Printable View
OK, I have 195/65 tires on my '68 911 now, on 6" flat fuchs.
I am thinking going to 205/65 would be a no brainer on a '68, because the '68 has the narrower lips on the fenders compared to '65 to '67.
Anyone have any practical experience fitting 205/65 on a SWB at all 4s, especially a '68?
Thanks.
I've been running 195/65/15's on my 67"s for twenty years now. They have the right look and grip but are becoming more difficult to find. I've heard that 205/60/15's are a good match also as well as the ultra expensive period correct 185/70/15's XWX's from Coker.
+1. I use 205/60-15 on 6" rims on my '68, and had them on my '67S before that. Don't know why you would want to go with the taller 65 series--higher gearing for lower cruising revs/better gas mileage perhaps? The 60 series looks and feels right to me. Pics in this old thread with both 6" Fuchs and 6" Superlites with the 205/60-15 tires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilywilly
TT
The 205/65 is basically the exact same height as the 165/R15. So I was thinking that by using the 205/65, the car would have the same vintage side view, but then the actual width of each tire would be 40mm wider. So, kind of the best of both worlds. Big meats!!
I also understand sidewall flex, so the 60 profile would be ultimately better, but everything is a compromise, right? Otherwise we'd all be running 17 or 18 inch wheels with rubber band tires on our early cars. :D:D
Also, I did the "finger" clearance test on my current 195/65's on my '68 911 last night, and both the rear inside by the body rail and the front inside by the strut are pretty close, so a 205/65 would make the clearance very tight! The outside seems to have more room. A 5mm spacer might be perfect in this situation.
But then again, if a 205/60 has been proven to work, what am I worrying about? :D
Mike
205 are probably too heavy. Sure, there's marginally more grip, but it's not really that much use in a street context and the increase in unsprung weight, coupled with the higher polar moment, will mean they take longer to spin up and spin down. Our cars need all the help they can get not having to rotate a heavier wheel.
I remember the difference between my old '88 Carrera with 225/245 rubber on 7's and 9's-- then the change when I bought my '71 with 15x6 with 225 Hoosiers, the lightest combo that filled the wheel wells. At the end of the front straight at Lime Rock I used my normal braking pressure . . . and promptly lit up all four tires. . . putting me into a controlled slide toward the outside of the turn and the shiny door of a competitor. . . as if in slow motion amid a cloud of expensive Hoosier smoke, brain said to foot "relax brake pressure" and foot said, "roger, relax brake pressure." The car turned in and disaster was averted.
I have learned since then that the lightest possible tires and wheels are a very good thing indeed. But not 165 tires, hell, a BMW R90S has more meat! (all right, according to a contemporary 1976 review of the R90S, it used a Metzeler 4.00 x 18 tire, which works out to 101mm. However, by 1999, the BMW R1100RT used a 170-series rear tire!)
Different tire makes vary by 1-4 lbs, but going from 205/60 to 205/65 only adds a pound or two per tire.
At this point I am most concerned about fit, as the 195 is a tight fit on my '68already! Going to 205's might be a bit too close for comfort. You guys didn't have any problems at all with the 205s on a SWB car? This is with no spacers and a normal backspace early 6" Fuchs?
165's and steelies here I come!!! I'd have plenty of space then!! :eek::eek::eek:
Mike- on my '68 912 I had chrome steel wheels with 165's,
then with 195/65's. Now I have deep six Fuchs with 195/65's.
The difference in road feel going from 165 to 195 was noticable,
but the difference was huge when I put the 195's on the Fuchs.
The steelies are HEAVY and slam much harder into road imperfections
than the lighter wheels. In other words the suspension is very noticably
more supple with the Fuchs in place. Better acceleration too but this may
be more evident on the lower powered 912.
Regards- Alan
Mike,
Don't know where you got your info from but the theoretical height of a 205/65 is 266.5mm and the (stock)165/78 is 257.4mm. (9.1mm taller) Also the other stock size 185/70 is 259mm. (tire height only)(brands may vary but it is what they are trying for when they are made)
We have put on many 205/65s and they are noticeably taller. No to say a bad look, but Porsche has always been a car that one could put on shorter tires and still have a sporty apperance and the taller ones usually come off as doughnuts. We usuall put them on for freeway traveling. I have used 225/60s on my own car when a long trip was ahead.
H
Harvey, I just used an online calculator to compare the 165R15's and the 205/65s, I guess it did not "calculate" correctly......:D
So, Harvey, let me ask a question.....in your experience, what is the ultimate modern tire to put on a SWB....a 195/65 or a 205/60? Or something else entirely?
Thanks!!
Size is not the best consideration for the ultimate tire. I have put on 195s that out peform 205s.
The best modern look and all around: probably the Michelins in 195/65-my favorite MXV4. Many others are very good also.
The best performance: 205/60 BFG g-Force Sport. also there are many others very close in performance.
The "short" tires are fun but they have issues with gearing and ground clearance.
My RS fendered car currently has short 205/50 & 225/50s. (Fulda) They look racy but they don't stick as well as my 195/65 & 225/55s (Michelins) that I ran last year..
The difference is the mfg and not the size.
H