Anyone read the article in the latest issue of sport compact about project 350Z part 2? They were trying to get the Z set up so they could pull 1.0G+ on the skid pad with street tires. Interesting article. Thing that surprised me was their approach. They basically were poking fun at our traditional wheel and tire staggered setups. They go on to say that skinny front and fat rear is only for looks. They are in favor of stuffing as much size in the front as possible and going with the same size in the rear. Any thoughts?

Black on Black 6MT W/Clear Corners & PIAAs
Borla TDE
Hyper Grounding Kit

 

I personally think that mag is retarded. They had an article in the march 2004 issue called "The One" and the 350Z beat out all the other crazy cars in the shootout because it was the nicest looking one. WTF? 1000HP viper and 600+Hp supra, ultima gtr, and the Z is the nicest? I dont get it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003 CB Coupe 6MT
Z-tube
Stillen Hi-flow

 

yea........there retarded... how dare they disgrace the G like that. they should be smitted from this earth...lol

 

There was more to that car than looks. It did place first in the "car show" portion but it also placed high in pretty much every other category. I thought it was a great comparison. They tested mpg, drivability, skidpad, braking, 1/4 mile, and others.

Russ

Black 6MT Coupe
Jax, FL
PS2 and Headrest Monitors Thread

 

I am going to disagree with your review of their review - not because I am a Z fanboy, but because the purpose of that competition was to compare a set of individual cars (NOT the model overall) and how that specific car was prepped. The Z was the best-looking car in terms of show presentation according to them - it was NOT a comparison of stock vs. stock styling.

Also, one of the reasons the Z probably won was because the GT-R blew up during the track portion! At that time the engine went poof it was looking like the GT-R was going to walk away with the title. After the GT-R limped to the sidelines, the competition was wide open again, however, in the end, the Z barely edged out one other car - forgot which one.

All in all, I thought they were fair and hardly 'retarded' in the comparison. Remember this was their competition that accepted modified cars - if you prepped your car better than the rest and had a good driver, you had a good chance. The Z setup was judged the best due to its' performance in many categories - it doesn't mean a Z will outrace a Viper or a Supra, just that it was better overall on that day.

As a matter of fact, I think the Viper did poorly on the track because the owner was frightened of the walls on the track they used and didn't want to push it too hard. But even if it had won that, it probably still would not have finished first.

If someone posts the URL (I dont' have it with me) and you take the time to read it, I think it will show you that the contest wasn't 'retarded' - whatever that means! You can disagree with the different events they used, or the weighting of the events, but to call it 'retarded' is simply not correct.

- Riff

G35C BS/GR/PREM/PERF/NAV/AERO/XM
Chicago Region SCCA
Tri-State Sports Car Council
Soon to come ... Tein Shocks w/EDFC, Improved Sways and Enkei RPF01's! Also udder stuff too! [img]/w3timages/icons/cool.gif[/img]

 

sdgee...I believe the main reason for the wider tires in the rear is to make sure the car understeers a tad. Under normal circumstances, wider tires equal better grip meaning the front will lose adhesion before the rear. To correct for understeer, you just let off of the gas a little. It's so the average driver doesn't have to go into the opposite lock mode to correct for oversteer which most people just don't have the experience for. It's safer from a manufactor's viewpoint.

Ideally you want the front and back pretty equal for maximun handling and G forces. That's why they go with same size tires IMHO.

Doug

2004 6MT, Desert Platinum, Side Molding, Splash Guards, Sat. Radio

Asheville,NC

 

i agree with them a little, i understand having wider up front, i have 19x9.5 in front with 275/30s, they barely fit, but they do feel like they grip VERY well.


03 BS/Graph 6MT Prem Cp
19" GunM TE37 275/30 MPSports
kg/mms,cambers,cusco sways,injen int/exh,Alpine/JL/Stinger,din master

 

I thought the Z was winning by so many points the last event didn't even matter. I don't have the mag with me but I thought that's what they said.

Russ

Black 6MT Coupe
Jax, FL
PS2 and Headrest Monitors Thread

 

SCC's one of the few really good import magazines out there. They've sort of fallen off a bit over the past year or two, but it's still a MUCH better quality mag than most of the competition. I personally like the technical stuff they publish, the dynos, times, etc... I have about 5 years of back issues at home =)

Justin @
EverythingG35.com
1.888.216.5328

 

The reason for wider rear tires on a RWD car is for putting the power down. Just look at any race car. F1 and ALMS cars are not built for looks. There is a good reason for staggered tire setups.

 

2 ideas guys:
-Staggered and different width tires are independent- Our stock set-up has a 20 mil difference on 18x8 fronts and backs. And offset has to be considered too.
-Agree with Doug- skinnier fronts will help to produce understeer which is a more universally desired trait. The G does understeer. How a car handles the surface and carves is also influenced. Fat front make for laborious steering, and can, in combination, cause the car to hunt in the grooves of the highway. I've often wondered if going to 235s up front might help cure some of the understeer and make the handling balance more neutral (anyone tried this? Stock rear, 235 or even 245 maybe up front?) It also alters dynamic weight distribution by changing the "tilt" of the car. There are no hard rules, but it seems that the farther back the engine goes, the bigger the difference- Look at the huge difference on 911s (up to 70mm or more), the mid-engine cars have somewhere in the middle, other front midships are very similar to the G by percentage, and front engine cars are often equal fronts and backs. Since the popularization of the FM approach to handling (Mercedes-Mclaren, Ferrari, Aston Martin, to name a few new faces in that club), a lot of the associated ideas towards handling have been evolving. Fascinating stuff.

DB

 

Staggered tires helps in some car and not others. For example, high torque RWD cars like the Mustang SVT, Viper, Vette and AMG Mercedes can definitely benefit from additional width on the back. The G35C and 350Z on the other hand, doesn't seem to need that extra staggered setup with 270-274 lb.ft of torque.

Power is not the only determinant on tire size setup. As others have mentioned, understeer is built in by manufacturers for safety and stability reasons. Overzealous auto enthusiasts have been brain-washing people for years that understeer is evil and oversteer is fun fun fun. Imagine if you do an emergency lane change at 70mph on the freeway, would you rather if your car understeers or oversteers a little bit?

As far as performance driving goes, going 235/45 or 235/40 all around on the 350Z/G35C helps coping with the balance and understeer.

 

anyone put 235 up front and 255 in the back(with the stock rims)? I want a tad wider tires on both sides. Another comment: doesn't having the back a tad bigger please the eye more? I mean think of having front tires way bigger... ><

Black / Black 2004 GcoupeMT. Premium. Splash Guardz.