Michelin on the front of a 355

I just checked this and Tire Rack pairs the correct 92 to the 101. In stock.

 

Go with 295 35 rears and 235 40 fronts in Pilot sport 2 not super sports

 

They have both here in the USA/Canada

 

I had this problem last year and put Super Sports on the rear and PS3 on the front.

I'd love Super Sports on the front but couldn't find anyone in the US who'd ship them to me.

Cheers,
Bryn.

 

The number is the load rating. 88 mean max load is 1235 lbs. 92 means max load is 1389 lbs. Y and Z are speed ratings. Z being higher speed.

 

I really would not want to recommend what you do but I personally would not worry about it. My car has 91Y's on the front and 97Y's on the rear. Tire Rack lists P zeros as OEM with 88Y fronts and 97Y rear. They also list the Super Sport as 92Y and 101Y, respectively. Super Sport

 

Although I think it's unlikely, if you had to make an insurance claim and they discovered your front tyes had an inadequate load rating your insurance could be invalidated.

I personally don't see how the front of an F355 can require more than an 88 load rating but I was going on a 2500 mile trip round Europe immediately after fitting my new tyres and didn't want any potential problems.

Totally agree about Michelin though, how they can sell the 92Y Super Sports in the US and not Europe makes no sense at all to me. I'd even pay a bit extra for a special order but I couldn't find a way to do that either.

Cheers,
Bryn.

 

Try Discounted Wheel Warehouse. That's where I got my Michelin Pilot Super Sports for both the front and rear in the exact correct OEM sizes. They have great prices too.

 

It's not messy, people just way over think it. The 88y's are fine. It would be a bigger issue to mix and match tires like somebody mentioned above, and even then not a huge deal. I also don't get people having to have stock sizes, do you want the car to not handle better for some reason?

 

Yes having a slightly different tread pattern front to rear is clearly a bigger issue than invalidating your insurance with an inadequate load rating!

It cracks me up when people come out with this... you are aware that the front and rear wheels perform a different function right? Fair enough you say it's not a huge deal, but in reality it's not an issue at all... apart from on internet forums.

Cheers,
Bryn.

 

Personally I don't get why anyone would want to NOT have the stock sizes, but each to their own. What evidence is there that the car handles better with larger tyres?

Seeing someone mentioned insurance, what are the consequences of having non-stock tyre sizes in the event of a claim?

 

I think it depends on what country you're in, but certainly in the UK say you were out on a Ferrari meet and crashed in to someone's F40 and had a claim in the hundreds of thousands, the insurance assessor is going to look very closely for a way out of paying that and incorrect load rating on your tyres would be a valid reason. Even for a claim in the tens of thousands this would probably apply.

However I personally think (based on zero legal knowledge!) that unless the accident was caused by a failure of a tyre with the incorrect load rating, the insurer would have a hard time arguing in court that it was a contributing factor that they could reject the claim upon.

That's just my take on it, yes it's an unlikely scenario but far from beyond the realms of possibility.

Cheers,
Bryn.

 

I have to ask, where did this so called OEM load ratings come form? The manuals for the 95, 97 and 98 only specify 225/40ZR18 front and 265/40ZR 18 rear. There is no mention of load rating. OEM are listed at Bridgstone Expida S-01, Michelin Pilot SX MXX3, Pirelli P Zero, or Good Year GS Fiorano. Of those tires the only ones still available are Pirelli P Zeros which are 88Y front, 97Y rear.

And here is another thought. Tire Rack lists and sells at least two sets of tires rated 88 front, 97 rear, for this car. If there were any legal issues due to substandard load rating then you can bet TR would not be selling them due to potential liability issues. I think this thread is just blowing smoke when it comes to load ratings.

And let's not forget about those who think they need 19 or 20 inch wheels and tires to make their cars "look good".

 

You make a good point. My manual says the same - nothing about load rating.

Just out of interest I went and looked at my tyres: they are 92Y front, 101Y rear.
I'm running Bridgestone RE050A

Regarding insurance, I suspect you'd have more of potential problem running non-standard sizes than non-standard load ratings.

 

The weight of a 355 is way under the load rating of either tire so it's a complete non factor.

A different load rating that is still well above the load the car will put on it will affect handling a lot less than a tire with different tread and compound front vs rear.

You could run into insurance issues by running the wrong speed rating and having a tire failure after running the tires above that speed. Other than that unless you're running a load rating inadequate for the weight of the car (almost impossible given the relatively light weight of the 355, especially in the front) sizes don't matter much or everyone running aftermarket rims/tires would be voiding their insurance.

You can go by whatever you feel like, but people tend to over think tire sizing for these cars. I know, I've tried a few different sizes without issue and the far bigger influence on handling is tire age and pressures.

Fwiw, the challenge cars ran 235f/295r and I doubt they would have if it wasn't better for handling.

 

I think I found the answer.

This is the sticker on the inside of my driver's door.

In case it's hard to see it says the front load rating should be at least 88 and rear 97.
Image Unavailable, Please Login