• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

how does wheel size affect rear gears?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EXTRPR50
  • Start date Start date Jul 20, 2005

EXTRPR50

Founding Member
Oct 7, 1998
370
1
19
Jul 20, 2005
#1
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #1
I have 4.10's in my 95 Gt. I also have an AODE. I currently have 16 inch stockers, but if I put on ford 17 inch Bullitts, doesnt that affect my 4.10's?
 

wyominghotwheel

New Member
Jul 23, 2003
156
0
0
Insanemustangs
Jul 20, 2005
#2
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #2
just think of it like this, the larger the tire and rim, the longer it takes for the tire to rotate in a forward direction..........so it takes a 17" tire longer to go around in a complete circler verses a 14" tire and rim..........

You will probably be off a few miles an hour, but just learn what the difference is and keep your cruising speed there.......if you are going 50 and you know 47 mph is 50 in your car after the 17's, slow her down and go 47......


hotwheels of insanemustangs.com
 

18mustangs

New Member
Jun 8, 2005
533
1
0
Virginia Beach, VA
Jul 20, 2005
#3
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #3
wyominghotwheel said:
You will probably be off a few miles an hour, but just learn what the difference is and keep your cruising speed there.......if you are going 50 and you know 47 mph is 50 in your car after the 17's, slow her down and go 47......
Click to expand...

I doubt he'll be off a few MPH by simply upgrading to 17" from 16" tires. GTs came with either 16s or 17s depending on the options one ordered and the dealer is not likely to modify computers or speedos for wheel size. He'd most likely notice a difference going from 16" to 18".
 

srothfuss

Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row
Oct 17, 2004
1,796
3
0
Woodward Ave.
Jul 20, 2005
#4
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #4
If he adjusts the size of the rubber correctly then there should not be an issue with the speedometer. Performance wise you will loose a small amout, but you won't notice it. If you switch, You want the same overall diameter of rim/tire.

Now, when you move up in tire size correctly, that means more metal and less rubber. Which translates into more weight.This requires more energy to rotate the tires and that is where you will lose some power. (probably not really noticable) As a side note... Bigger tires take longer to stop because of the increased inertia so make sure your brakes are up to the challange also.

If you search google for "tire size calculators" they can be a great help to make sure that you don't throw off your speedometer or effect your gearing.

For me going from a 225/60/R15 to a 225/55/R16 or 245/45/R17 would give the same overal diameter of wheel so my speedometer would read correctly. But then my car would ride stiffer and stop worse so I am not ready for that move yet
 

powertrax91

Founding Member
Mar 13, 2002
598
0
17
New York
Jul 20, 2005
#5
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #5
srothfuss said:
If he adjusts the size of the rubber correctly then there should not be an issue with the speedometer. Performance wise you will loose a small amout, but you won't notice it. If you switch, You want the same overall diameter of rim/tire.

Now, when you move up in tire size correctly, that means more metal and less rubber. Which translates into more weight.This requires more energy to rotate the tires and that is where you will lose some power. (probably not really noticable) As a side note... Bigger tires take longer to stop because of the increased inertia so make sure your brakes are up to the challange also.

If you search google for "tire size calculators" they can be a great help to make sure that you don't throw off your speedometer or effect your gearing.

For me going from a 225/60/R15 to a 225/55/R16 or 245/45/R17 would give the same overal diameter of wheel so my speedometer would read correctly. But then my car would ride stiffer and stop worse so I am not ready for that move yet
Click to expand...

the loss in acceleration is quite notiable... I lost .5 sec in ET when i went from 16x7 ponys to my 17x9 cobra Rs... the weight diff. is huge
 

srothfuss

Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row
Oct 17, 2004
1,796
3
0
Woodward Ave.
Jul 20, 2005
#6
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #6
powertrax91 said:
the loss in acceleration is quite notiable... I lost .5 sec in ET when i went from 16x7 ponys to my 17x9 cobra Rs... the weight diff. is huge
Click to expand...


I ment on the street... Not on the track when the clock is running. I have to remember to clarify my thoughts when I post.
 

12sec67

Active Member
Oct 6, 2003
1,301
1
36
San Diego, Ca
Jul 20, 2005
#7
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #7
check out this tire calculator.. it also shows the ---- %---- that your speedo will be off, and a comparison of tire size hieght and width so you know what size to get.


hope this helps,

Rich

http://www.eunos.com/tirecalc/tirecalcold.html
 
T

tjm73

Founding Member
Aug 3, 2000
2,418
2
48
Rush, NY
Jul 20, 2005
#8
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #8
powertrax91 said:
the loss in acceleration is quite notiable... I lost .5 sec in ET when i went from 16x7 ponys to my 17x9 cobra Rs... the weight diff. is huge
Click to expand...

Totally true. I went form easy 13.8's to 14.4's when I switched to my new wheels from my old draglites. Nothing else changed.

On the street things feel very similar almost can't tell a difference. Liek soem one else said the wheel size doesn't effect the speedometer reading, it's the tire height.
 

vristang

15 Year Member
Mar 31, 2005
4,933
101
124
Seattle
Jul 20, 2005
#9
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #9
I created an Excel spreadsheet for calculating what the speed and rpm differences would be.
Only a Nerd would think this was as cool as I think it is.

Send me an email address and I can shoot it to you.
 

maverick0716

Founding Member
Jan 12, 2002
3,924
0
56
Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Jul 20, 2005
#10
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #10
tjm73 said:
Totally true. I went form easy 13.8's to 14.4's when I switched to my new wheels from my old draglites. Nothing else changed.

On the street things feel very similar almost can't tell a difference. Liek soem one else said the wheel size doesn't effect the speedometer reading, it's the tire height.
Click to expand...

A loss that big was due to either A) major spinning B) taller tire diameter. That is quite the drop in ET. The wheels would have to be at least 20 lbs. (each wheel) heavier than the stock wheels, which is not likely.
 
G

grrrrrrr

New Member
May 20, 2003
289
0
0
norfolk, VA
Jul 20, 2005
#11
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #11
I think the loss in ET is a result of more tire diameter. Thats why drag racers with huge tires run gears in the 5.30's and up because their tires are so big. I'm sure theres a rule of thumb somewhere but I know that as you increase tire diameter (bigger rims, more sidewall, that sort of thing) it's effectively the same as decreasing your rear gear ratio. So as someone mentioned, they lost .5sec in ET it was probably because they effectively went from 3.73's to 3.27's. Prolly not that big a jump actually, but you get the point.
 
9

90bronconate

New Member
Apr 24, 2005
124
0
0
Phoenix, AZ
Jul 20, 2005
#12
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #12
powertrax91 said:
the loss in acceleration is quite notiable... I lost .5 sec in ET when i went from 16x7 ponys to my 17x9 cobra Rs... the weight diff. is huge
Click to expand...
i wouldn't say it's totally the weight if the only thing changed was the rim size. if you didn't change the tire diameter than you lost some sidewall and .5" all the way around is a significant amount. how i understand it is, the more sidewall you have the easier it is to hook up cuz the energy has more material to spread throughout. so i'm guessing that you're 60 foot was worse.
 

GRGT1994

New Member
Sep 22, 2004
1,034
0
0
Jul 20, 2005
#13
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #13
vristang said:
I created an Excel spreadsheet for calculating what the speed and rpm differences would be.
Only a Nerd would think this was as cool as I think it is.
Click to expand...
You also could just use Google to compute tire height. It does computations directly through the search.

For example, enter "255 millimeters multiplied by 45 percent multiplied by 2 plus 17 inches in inches"

When you hit search, it will tell you that equals 26.0354331 inches.

Kinda neat.
 

super302

I'd do anything for free Bapples
May 29, 2004
2,878
1
0
Davenport, IA
Jul 21, 2005
#14
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #14
powertrax91 said:
the loss in acceleration is quite notiable... I lost .5 sec in ET when i went from 16x7 ponys to my 17x9 cobra Rs... the weight diff. is huge
Click to expand...
are your cobra rims made out of lead, lol

My cobra rims didn't feel any heavier than my shtty turbines
There is prob a 5 pound per wheel dif, and extra 20 pounds isn't going to slow you down, its has to deal with traction and tons of other factors
 

vristang

15 Year Member
Mar 31, 2005
4,933
101
124
Seattle
Jul 21, 2005
#15
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #15
GRGT1994 said:
You also could just use Google to compute tire height. It does computations directly through the search.

For example, enter "255 millimeters multiplied by 45 percent multiplied by 2 plus 17 inches in inches"

When you hit search, it will tell you that equals 26.0354331 inches.

Kinda neat.
Click to expand...

Yes, Google kicks @$$.
See attached Bart Simpson pic.

The calculator I created in Excel will use rpm, trans gear, rear gear, and tire diameter, to calculate vehicle speed. I set this up because I wanted to see how changing fifth gear may affect my fuel economy and power levels.

As an aside, if anyone thinks they can proof a CR calculator that tries to compensate for piston to side wall clearance as well as all of the easy stuff, I would like to have someone else look my CR tables over.

It is best to measure all things that can be measured DIRECTLY. Any inaccuracy in the above calculation will carry out through the rest of your calculations, compounding each time you multiply or divide.

It is best to break out a tape measure, and check this for your self.

For example I ran the following with Google.
((275 millimeters) multiplied by (45 percent) multiplied by 2) plus (17 inches) = 26.7440945 inches

and

((275 millimeters) multiplied by (35 percent) multiplied by 2) plus (17 inches) = 24.5787402 inches

I ran both sidewalls because I can't remember what size tire I had to go with to get things to fit. The actual diameter that I measured is 25.25"

Maybe there is a conversion step missing for the mm width, and solution being in inches?

If you can measure it, it is usually best to measure it.
 

Attachments

  • google.gif
    27.2 KB · Views: 246

GRGT1994

New Member
Sep 22, 2004
1,034
0
0
Jul 21, 2005
#16
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #16
I think the descrepancy you mention could be caused by a number of things. Tread wear is surely one. But probably more importantly is how tires dimensions are computed to begin with.

I would imagine the 255/45/17 dimension does not contemplate the distance from the ground to the top of a tire mounted on a wheel, at pressure, supporting a car. There are too many variables there within the range of potential applications for any given tire. So the advertised measurements are probably off the wheel. And then all those variables mentioned above (plus vehicle weight and wheel width) will add to the variance you mentioned.

So any calculation off advertised dimensions will, of course, only give you some hypothetical information to work from. But you still should be able to make some useful comparisons among tires based on a strict, cold calculation.
 

vristang

15 Year Member
Mar 31, 2005
4,933
101
124
Seattle
Jul 22, 2005
#17
  • Jul 22, 2005
  • #17
GRGT1994 said:
I think the descrepancy you mention could be caused by a number of things. Tread wear is surely one. But probably more importantly is how tires dimensions are computed to begin with.

I would imagine the 255/45/17 dimension does not contemplate the distance from the ground to the top of a tire mounted on a wheel, at pressure, supporting a car. There are too many variables there within the range of potential applications for any given tire. So the advertised measurements are probably off the wheel. And then all those variables mentioned above (plus vehicle weight and wheel width) will add to the variance you mentioned.

So any calculation off advertised dimensions will, of course, only give you some hypothetical information to work from. But you still should be able to make some useful comparisons among tires based on a strict, cold calculation.
Click to expand...

You bring up alot of good points. Tires are very difficult to model or even just accurately predict any given behavior.

I would be interested to see how much a tires height changes between sitting on the shelf, and mounted on the vehicle at full pressure.

Cool subject if you ask me.
 

powertrax91

Founding Member
Mar 13, 2002
598
0
17
New York
Jul 25, 2005
#18
  • Jul 25, 2005
  • #18
super302 said:
are your cobra rims made out of lead, lol

My cobra rims didn't feel any heavier than my shtty turbines
There is prob a 5 pound per wheel dif, and extra 20 pounds isn't going to slow you down, its has to deal with traction and tons of other factors
Click to expand...


when you factor in that it is all unsprung weight, it makes a huge difference...

I've heard that 1lbs of unsprung weight is the equivalent to 10 lbs of sprung chassis weight...

so adding that 20 lbs unsprung weight would be like adding 200 lbs to your car...

I think that would slow anyone down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
1969 15x10 295's for rear. Modifications needed?
  • normg
  • May 1, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
114
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- May 2, 2026
GypsyR
G
B
Tire size question 1986 gt hatchback
  • B0udreaux
  • Jan 12, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
491
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 17, 2026
B0udreaux
B
Suspension Setting Front Alignment - Do I care about the rear's thrust angle?
  • dan50
  • Nov 27, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
5
Views
295
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Nov 28, 2025
Kid wita 5oh
H
Best tire size for 91 Fox 18x9 wheels. On coilovers
  • hassler
  • Mar 25, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
366
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 9, 2026
KRUISR
O
SOLD FS: 18" FR500 chrome wheels and Toyo tires
  • optionizerSS
  • May 21, 2026
  • Other Classifieds
Replies
1
Views
70
Other Classifieds Jun 2, 2026
optionizerSS
O
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?