Tyres for RL7s
Discussion
robsco said:
Thanks for your help everyone. Still looking for the right size AD08Rs for the rear, I'm sure they'll come up sooner or later.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-x-BRAND-NEW-YOKOHAMA-ADVAN-NEOVA-AD08R-255-40-17-TYRES-ad08-r-track-/191858046535?hash=item2caba17647:g
IkAAOSw95lXEsulDon't worry about the starting bid, check the text of the listing carefully then contact him. I've just picked up my second pair of AD08Rs and could not be happier.
Just resurrecting this thread, I have 17 inch RL7s on my Cerb, with the tyres it came with (Falkens). The sizes are:
Rear - 235/45/ZR17
Front - 225/45/ZR17
These seem to be odd sizes compared to what everyone else is looking for(?), but there seems to be plenty of choice for matched sets at these sizes.
Rear - 235/45/ZR17
Front - 225/45/ZR17
These seem to be odd sizes compared to what everyone else is looking for(?), but there seems to be plenty of choice for matched sets at these sizes.
I gone a little narrower on the rears this time, 245/40/17, there were quite a few more sets to choose from. I've gone for a set of Hancook Ventus V12 Evo2's that were a bit of a bargain. I drive nice and steady as I've always got my little boy on board so I thought they'd be worth a try.
I have these on mine, 2000 miles and good so far and the side walls are not soft.
http://www.mytyres.co.uk/cgi-bin/rshop.pl?dsco=110...
235/40/17 front
255/40/17 rear.
http://www.mytyres.co.uk/cgi-bin/rshop.pl?dsco=110...
235/40/17 front
255/40/17 rear.
Edited by nigelb777 on Tuesday 31st May 08:20
Had a very interesting and informative chat with a guy at Discount Tyres, Luton today about the impact of increasing the width of the tyres and the consequent impact on their circumference. He said the key point is to get tyres on the front and back with effectively the same circumference, so a 255/40/17 is quite closely matched in circumference to a 235/45/17. He showed me it on the computer and he seemed a genuine guy. He had various options in various makes, so wasn't just trying to sell me a set he had lying around. It was counterintuitive to me, but he said that the wider a tyre gets, the greater the circumference at the same profile. What do people think?
From the factory the Cerb had 235/40 front and 255/40 rear.. The 40 is the profile which is a sidewall to width ratio, so as you go wider, for a given profile the circumference increases.
Circumference is an issue for speedo reading, so matching as closely as possible on the rear is important. It might also be a factor if the Cerb had ABS/TC. I think he is worried about Ford Focus' and the like tbh.
Running a slightly larger circumference on the front won't hurt the handling as long as they don't scrub.
Circumference is an issue for speedo reading, so matching as closely as possible on the rear is important. It might also be a factor if the Cerb had ABS/TC. I think he is worried about Ford Focus' and the like tbh.
Running a slightly larger circumference on the front won't hurt the handling as long as they don't scrub.
tangerinedream said:
Had a very interesting and informative chat with a guy at Discount Tyres, Luton today about the impact of increasing the width of the tyres and the consequent impact on their circumference. He said the key point is to get tyres on the front and back with effectively the same circumference, so a 255/40/17 is quite closely matched in circumference to a 235/45/17. He showed me it on the computer and he seemed a genuine guy. He had various options in various makes, so wasn't just trying to sell me a set he had lying around. It was counterintuitive to me, but he said that the wider a tyre gets, the greater the circumference at the same profile. What do people think?
He may have a point on a 4x4 car there a different circumference will wind up a centre diff but not an issue on a Cerbera.235/40/17 on the front and 255/40/17 on the rear.
I have the Falken on my car and they seem OK.
Have gone for 255/40/17 on rear and 235/45/17 on the front. . Only 7mm difference in circumference and car feels great. 4 Nankings for £350 including fitting and road force variance balancing - Discount Tyres Luton - very impressed. Dealt with Johnny, who part owns them. It has also solved the annoying vibration through the body at circa 85mph - turns out rear tyres were out of round - this wasn't picked up by the last place which did road force balance (although their balance did improve things somewhat).
One other thing worth mentioning - they pointed out that one of my RL7s is different to the other three. Three of them have a square edge on the inside of the rim, but one of them is chamfered. They all look identical from the outside of the wheel. Doesn't make any difference, but a bit odd!
harry henderson said:
I asked the same question a bit back and general opinion was that the fronts have a chamfered edge and the rears a square edge.
Well it looks like I have three rears! Does anyone have any theories to explain the thinking behind the fronts being chamfered? I.e do I have a potential problem? mk1fan said:
Do you mean Nankang? Which ones, NS2-R?
Sorry - yes - Nankang. They are Noble Sport NS-20s. They do them in 255/40/17, 235/45/17 (my fronts due to circumference advice) and, for the traditionalists, 235/40/17. They're not supercar tyres (rated to 168mph only), but I suspect that will be enough for me...
If anyone is interested, circumference of the 255/40/17 is 78.6 inches, 235/45/17 is 79.5 inches and 235/40/17 is 76.6 inches. Apologies for reversion to imperial - US website...
tangerinedream said:
Sorry - yes - Nankang. They are Noble Sport NS-20s. They do them in 255/40/17, 235/45/17 (my fronts due to circumference advice) and, for the traditionalists, 235/40/17. They're not supercar tyres (rated to 168mph only), but I suspect that will be enough for me...
"If you like a tyre without any grip, this is your product."
"When it comes to performance, grip, breaking, and emergency manoeuvres/breaking there terrible"
Hmm, well I like a bit of excitement and I don't drive my car in the wet, so they look perfect to me... My main concern was to solve the 85mph vibration (which these have) and I would have paid treble to do that, so if they turn out to be crap, I'll ruin them doing donuts and swap them for something decent. 
The NS-20s have received some terrible reviews.
I wouldn't worry too much about matching factory tyre sizes. As long as the rears (where the speedo reading is taken) match up / are near circumference size then rock on.
I fitted smaller rear tyres on Tamy and the speedo now matches the sat nav!
Finally, I wouldn't get too caught up on widths either. I won't post up the sizes I was running at Snetterton on Tuesday. People would be furiously hammering their keyboards stating how undriveable the car was. The reality was it is probably the best handling and fastest I've had her to date.
I wouldn't worry too much about matching factory tyre sizes. As long as the rears (where the speedo reading is taken) match up / are near circumference size then rock on.
I fitted smaller rear tyres on Tamy and the speedo now matches the sat nav!
Finally, I wouldn't get too caught up on widths either. I won't post up the sizes I was running at Snetterton on Tuesday. People would be furiously hammering their keyboards stating how undriveable the car was. The reality was it is probably the best handling and fastest I've had her to date.
I can't comment on Cerbera tyres because I've not had mine a week yet! Toyos fitted , will let you know....
However, as a biker, I 'get' the importance of tyres (bit of an understatement there).
And as a garage owner, I am shocked at how little people value their own safety and the safety of those around them (both in their car and without) if their 'choice' of tyres is anything to go by. The majority of car drivers do not 'get' the importance of tyres.
It is apparent that many just go for the cheapest even though that is rarely the best value. 'Just as long as it's black, round and smelly'. Not only are they usually old tread patterns giving high road noise but the compounds are not developed giving poor grip and high wear rates and they don't stay round for long, developing bulges and deforming as the carcass breaks down internally. They are often difficult to balance, judging by the amount of weights used (I don't supply or fit tyres myself).
Equally, the most expensive tyres are not necessarily good value either; I find that a certain 'premium' brand beginning with M are invariably out of shape! And they frequently rot (ie perish and crack) before they wear out. Rule of thumb is ditch a tyre after 5 years but I've seen tyres deeply cracked within 3 years.
As an aside, there's a lot of 'rubber' products these days are perishing prematurely, including gaiters, bushes, valve stems and hoses, Lawd knows what they're making them from, a by-product of the cheese industry I think, so beware of 'cheap' rubber. There's a bit on 'Southways' website about fuel hoses perishing. When did you last check your valve stems?
Anyway back to tyres; in my experience the nasty sounding tyres are just that. Tigar? Woosung? Wanli? Namkang? Oh please! Linglong? (yes, really!)
However there are exceptions, Hankook are good and Kumho are excellent and are fitted as OE to some Mercedes.
I have found these two brands to be good through personal experience but as mentioned there are review sites out there to refer to.
Your neck, your choice, but if you're on cheap n nasty rubber, please warn me when you're in my neck of the woods and I'll keep my loved ones indoors.
However, as a biker, I 'get' the importance of tyres (bit of an understatement there).
And as a garage owner, I am shocked at how little people value their own safety and the safety of those around them (both in their car and without) if their 'choice' of tyres is anything to go by. The majority of car drivers do not 'get' the importance of tyres.
It is apparent that many just go for the cheapest even though that is rarely the best value. 'Just as long as it's black, round and smelly'. Not only are they usually old tread patterns giving high road noise but the compounds are not developed giving poor grip and high wear rates and they don't stay round for long, developing bulges and deforming as the carcass breaks down internally. They are often difficult to balance, judging by the amount of weights used (I don't supply or fit tyres myself).
Equally, the most expensive tyres are not necessarily good value either; I find that a certain 'premium' brand beginning with M are invariably out of shape! And they frequently rot (ie perish and crack) before they wear out. Rule of thumb is ditch a tyre after 5 years but I've seen tyres deeply cracked within 3 years.
As an aside, there's a lot of 'rubber' products these days are perishing prematurely, including gaiters, bushes, valve stems and hoses, Lawd knows what they're making them from, a by-product of the cheese industry I think, so beware of 'cheap' rubber. There's a bit on 'Southways' website about fuel hoses perishing. When did you last check your valve stems?
Anyway back to tyres; in my experience the nasty sounding tyres are just that. Tigar? Woosung? Wanli? Namkang? Oh please! Linglong? (yes, really!)
However there are exceptions, Hankook are good and Kumho are excellent and are fitted as OE to some Mercedes.
I have found these two brands to be good through personal experience but as mentioned there are review sites out there to refer to.
Your neck, your choice, but if you're on cheap n nasty rubber, please warn me when you're in my neck of the woods and I'll keep my loved ones indoors.
Gassing Station | Cerbera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff