flusted 0 Posted February 3, 2006 Ive always been told that due to the circumfrance of 17"s you lose acceleration. Im currently running 17"s but am thinking of fitting 16"s,will i notice a difference? Also read that weight of the wheels is a factor aswell??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
double-6s 0 Posted February 3, 2006 i think the difference between 16 and 17 inch won't make much difference to acceleration mate. the weight of the wheels definately has an effect on handling - not really down to size though - you might get heavy 16s and light 17s if you know what i mean. i reckon, by the look of how low your car is, the one difference you will notice is it will be even lower with 16s on! good luck :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
veeDuB_Rado 0 Posted February 3, 2006 When I changed 17s to 15s I definately noticed a change. Performance and handling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
easygeezer 0 Posted February 3, 2006 I had a 16v and went from the 15" - 17" what a mistake, accelerated slower and engine did not have enough grunt to pull top end, struggled to get over 120mph. My friend had a 16v Jetta, before we would race and we were side by side, afterwards he definitely had the edge. What do they say, "Big wheels for show little wheels for go" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trig 0 Posted February 3, 2006 flusted, it'll depend on how much the 16's weigh in comparison to your current wheels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
double-6s 0 Posted February 3, 2006 well there you go. i know nothing mr faulty! ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Bacon 5 Posted February 3, 2006 It's a difficult one this. I've run 15s, 16s and 17s on mine and you do notice the differences straight away. Most mods are a compromise, just depends what you're prepared to live with. 15s and 16s are definitely favourable for handling, steering response and acceleration as there's less rotational mass to spin up and turn.....but they look small :-) I'm done with my 17" phase as I find the car drives a lot better on 16s (needed to clear the 312s), but so long as the 17" rims and tyres are light ones, you're not losing out on much tbh. My 16s weigh the same as the VR speedlines (15lbs) and the Uniroyal Rainsports I stuck on them are the lightest tyres I've ever picked up! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trig 0 Posted February 3, 2006 There ya go then. :) kev, whilst we're on the subject, if you ever decide to sell those 16inch speedlines I would soooo buy them off you... :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Bacon 5 Posted February 3, 2006 Mate, don't! I've only just got rid of all my wheel stock... the missus will frown upon any more purchases :-) The guy that got me mine might be able to get some more. I'll let you know. Trouble is they're rare as it is and even rarer in usable condition (they were only ever fitted to the Vento race cars to clear the bigger brakes and got a beating on the track) but I'll try and hunt some down for you. They have big clearance for some chunky calipers too, which is always a bonus ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr_mat 0 Posted February 3, 2006 Once again a reminder - if you don't want to lose performance when you upgrade from e.g. 15 to 17 inch wheels your new wheels have to be 15/17 times the weight of the old ones, approximately. i.e. 88% I can't really comment on the handling differences, I'm sure these are more down to the changes in the tyre shape than the overall wheel mass (unless you buy stupidly heavy rims!). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
james_88 0 Posted February 3, 2006 As kev says, it's all to do with the rotational mass. For example, the futher a mass is located from the centre of a wheel, the greater the moment of inertia so that'll make acceleration slower. But it wouldn't be practical to concentrate most of the mass in the centre of a wheel due to its design, so generally the lighter the wheel the better it is for accleration! When i changed to my 17" ZW1's i didn't notice that much of a decrease in performance or handling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trig 0 Posted February 3, 2006 kevHaywire, very much appreciated mate. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yandards 0 Posted February 3, 2006 As kev says, it's all to do with the rotational mass. For example, the futher a mass is located from the centre of a wheel, the greater the moment of inertia so that'll make acceleration slower. But it wouldn't be practical to concentrate most of the mass in the centre of a wheel due to its design, so generally the lighter the wheel the better it is for accleration! When i changed to my 17" ZW1's i didn't notice that much of a decrease in performance or handling. This also applies to brakes - fit larger radius rims and you shove all the weight and inertia out by an inch, your brakes have to work harder to overcome the mass, so they are not as effective at stopping the car. There is also a school of thought about the damage and increased wear on your suspension by fitting heavier wheels; more mass for the springs and dampers to deal with will only make them wear out faster. I have noticed a difference between using the standard 'Sebring' wheels that I am on at the moment and the BBS RMs that I usually run. The 'sebrings' are crashier over bumps and the car feels slower. Given the choice, I mean funds :) , I would love a set of 15" BBS RSs on there as they are a full 800 grams lighter than the RM's. Here is a link Kev posted up a while ago about wheel weights: http://www.wheelweights.net/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keithmac 0 Posted February 3, 2006 Best thing I did to the Golf was ditch the 17`s and go back to 15`s, handles better and accellerates better, also the ride was improved no end (bloody 205/40/17`s!). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rustynuts 0 Posted February 3, 2006 17's look so right on a Corrado though, you might lose a fraction on outright acceleration and comfort, but a slammed rado on 15's looks a bit silly. Now on a Mk2 Golf i think 17's look to big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bcstudent 0 Posted February 4, 2006 I'll never return to 17'' wheels on the Corrado after getting hold of a set of Sebrings. The 17s just destroyed the ride and handling to a point where I didn't actually want to drive the car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trig 0 Posted February 4, 2006 I disagree with the 15's looking silly on a lowered C as well. Mine is lowered on standard speedlines & it looks cool man.. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rustynuts 0 Posted February 4, 2006 I don't mean that really, i just think 15's look lost in the arches when the car is low, especially when you are talking late G60 but early narrow track running gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
easygeezer 0 Posted February 4, 2006 I'd happily swap my 17's for a set of BBS 15's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Bacon 5 Posted February 4, 2006 That's what is so frustrating, 17s just look spot on size wise! Generally speaking, brands like Speedline, OZ, Compomotive, BBS etc are light wheels and some Japanese brand make a 17" rim that weighs 9lbs! Another thing that can affect handling and feel etc is where the bulk of the wheel's weight is. Some wheels nearly fall over if stood up because the spokes concentrate the weight on the outer edge, so dished wheels with the weight more inboard can help too. It's all down to what you feel happiest with. The ultimate is defo 15s imo, but you're stuck with 288 brakes max, so 16s are the best compromise. Brakes can also reduce unsprung weight. The Brembos on my mate's old Cupra R weigh nearly half as much as the iron 280/288 calipers and floating discs reduce weight further still! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormchargedVR6 0 Posted February 4, 2006 16'' all the way, just put BBS RCs on mine, much better pick up, lighter steering. The RHs look the part but BBS better all round. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
_leon_ 0 Posted February 5, 2006 personally think 17"s look too big on a Corrado. 16" is the best compromise. For now my 15" RMs are spot on though - look great, give great acceleration and great handling... My old 17"s were horrendous - good bye and good riddens! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wcrado 0 Posted February 6, 2006 my old 'rado had 17" voodoo's on when i bought it and i never got around to changing them. although once it was lowered it looked the nuts, it never felt right. eventually got a full bilstein kit on there, and although it was better, it still felt heavy and not as sharp as it should. i drove my mates g60, which has 16" ATS rims and only a -25mm spring kit, and that rode so much better. my new rado is sporting deep-dish 15's. i would prefer 16's, as i think these look the best, but the 15's came along cheap so i've spaced them right out and dropped it to the floor. plus it drives miles better than my old one on 17's ever did. personally i think 16's are the way to go. 17's look a bit big(unless they're dished) and drive the car pants, and i think 15's look too small. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lamwagon 0 Posted February 6, 2006 does your tracking and stuff affect this?, i was told that a lot of people change there wheels and dont have there tracking re done, and thats wot affects the ride, otherwise vw,bmw,porsche,etc wouldnt fit big wheels in the first place, dnt no if this is true or not? cheers adam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flusted 0 Posted February 6, 2006 I always said," if i lose performance from my wheels,il just spend more money on my engine to counter-act it" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites