just wonded if like myself anyone prefers the way the car drives on the normal zed wheels,tried 17" allso had a spell with 18" but i can truthfully say having uk rims with 225 and 245 with a 40 section tire seems to give the car a lighter and more nimble feel with no traction problems except the rears away from the lights ;) but the car with 16" turns into bends alot faster i think

i find my new 17" are more precise but bloody bumpy! 225 45 front

235 45 rear

There's probably a good reason 16's were originally fitted.

i find my new 17" are more precise but bloody bumpy! 225 45 front

235 45 rear

hmmm, why did you go for a 235 on the rear

hmmm, why did you go for a 235 on the rear

largest footprint i could fit on the rim. and they were quite cheap lol

;)

I found the taller profile tyres on the 16" wheels meant they flexed more in corners.

 

I prefer 18s - and I had 17s too. I think a wider front makes the steering heavier. Ideally I'd go for 225 front, 255+ rear, both 18".

There's probably a good reason 16's were originally fitted.

this is true and i tend to agree with mr nissan on this one

As much as i like the look of big wheels I hav to agree with you. Nissan will have done all of their suspension development on 16" and tuned the ride to their parameters,to change just undoes all of that work

There's probably a good reason 16's were originally fitted.

 

Back in 1989, 16 inch wheels were pretty big by then contemporary standards. Most family saloons ran 13 inch rims, with the sportier versions on 14s. The Escort RS Turbo ran on 15s, which was very rare for non-supercars.

 

The Porsche 928s4 ran on 16s with the same tyre sizes as a stock UK 300zx. Similarly the 911 turbo also had 16s, whilst lesser 911s could be seen on 15s.

 

Plus 16 inch tyres were a lot more expensive than today as they were state of the art for performance cars. To put it into perspective, I remember paying almost £90 each for 195/60/14 tyres for my Cav SRi back in 1989 :eek:

 

The suspension of the ZX would have been set for the tyre flex and characteristics of the stock tyres. However I think that upgrading to 17s doesn't compromise the stock settings and adds a little more precision to the steering and handling.

 

Richard :smw:

16's for driving, 18's for the look - that's my opinion.

 

I had 18's with 275's on the rear on a previous Z, then changed back to J-spec stocks as I wanted a stock look and I much preferred the way it drove. Having said that, when I got the next Z which I intended to restore to stock perfection, I just loved the way it looked with 18's so on they went!! LOL!

 

Form or function - your choice ;)

Hi,

As stated above, 16 inch wheels were state of the art in the late '80's!

To quote from the Autocar road test in 1990.......

 

"Tyres are Michelin MXX's of suitably gargantuan dimensions:245/45 ZR 16 at the back and 225/50 ZR 16s up front and these, combined with the four-wheel steer, mean dry road grip easily matches its supercar performance."

The Lamborghini Countach of the same year, was only running on 15 inch wheels!...Although they were quite wide!

Cheerz,

Jez

i posted same dilema a bit back and im still unsure as to which wheel to go for the ride on the 16s is smooth but they look way too small..........mmmmmmmmmmmm maybe god knows the answer

Hi,

My NA 300ZX has the stock wheels and drives and handles very well, with nice flat cornering and a smooth ride.Apparently it has been lowered though, so this may be contributing to the overall feel.

Trouble is, the front spoiler is a bit low and won't clear the average kerbstone!

I think the car may have had larger diameter wheels on it before it was imported and therefore I could easily fit larger ones now.Don't want to upset the smooth ride though!