What Size PSS for OEM 19" Wheels?

[S65V8]

Just to add to the thread, I installed 265 / 285 set-up, and it feels great. Car is on Swift springs and has 12mm spacers all around. No rubbing on full lock either. Digging the fuller / meaty look vs. the Contis I had, fills up nice.

I was surprised how different looking they were from the 255 / 275 Contis, didn't expect it to fill up that much. Ride is a lot better too, less harsh over transitions and road imperfections, Michelin simply knows their rubber technology...

Lastly, have -2.0 camber all around, neutral toe front and a tad +toe in rear.

[CanAutM3]

I am at point where I need to start thinking about replacement for my front 275/35R19 PSS (the original rears). So I did a little research and found that the 265/35R19 M0 spec PSS is probably the best option. It is the tire designed to fit on the front of the AMG GT-S. The reasons I think it is a good fit is becasuse it has 9.3" tread width (0.8" more than the OE 255 but only 0.2" less than the rear OE 275 I had in the front), is designed as a front tire and is designed specifically for a 9" wide wheel. There is a little drawback as it will slightly increase the front to rear diameter stagger, but I can live with that (will potentially make DSC less intrusive ).

[ssabripo]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am at point where I need to start thinking about replacement for my front 275/35R19 PSS (the original rears). So I did a little research and found that the 265/35R19 M0 spec PSS is probably the best option. It is the tire designed to fit on the front of the AMG GT-S. The reasons I think it is a good fit is becasuse it has 9.3" tread width (0.8" more than the OE 255 but only 0.2" less than the rear OE 275 I had in the front), is designed as a front tire and is designed specifically for a 9" wide wheel. There is a little drawback as it will slightly increase the front to rear diameter stagger, but I can live with that (will potentially make DSC less intrusive ).

you will love it, and I'm betting a soda it will be better than your 275/295 setup...I know I did.

265/35 M0 spec, and the 295/30 rear combo is maginificent in form and function.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ssabripo

you will love it, and I'm betting a soda it will be better than your 275/295 setup...I know I did.

265/35 M0 spec, and the 295/30 rear combo is maginificent in form and function.

I'll be sticking with the M5 295/35R19 in the rear for now since they still have plenty of meat left on them. But I might consider the 295/30 when the time comes .

[Mark's M]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I'll be sticking with the M5 295/35R19 in the rear for now since they still have plenty of meat left on them. But I might consider the 295/30 when the time comes .

But won't that adversely affect the DSC if your fronts remain a 275 (or even 265) /35 aspect ratioed tire?? You've mentioned a few times that the fr/r stagger in terms of diameter (not width) needs to be maintained in order to allow DSC to intervene (or not intervene) according to the OD stagger dialed in by the factory. Aren't those running a 295 or 305/30 at the rear with a 265 or 275/35 up front reversing the OD stagger and confusing DSC???

Lol, just when I've pulled the trigger on the 275/295 35 combo, the last few pages of the thread seem to be a contradiction as to what works best & what doesn't.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Mark's M

But won't that adversely affect the DSC if your fronts remain a 275 (or even 265) /35 aspect ratioed tire?? You've mentioned a few times that the fr/r stagger in terms of diameter (not width) needs to be maintained in order to allow DSC to intervene (or not intervene) according to the OD stagger dialed in by the factory. Aren't those running a 295 or 305/30 at the rear with a 265 or 275/35 up front reversing the OD stagger and confusing DSC???

Lol, just when I've pulled the trigger on the 275/295 35 combo, the last few pages of the thread seem to be a contradiction as to what works best & what doesn't.

Absolutely. A 265/35-295/30R19 combo will upset the DSC calibration since the front diameter will be larger than the rear. If I go with 295/30R19 rears, I will adjust the fronts accordingly.

However, I think a 265-295/35R19 combo should have a relatively minor impact. The stock diameter R/F stagger in 1.023, while the 265-295/35R19 stagger is 1.030. That is a .007 point difference, which I believe is rather negligible.

[Mark's M]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Absolutely. A 265/35-295/30R19 combo will upset the DSC calibration since the front diameter will be larger than the rear. If I go with 295/30R19 rears, I will adjust the fronts accordingly.

However, I think a 265-295/35R19 combo should have a relatively minor impact. The stock diameter R/F stagger in 1.023, while the 265-295/35R19 stagger is 1.030. That is a .007 point difference, which I believe is rather negligible.

Agree, thanks for that

And now onto the 2nd set of contradictions in the thread; the fact that a moderately lowered 275/35 fr will not rub (Palomaquet's and a couple of others' info) vs yes, a lowered 275/35 up front will likely rub. Thoughts??

[S65V8]

Originally Posted by Ian1973

My OE sized rears look like that, no track use.

I can not find a 265/35 generic Pilot, they are all manufacturer specific, which I don't want.

Im afraid by going up to 295's in the rear and keeping the stock front will mess up the balance they intended. Any thoughts on that?

from what I read in this thread and others, if the rolling diameter (front vs. back tires) is vastly different from the stock (stock 26.3 F / 26.6 R, I believe), then the nannies will kick in more etc. The idea is to keep it as close as possible to avoid this issue.

[bioman]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

No, just for looks. I ran most of the summer without spacers. See post#80 for pics without spacers.

Why no spacers on the front?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by bioman

Why no spacers on the front?

I dislike what a change of offset does to steering feel. Changing the offset on the front axle alters the scrub radius and required Ackerman angle when the wheels are steered. Both have an impact on steering feel and feedback. I tried 12mm spacers on my E92 and I really disliked how it killed the steering, so I did not even bother trying on my F82.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Mark's M

Agree, thanks for that

And now onto the 2nd set of contradictions in the thread; the fact that a moderately lowered 275/35 fr will not rub (Palomaquet's and a couple of others' info) vs yes, a lowered 275/35 up front will likely rub. Thoughts??

The only reason I can think of is that on a lowered car, the arcing fender liner is closer to the wheels, so when the wheels are steered they might touch the liner. Just speculation on my part here...

[Mark's M]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

The only reason I can think of is that on a lowered car, the arcing fender liner is closer to the wheels, so when the wheels are steered they might touch the liner. Just speculation on part here...

Well we shall soon see lol. Thanks, you've been a wealth of info!!

[M4GTS]

Anyone care to table the delta between the OEM and 265/35-295/30 and 295/35 set-ups in terms of contact patch and rolling radius, etc.?

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by M4GTS

Anyone care to table the delta between the OEM and 265/35-295/30 and 295/35 set-ups in terms of contact patch and rolling radius, etc.?

Read the various responses from this post onwards http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...&postcount=466

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by M4GTS

Anyone care to table the delta between the OEM and 265/35-295/30 and 295/35 set-ups in terms of contact patch and rolling radius, etc.?

From the other thread:

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

IMO, there is a lot of guess work going on when trying to select an optimal tire for one's specific preferences. I try to make an as educated guess as possible. But the true test lies in the actual experimentation.

In the list of 265/35R19 PSS there is also the BMW star spec from the M2 and the N0 spec from the Carrera GT.

A tire is designed around many parameters. Where the tire is installed usually has a non-negligible impact on how it is designed. Usually, tires designed for the rear of a RWD car have a squarer contact patch to provide better propulsive traction. Tires designed for the front will usually have a more oval contact patch to improve steering response and to better plow through water (the front are more critical in the wet because they "open the path" for the rears). Putting "rear" tires in the front will probably result in more aquaplanning and more tram-lining (all of which I experienced with the 275 rears in front). Also the wheel width for which the tire is designed for is also important to consider since it will affect how the sidewalls deform and behave under loading. Tires will vary in weight depending on how much tread they have and how much re-enforced the carcass is. A good example is comparing the BMW star 275/35R19 to the generic one. The generic has a 0.7" wider tread width and also has thinner grooves in the tread translating into substantially more rubber on the road, but that extra rubber means a 1lb weight penalty.

If there was a front 275/35R19 for a 9" wheel, that is what I would go with to maintain the proper front-rear diameter stagger with my 295/35R19 rears, but there isn't. Hence the 265.

So under the entire list of 265/35R19 PSS, I believe there are only three options designed for a front application, the M0 from the GT-S, the N0 from the Carrera GT and the TPC from the CTS-V. Of the three, only one is designed for a 9" wheel (if I am not mistaken, the CTV-V and C-GT run 9.5" whhels in the front). So that is why I stopped my choice on the M0 spec 265/35R19 for the front.

Is it really the best choice for me? I can't know for sure unless I try them all, which is not practical. So I go with the best educated guess based on the tires original design itent.

And yes, I believe the difference will be noticeable.

[A47]

Is the BWM spec tire a rear application?Although Tirerack has R next to all the applications?Thanks

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by A47

Is the BWM spec tire a rear application?Although Tirerack has R next to all the applications?Thanks

I assume you are inquiring about the 295/35R19?

If so, yes. It is the for the M5's 10" wide rear wheel.

I am not sure what that "R" on the Tirerack page means...

[A47]

No the 265/35 19 shown in the the table you posted.I presume it must be an OEM fitment on some model,front or rear?Thanks

[8_is_enough]

Originally Posted by A47

No the 265/35 19 shown in the the table you posted.I presume it must be an OEM fitment on some model,front or rear?Thanks

E9X M3

[Jaymax85]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

From the other thread:

why wouldnt the generic be better for the front as it has the best contact patch?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by jawwadh

why wouldnt the generic be better for the front as it has the best contact patch?

Which generic?

255? 275?

[Jaymax85]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Which generic?

265/35/19 pss