[nas t eh]

As many of you know and for those that don't, the tire size selection for the 17' x 9 " rim size is poor. So buying Year One - Snowflakes, Rallys or Honeycombs results in some compromises.

If you want a 27" tall tire the widest you can get is the 255/50/17 in nearly all brands and types that would fit or be useful on our cars.

The size we really need is 285/45/17 and while we could use it in a couple of makes and tread types, I'm proposing the Nitto 555 for now.

Please use the link to request that size/tread pattern and lets see if we can improve our selection in the future, only takes a minute or two to do.
Thank you for your time.

http://www.nittotire.com/find-a-tire...t-a-tire-size/

[76LQ9TA]

Year One snowflakes suck. They couldn't get the chinese kids to machine them like the originals.

[72projectbird]

I requested the size for you.

I run triple fives in an 18" wheel and I'm very happy with them.

[nas t eh]

Originally Posted by 76LQ9TA

Year One snowflakes suck. They couldn't get the chinese kids to machine them like the originals.

I'm pretty happy with the YearOne Honeycombs I have especially for the price paid, just wish I could get a taller tire so my headers don't end up on the ground.

Thanks for the support 72

[njsteve]

My Gramma car has the 17x9" Year One Rallys. I won them in the Year One contest several years ago.

I made the mistake of getting the 275/40x17 tires for the car and they are just too short in height at 25" tall. They just don't look right. I would like to get a 255/50 or 255/55x17 in the rear at least, to fill the wheel wells.

In addition, the 275/40s have the car reving at 2800 rpm at 60 mph. Too high for a 3 speed auto with 3.42 gears.

Here's the entire thread on the car.

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...ghlight=gramma


Here's the page where I got the rims (with photos)

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...=gramma&page=6

[nas t eh]

Originally Posted by njsteve

I made the mistake of getting the 275/40x17 tires for the car and they are just too short in height at 25" tall. They just don't look right. I would like to get a 255/50 or 255/55x17 in the rear at least, to fill the wheel wells.

In addition, the 275/40s have the car reving at 2800 rpm at 60 mph. Too high for a 3 speed auto with 3.42 gears.

I know what you mean, I have 285/40/17s on the back of mine they are 26 " tall and it's not enough either. The 255/50 would be 27" tall and at least some are being made. I don't think anyone is building a 255/55 so that is another size to lobby for. I'd like the 255/50s up front and 285/45 out back, but until they make some it's not an option.

[360Rocket]

subscribed

now are we talking birds? GTO's?, bonnes? Grand Prixs?

[coonhunter70]

Maybe we could get Year One to help lobby one of the tire manufacturers for a proper tire. A BFg radial t/a 27" tall with white letters would be nice!

[nas t eh]

Originally Posted by coonhunter70

Maybe we could get Year One to help lobby one of the tire manufacturers for a proper tire. A BFg radial t/a 27" tall with white letters would be nice!

I don't have a connection to do that, if someone does please use it. Otherwise I'm just hoping some of you will follow the link I provided so when I go to replace the tires I have and everyone else with 17s goes to buy their tires, there is at least one better choice available then there currently is now.

[GT182]

I agree it would be nice. But.... the little guy has no voice in what they make. And that goes for repo parts as well. I've tried to fight for correct parts and it fell on deaf ears.

[njsteve]

I think there is a 255/50x17 out there but it is a stupid expensive, single application tire made by Pirelli or someone like that, for a luxury SUV.

[Will]

^^Hankook makes one 255/50-17 and Nitto makes several. None are that expensive.

The problem with a 285/45 width tire is you really need 9" minimum rim width and would be better off with a 10." Tough to fit on a lot of cars. The existing 285/40 size is recommended minimum 9.5" rim. I have them on some 17x9 and there's a fair amount of sidewall bulge going on, it's not optimum.

I'd think a 255/50 on an 8" rim would fit the bill for a lot of guys. 2nd gen 'birds and maybe later '60s and early '70s A-bodies could make use of a 285 width but you still need to get the rim width and backspacing dialed in just right.

[nas t eh]

Originally Posted by Will

^^Hankook makes one 255/50-17 and Nitto makes several. None are that expensive.

The problem with a 285/45 width tire is you really need 9" minimum rim width and would be better off with a 10." Tough to fit on a lot of cars. The existing 285/40 size is recommended minimum 9.5" rim. I have them on some 17x9 and there's a fair amount of sidewall bulge going on, it's not optimum.

I'd think a 255/50 on an 8" rim would fit the bill for a lot of guys. 2nd gen 'birds and maybe later '60s and early '70s A-bodies could make use of a 285 width but you still need to get the rim width and backspacing dialed in just right.

Year One rims are 9" wide with the right backspace. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a wider option than 255 in a 27" tall tire?

[Formulabruce]

Originally Posted by nas t eh

I know what you mean, I have 285/40/17s on the back of mine they are 26 " tall and it's not enough either. The 255/50 would be 27" tall and at least some are being made. I don't think anyone is building a 255/55 so that is another size to lobby for. I'd like the 255/50s up front and 285/45 out back, but until they make some it's not an option.

26" is the stock tire diameter, and with correct ride height will fill the wheel wells. Also this is the diamter that your cars speedo was calculated on when new, and is part of your gear ratio..
I know this thread is about stance, but having tried a set of these, the ride sucked.
your 285 tire is 27.098 , that will change your rear gears to a taller gear ( lower number)
Your car in stock form set down in the back nearly 1 inch.....
have fun

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by Formulabruce

26" is the stock tire diameter, and with correct ride height will fill the wheel wells. Also this is the diamter that your cars speedo was calculated on when new, and is part of your gear ratio..
I know this thread is about stance, but having tried a set of these, the ride sucked.
your 285 tire is 27.098 , that will change your rear gears to a taller gear ( lower number)
Your car in stock form set down in the back nearly 1 inch.....
have fun

For the early second gen Firebirds - 26" is the correct height (E78x14 - F60x15). But for the later second gens - 27.5" was the correct height (GR70x15).

My '64 GTO had an original tire height of 26.9", the '65 was 27.1".

Looking for a 27" tall tire for many of us gets us very close to original height.

That said - I think a 255/50/17 is an excellent option for most of us and is readily available from many tire manufacturers.

As far as the speedo being off with taller tires - you are assuming that the rear end still has the same gears.

I have the "correct" tire height on my '64 (27" tall 255/60/15's) but my speedo is off. The 3.42 geared 12 bolt posi vs the OE 3.23 geared 10 bolt posi is the culprit - not the tires.

[Will]

Originally Posted by nas t eh

Year One rims are 9" wide with the right backspace. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a wider option than 255 in a 27" tall tire?

Sure. i'd buy 'em if they were available. Just saying the market for it is pretty small. Not a lot of cars can fit a tire that wide. And 9" would be the minimum rim width for such a tire and it'd have a fair amount of sidewall bulge. It would look good but not be that great for handling and would probably rub on a lot of cars under cornering with all the squirming that bulging sidewall would allow.

[nas t eh]

Originally Posted by Formulabruce

I know this thread is about stance, but having tried a set of these, the ride sucked.

The size I want does not exist, where did you try them?

Originally Posted by The Champ

That said - I think a 255/50/17 is an excellent option for most of us and is readily available from many tire manufacturers.

Agreed, just wish there was a little wider option for us as well

Originally Posted by Will

Sure. i'd buy 'em if they were available. Just saying the market for it is pretty small. Not a lot of cars can fit a tire that wide. And 9" would be the minimum rim width for such a tire and it'd have a fair amount of sidewall bulge. It would look good but not be that great for handling and would probably rub on a lot of cars under cornering with all the squirming that bulging sidewall would allow.

But you'd buy them if we could get them, me too! I don't think the sidewalk bulge on my 285/40/17s is much at all and would be a little smaller still, if they were 45's rather than 40's. The market was small for Y.O. to make the wheels in the first place especially in three styles but they did. Why wouldn't a tire company want to build a few tires for them? Maybe just needs to here there is some intrest.

[nas t eh]

Had to bump this old thread,
Nitto is adding a useful size to the NT555-G2 line. 275/50/17 will be available in about a month or so. At 27.8” tall it should fill the rear wheel opening nicely and match up pretty well with a 255/70/17 in front.

[njsteve]

I ended up getting the Nitto 255/50x17's for my Gramma car. They fill the wheel wells nicely and don't rub in the front. Though I wish the car would settle down another inch. The ride height measured from the ground to the fender lip are the exact same height as my 73 with it's original GR70x15s.