• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech

No 18 inch wheel eveyone e-mail ford and scream

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2005muzzy
  • Start date Start date May 20, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4 Next Last
K

kinjalxxv

New Member
Apr 21, 2004
15
0
0
May 22, 2004
#41
  • May 22, 2004
  • #41
question... how much do you think an upgrade to the 18 inch fanblades would cost, when they become available? im expecting the upgrade to the concept wheels to cost around 400 dollars, so i was wondering how much more yall would think it would cost to upgrade to the 18 fanblades when they become available.
 

Auburnman

Founding Member
Dec 12, 2001
50
0
0
Atlanta
May 22, 2004
#42
  • May 22, 2004
  • #42
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet...
Not only does a larger wheel add more unsprung weight, but it can also rob RWHP (even if the larger wheel weighs less than stock).

I can't remember all the details, but if you watch Sports Car Revolution, you would know what I'm talking about.

I think it has something to do with a larger wheel carrying more weight farther from the center of the hub. In other words, it is easier [for the engine] to turn a smaller diameter wheel than a larger one.
 

Auburnman

Founding Member
Dec 12, 2001
50
0
0
Atlanta
May 22, 2004
#43
  • May 22, 2004
  • #43
As luck would have it... the Speed channel is airing that very episode that I was talking about. According to my Dish Network guide, it will be on at 7:30 pm EDT on Tuesday and again on Friday at 10:30 am EDT.
 

spectravp

New Member
Apr 29, 2004
424
0
0
NY
May 22, 2004
#44
  • May 22, 2004
  • #44
SVTdriver said:
First. The lightning handles like a truck with a big motor. Trucks are not sportscars/coupes. So even with larger wheels. It will never handle anything near to a mustang. The weight distribution is just completely different.

Now as far as the contact patch between the 17's and 18's. Sure with a wider tire you will get more contact patch. But the taller tire adds next to negligible. And the larger rotors need larger tires is not entirely accurate. The porsche has 13 inch rotors just like the cobra. And they fit under the 18's that porsche has for wheels. And a porsche brakes just fine.
Click to expand...

Amen! Brother!
 

Scot_94GT

Founding Member
Jun 20, 2002
262
0
0
Spring Lake Park, MN
May 22, 2004
#45
  • May 22, 2004
  • #45
Auburnman said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet...
Not only does a larger wheel add more unsprung weight, but it can also rob RWHP (even if the larger wheel weighs less than stock).

I can't remember all the details, but if you watch Sports Car Revolution, you would know what I'm talking about.

I think it has something to do with a larger wheel carrying more weight farther from the center of the hub. In other words, it is easier [for the engine] to turn a smaller diameter wheel than a larger one.
Click to expand...

exactly. a larger wheel has a hihger rotational inertia.

anyway...who really gives a damn what it comes with anyway? I wish they would offer the GT with the base mustang wheels, or even a set of staped steel rims w/hubcaps, so I can save a grand or two on the option and put that money torard some aftermarket rims.
 

Eos

Oh Heather Oh yeah... I want your pink taco
Jun 13, 2003
734
3
0
oklahoma
May 22, 2004
#46
  • May 22, 2004
  • #46
Wheels are getting too big these days. What ever happened to big ol fat tires? Now the tires are like an inch thick..
 

Scot_94GT

Founding Member
Jun 20, 2002
262
0
0
Spring Lake Park, MN
May 22, 2004
#47
  • May 22, 2004
  • #47
fastmustangII said:
Wheels are getting too big these days. What ever happened to big ol fat tires? Now the tires are like an inch thick..
Click to expand...

I know... 15" rims with tall sidewall tires with raised white lettering looks pretty damn cool on old muslce cars, so maybe it iwll look good on the '05 too. Also, with thicker tires, you dont have to worry about destroying your rims on a tiny litle pothole.
 
M

mustang sallad

New Member
Feb 12, 2004
63
0
0
May 22, 2004
#48
  • May 22, 2004
  • #48
Auburnman said:
I think it has something to do with a larger wheel carrying more weight farther from the center of the hub. In other words, it is easier [for the engine] to turn a smaller diameter wheel than a larger one.
Click to expand...

exactly, you're talking about rotational intertia. you can get the rotational inertia of any rotating object by looking at every little bit of mass and its distance from the axis of rotation, so basically its a calculus calculation. For a hollow cylinder, I=MR^2, for a solid cylinder its 1/2*MR^2, probably the best approximation for a wheel is the hollow cylinder, since most of the mass is at the rim right? anyways, it doesn't matter cause the 1/2 is just a constant factor that cancels out if your comparing two situations.
You prolly all know F=ma, force equals mass times acceleration. Well its pretty much the same with rotation, torque equals rotational inertia times rotational acceleration. Or rotational accel = torque/inertia. If you increase the radius of the rim from 17 to 18, a factor of 1.06, you increase the inertia by a factor of 1.12 since the inertia is proportional to the square of the radius. That means you decrease your acceleration by a factor of 1.12, since the rotational acceleration is inversely proportional to the inertia. And since the linear acceleration of your car is directly related to the rotational acceleration of your wheels, if you were hittin 60 in five seconds, its gonna take you 5.6 seconds now.
Of course this is an oversimplification, but it gives you an idea of how big a role the radius of your wheels plays in straight line acceleration.
 

Auburnman

Founding Member
Dec 12, 2001
50
0
0
Atlanta
May 22, 2004
#49
  • May 22, 2004
  • #49
Wow! That's a really good explanation.

You should have seen Sean Hyland in that episode of Sports Car Revolution...it took him awhile to figure out why they lost RWHP in their Acura car after plus-sizing the wheels
 
S

sleeper89

New Member
Nov 18, 2002
388
0
0
Toronto, Ontario
May 22, 2004
#50
  • May 22, 2004
  • #50
Prometheus said:
Maybe its just me... but what is up with tire size inflation these days (no pun intended)? I seem to remember that 16s were big back in the day... anyway, I want to ride in a sports car, not a 4x4. I'll stick with my 17s, which is the limit for me.. but to each his own.
Click to expand...



just a quick FYI: plus sizing wheels shouldn't have any effect on ride height. the idea is to keep the same overall tire height, but with less sidewall and more rim. cool?

later
steve
 
D

Dan05GTOwner

New Member
Apr 14, 2003
95
0
0
Toronto, Ontario
May 23, 2004
#51
  • May 23, 2004
  • #51
The new mustang will be offered with 18" rims a year after lauch (or possibly earlier) with a set of 255 45R18 tires.

This has been confirmed numourous times and even in a video of the pony drive (announcer introducing the mustang confirms it).
 

peyotesands

New Member
Dec 24, 2003
119
0
0
Las Vegas, NV
May 23, 2004
#52
  • May 23, 2004
  • #52
2005muzzy said:
The 2005 mustang will be my 5th owned mustang. The thing I'm sick of is that ford always makes the mustang look like it sits a bit high and has a awfull gap between fender and tire.Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of idiots that like the tire almost in the wheel well. but think the tire should fill it out more
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I never understood why there's so much gap. All I could come up with is that drag racers need a huge gap in the back for slicks. I recently installed Ford C springs on my Mustang and I thought, yeah, that's better, not too much and not too little. Every once in awhile I'll glance at a Stang that hasn't been lowered at all and I'll think, Jeez, what a difference 1.5" makes...
 
R

redfireGT

New Member
May 23, 2004
10
0
0
May 23, 2004
#53
  • May 23, 2004
  • #53
RICKS said:
Yes, the M3 comes with 18's, and maybe there is a 19" option. But the M3 is to the 3-series what the Cobra is to Mustang. The M3 rides extremely harsh, and is tuned for the fanatical enthusiast, who wants extreme handling. I don't think the GT should handle "bad", or that handling is not very important. But in reality, even with the 17" wheels, it will probably be a super handler. My point is that the majority of those in the market for the GT would not accept BMW M3 ride harshness. And the GT is NOT an M3 fighter, it's mission is a balance that is more toward the mainstream market (rabid speed-freak Stangnetters are not mainstream, trust me, we're lunatic fringe). I swear, I think the majority of the bitching on this forum is caused by the fact that Ford is releasing the GT first, but everybody's expectations are "Cobra" (although few here want to pony up the dough for a Cobra).

"Where's the trick hood"

"Where's all the scoops"

"Where's the more aggressive body styling"

"Where's the 19" wheels"

"Where's the 6-speed"

"Where's the IRS"

"Blah blah blah..."


The GT is not positioned in the lineup to be the holy grail of Mustang performance. It's supposed to be a great bang for the buck, great handling, great sporty looks, and easy to live with for a large segment of potential owners. And Ford will sell a TON by sticking close to the formula. If you want to lower yours, upgrade to bigger and fatter wheels, and so-on, well...... what a concept. MODIFY your Mustang!! Not to mention I'm certain an 18" wheel option will be forthcoming, if you'll just quit holding your breath and shivering, and just wait a bit. You guys just have ZERO flippin patience. You want everything, NOW, as if the design/engineer/manufacturing process involves a wand, a robe, and a top hat. If I see another "how hard could it be?" I'm gonna puke. Believe me, spend 15 minutes with a real automotive engineer that works for any of the Big 3, and you'll realize it's crazy how much work they have to do. These guys aren't "bozos". I'd be willing to bet that if a Ford chassis engineer came on Stangnet, that they could summarize the reason the 18" wheel option is delayed, and everybody here who's been moaning would sit back and go "Oh, wow, I hadn't thought of that....". They've obviously got something delaying them or giving them fits. Better they work it out, rather than just say "screw it, just bolt the 18's on the cars".
Click to expand...
Amen Brother - I work for a tire supplier and can list several considerations that Team Mustang engineers have to grapple with to get 18" wheels and tires into production:

1. Road loads go up dramatically with 18" wheels and tires. This would require them to re-validate all durability loads into chassis components and body structure.

2. Weight of 18" wheels and tires may push the car into the next weight class (ETWC). This will require them to re-certify the car for emissions, and fuel economy. This will affect FE labels and CAFE. In addition, it would double the number of prototypes they need to do the certification testing.

3. TREAD Act starts to go into effect this year and next year most cars will be required to have tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS). This will drive different wheels with unique cross-section and wheel drop to package the TPMS RF sensors. They may have decided not to tool up and 18" wheel and then have to do a new one next year for TPMS.

4. 18" wheels and tires will have higher rolling resistance which may push the car over gas guzzler threshold.

5. 18" wheels and tires may require unique suspension, steering, ABS and TCS tunings due to changes in unsprung mass, tractive properties of the tires, etc... Again this will require proper validation and incremental prototypes.

6. Last but not least, I am told that Mazda 6 and Mustang goes down the same final assembly line at AAI. They may not have enough rack space, tire mounting equipment, tire balancing equipment to handle all combinations of Mazda and current Mustang wheels. Lead time for new assembly tooling may play a role in timing of 18" wheels and tires.

Other than that it should be a no brainer for them to introduce the 18" wheels and tires and make a killing!
 

65conv50

New Member
Jan 8, 2003
290
0
0
Greenville, South Carolina
May 23, 2004
#54
  • May 23, 2004
  • #54
shatner saves said:
What are you getting excited about? If you don't wan't 18's don't buy them! The '05 comes with a really decent 17" wheel option. After you burn the factory tires off, you can probably get some wider ones if you want. Your car, your money. At the same time, who are you to say what belongs on my mustang?

The "mustang's ain't supposed to handle good" argument is tired and lame.
Click to expand...

Who said "the Mustang ain't supposed to handle good"??? Maybe some on this board, but certainly not I. I'm one saying it should handle even better - with IRS. And I'm not saying what belongs on your Mustang... I said the aftermarket can supply. I said don't screw them all up.
 
G

GTPlus

New Member
Dec 6, 2002
22
0
0
May 24, 2004
#55
  • May 24, 2004
  • #55
SVTdriver said:
First. The lightning handles like a truck with a big motor. Trucks are not sportscars/coupes. So even with larger wheels. It will never handle anything near to a mustang. The weight distribution is just completely different.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never been to a track where Lightnings play. They can hold their own.

FYI
'04 Lightning weight distribution - 57% Front 43% Rear
'04 Cobra weight distribution - 57% Front 43% Rear

From the SVT website.
 
M

mustang sallad

New Member
Feb 12, 2004
63
0
0
May 24, 2004
#56
  • May 24, 2004
  • #56
Just to let you guys know, in that little estimation i did about the effect of larger rims on acceleration, i made a big mistake. That kind of a difference in acceleration would be observed if the mass of the car was negligible. Like say the work required to linearly accelerate the car as a whole was nothing compared to the work required to accelerate the spinning of the wheels. So if you were comparing two super lightweight chassis with super lightweight engines, one with 17' wheels and the other with 18', then you'd see something close to that difference in 0-60 times. It wouldn't be too hard to actually figure out the difference for real car though. I'll do it some time later though, i'll post again when i've figured it out.
 
R

RICKS

New Member
Jun 5, 2003
580
0
0
Ocala, FL
May 24, 2004
#57
  • May 24, 2004
  • #57
redfireGT, THANK YOU for illustrating the "big picture". The armchair quarterbacking seems to have simmered down to a reasonable level.
 

SVTdriver

Founding Member
Sep 2, 2001
3,319
0
0
Seattle Wa
May 24, 2004
#58
  • May 24, 2004
  • #58
GTPlus said:
You've obviously never been to a track where Lightnings play. They can hold their own.

FYI
'04 Lightning weight distribution - 57% Front 43% Rear
'04 Cobra weight distribution - 57% Front 43% Rear

From the SVT website.
Click to expand...

I had no idea the Cobra's were such great track cars. From what I have heard. They suffer some oil issues when trying endurance racing. I do know that Kenny Brown has a track car. But there are not a lot of Cobra's running road races.
 
M

Mr. Jack

New Member
May 23, 2003
68
0
0
Jun 14, 2004
#59
  • Jun 14, 2004
  • #59
Aesthetically, I do like 18's. They look really good on the show cars that have been circulating at the auto shows. That being said, I have the Bullitt's on my current GT and I like the look. I really don't have an issue settling for a 17 inch rim.

I don't even have an issue with losing 10mm of tire width.

My problem is the profile. How can they offer this car with a 55 profile tire? That's a pretty big change from the 245/45/17 I have now. I don't get it. If 18's aren't available from the factory, I won't even opt for the 17's.

I'll drive the car of the lot with steelies and drive right to my local tire shop.
 

jmuva44

Founding Member
Nov 25, 2000
1,338
0
36
Richmond, VA
Jun 14, 2004
#60
  • Jun 14, 2004
  • #60
.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Considering widening my rear wheels, would like to verify my thoughts on fitment
  • 2000xp8
  • Jul 9, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
393
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 15, 2026
FastDriver
3
Eight inches is enough for me...
  • 351MooseStang
  • Nov 27, 2025
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
5
Views
574
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Mar 2, 2026
Bullitt347
Suspension 87 steering wheel slightly wobbles after new Rag joint install
  • R82148V
  • Jun 16, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
25
Views
968
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jun 24, 2025
R82148V
E
Finished my Fox Hydroboost Install - Tips
  • Engineer Duane
  • Apr 9, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 5, 2025
Engineer Duane
E
Wheels-Tires NVX wheel fitment problem
  • Kid wita 5oh
  • Nov 5, 2022
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
32
Views
9K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 31, 2025
Kid wita 5oh
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific 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?