk of the coachwork), but I'd wish for a 275/45/16 -- we don't certainly don't need an even taller tire than the stock 255/50/16
