I have a couple of questions for those with staggered set-ups, and a general question to the wise ones on the subject.

- Are there functional or mechanical disadvantages to *not* doing a staggered set-up? Perhaps reduced oversteer?

- On the OEM staggered set-up, since i can't rotate, how can i get the most out of the tires?

I'm contemplating getting a standard set-up front/back now, mainly to get the most out of the tires.

Thank you.

 

1. It's mostly style. I doubt any changes will make a huge difference unless you spend days at the track.

2. Properly inflated tires and keep your allignment good. Plus, don't spin your rear wheels. The rears wear out faster if you do.

 

With a non-staggered setup, if all tires are the same as the current rears (245/45/18), you would likely have reduced UNDERsteer - rear traction should stay the same. If all tires are smaller than the current rears, you would likely have increased oversteer, all things being equal. The G has enough power to the rear wheels to affect handling, so more traction is better. That said, if you drive sedately, you probably won't notice.

You actually CAN rotate side-to-side, but it's sorta pointless. Agree with making sure your tires are inflated properly. I actually wore out the edges of the fronts first, but again it depends on how fast you drive.

Oh, and one of the main problems with the staggered setup is that the Bridgestones have good traction but seriously fast wear. The Eagles I put on seem to be lasting much better.

 

Thanks for the responses guys.

Since i got my car used i really have no idea what the previous owner did, but my fronts are noticeably more worn than the rears.

The other odd thing i noticed is uneven wear - 7/10ths remaining on the center and roughly half of that on the edges, but when i got the car the fronts were pumped all the way up to 41 PSI, the rears at 28. Go figure.

I've fixed it to OEM specs since then.

So, you're saying if i went with a non-staggered set-up it affects the relatively neutral nature of the G's handling?

As for the Eagles, i've seen your posts on it - i, too, like the natural look of the extra width. The tire costs higher than the highly rated GS-D3, i wonder if it's better?

 

Yes - the G is set up to understeer slightly (it's hard to tell, because it's so easy to break that with throttle), and with more traction up front you should get to neutral.

My wear on the front was exactly as you describe, shoulders of the tires were gone, center still had tread. Hard cornering on a soft tire?

I bought the F1 that is the follow-on to the GS-D3; after a lot of reviews was going to buy the GS-D3s, but read a couple of reviews on the new one and they were better. Traction in the rain is crazy good, traction in dry is about like the Bridgestones.

 

That could be possible (hard cornering), it's just too bad that the shoulders are literally gone otherwise i could probably get another 7k miles or so off of these tires (at 16k now). The tires are going away soon, with that strong rain last week it got rather scary on the freeway, the fronts were sliding all over the place.

Thanks for the tip on the F1, i didn't know they were replacements. I've always wanted to get the GS-D3s but the overly aggressive tread design tends to contribute to pattern tread noise. (Looks nice though).

 

Dug up the research I originally did, to make sure I'm providing good info to my friends at g35driver...

The GS-D3 was introduced and tested back in 2005, and per Tire Rack is tuned for wet performance. It led a C&D review of max performance tires back in Dec. 2005, and appears to be a great tire.

The F1 Asymmetrics are newer, introduced in late 2007 and in this test by Tire Rack it came up number one for max performance. However, they describe it as an addition to the GS-D3 ("tuned for wet road hydroplaning resistance and traction") and the All Season. So there's the complete story, in case I'm just inferring that it's the GS-D3 replacement
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...y.jsp?ttid=101