I know lots of you have run Ponys, what's the widest you can go in a 16 in the front without a lot of rubbing? Keep in mind this is a lowered '85 that has the smaller fender openings.
mine has 225/50 front and 245/50 rear
Totally agree with this, 245/50/16 looked 'ballooned' on the back of mine. If you want rotation ability, I'd go with 245/45/16 all around, but less choice in brands then 245/50/16.I think 225 50 16 works right in the front, and 245 45 16 is best in the back. I've had alot of different tires, and this way IMO definetely looked the best.
The 245 50 16's have the same profile as the 225 55 16's, to me they looked tall and clunky.
Keep in mind, i like the level road race look, not the raked look.
The sizes i suggest are equal height front and back.
Totally agree with this, 245/50/16 looked 'ballooned' on the back of mine. If you want rotation ability, I'd go with 245/45/16 all around, but less choice in brands then 245/50/16.
Also, what tire you are thinking of is a factor for width, tire companies cut their tires differently. A 245/45 Sumitomo for example should fit no problem in the front of an 87-89. They are typically a skinnier cut.
I understand the sectional width will remain the same as that's affected by rim width and/or tire width. However, visually yes going down 5% on the sidewall ratio will change the look. On my daily driver I run 185/60 A/S in the warm months, and 185/65 winters through winter (more choices in size, and I find the extra sidewall is less jarring in the colder temps). The look is 'bulged', 'balooned' w/e you want to call it compared to the smaller profile (same rim). At that tire width the '65 series sidewall is 3/8" taller, the 245/50/16 vs 245/45/16 in question, sidewall difference is 1/2". At any one point you look at the 245/45 it has a 1/4" less meat in comparison.Going with a 245/45/16 isn't going to change the "balloon" effect at all. The section width between a 245/50/16 and a 245/45/16 is still the same 9.64" wide and therefore so too will be the sidewall bulge. It only seems like less because you're going with a lower profile tire.
Keep in mind too, a 245/45/16 is a also more than a full inch shorter than stock. This means speedometer calibration is going to be way out to lunch, rear end ratio is going to feel as though it has numerically increase (helping acceleration, but hurting highway fuel economy) and ground clearance will be sacrificed.
If the stock side wall height of 4.85" is too much for some of you or the 245mm section width is too "bulgy", you're better off going to a 17x8" wheel and running a shorter sidewall, than just running a lower profile tire on the 16x7" wheel.
Sorry, I think I've misinterpreted the look you were going after. Thought you wanted wider, but similar dimensions for fender clearance. My 245/45 recommendation is based on being 'bigger' from a front-back, back-front under the car kinda view. It's a wider tire of course, with nearly the same facial (side of car, front of rim view) dimensions as the 225/50/16 you currently have up front. The 245/45 will not look different than your current tire, in terms of wheel well gap.I got the 255/50s on the back, and they do bulge a bit but i don't think it looks bad at all...maybe that's the mullet in me
I just don't like that they dwarf the front tires, so i'd like to even out the ratio a little.