will 235/60/15 clear on a DA lowered about 2 inches with ls meshes

 

LOL no.

 

205/50/15 or 195/55/15

 

Definitely not. 60's are way too chunky.

 

It's not that they're 60's, but they're 235's. "60" is the aspect ratio, which correlates to the width. I've used 195/60/15's for snow tires.

 

Actually, both the width (235) and the aspect ratio (60) are problems. The ability for tires to fit depends on the tire's width and its outer diameter, and the outer diameter depends on the aspect ratio as well as the width. A 195/60-15 might clear, but I bet a 205/60-15 won't (even though a 205/50-15 will work just fine).

 

Aand a 235/60 is almost 1.5 inches more sidewall than 195/55.

 

sorry if i stole the op but im so confused what does all those numbers mean? ex ???/??/??

 

Stock size is 195/55-15

The first number is tread width, in mm. So 195 mm is a tire that's roughly 7.7 inches wide. How exactly manufacturers determine tread width is ambiguous and a little variable (e.g. my 195 width S. drives are actually wider than the 205 width tires on my CR-V).

The second number is the aspect ratio (unitless). It's the sidewall thickness divided by the tread width, times 100. It's basically a percent of the ratio between sidewall thickness and tread width. So for a 195/55 tire, the width is 195 mm and the sidewall is 55% of that, or 107 mm (about 4.2 inches).

The final number is the wheel diameter, in inches. So a 15 is a 15" wheel.

To calculate total rolling diameter in inches you use this formula for X/Y-Z

X*(Y/100)*.03937*2 + Z

Why they switch from metric to SAE is beyond bizarre. It's actually a terrible system, because it means that if you upsize the wheel (e.g. from 195/55-15 to 205/45-16), the sidewall doesn't change by exactly half an inch (top and bottom) so swapping sizes always results in changes in total radius. That means the speedometer and odometer will be less accurate.

If they had a system where they just listed width, sidewall height, and wheel diameter, all in inches, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

Maybe my post was unclear, but yes, that is what I meant. My short reply was directed at the post right above mine, which said that 60's are too chunky.

Tirerack has a good article on this:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=46

 

thanks im trying to buy some mickey thompson radials

 

You should've said they were drag radials! I'd go to the drag forum and see what people are using. It's possible that they'd be OK for drag racing.

 

GagnarTheUnruly, great post, but one issue.

It is actually the section width, not the tread width.

A tire with more sidewall "bulge" will have less tread than another tire that has a more "square" sidewall, when both tires have the same section width.

Some manufacturers also seem to be very liberal with their section width sizing as well, adding to the confusion.

Notice that the section width is narrower than the overall width, but wider than the tread width, in this diagram (which is about right for most tires).


Completely agree.

I think that the issues with tire sizing are simply due to the history behind how we arrived at the current rules. Once upon a time, tires didn't have an aspect ratio, and a standard ratio was used (82 I think). I still have a set of 155SR13 sized tires sitting around somewhere (155mm section width, steel radial, 13" wheel), and 155/80-13 is about as close to the correct original tire size as I can buy today for that car (no one makes a 155/82-13).

 

^^
Thanks for the correction.

Unfortunately for all of us they'll probably never get around to fixing the tire size system