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.
16 inch tire sizes
- Thread starter 85_SS_302_Coupe
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
cenok is family
15 Year Member
MahFiVeOh
Founding Member
I had 245/50/16's on all 4 but mines a 91. I sold them to a friend that has an 87 Hatch and he had rubbing issues in the front so he has 225's now with no probs.
I had 245/50/16's on my last Mustang. 1987 Mustang LX. The car had stock springs and they were the same height as the stock 225/55/16's that originally were in it. No rubbing issues to speak of.
I found this combo of tires to look the best.
When i had 245 50 16's on the back and the 225 50 16 on the front, it looked wrong, the rears were just too tall.
I'd just like to correct myself, i though i read something different 2 posts up.
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.
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.
Yeah i just want them to look right, i don't want the raked look but i don't mind wider in the back, just not taller. Right now the 255/50s are so much bigger than the 225/50s in front...they look good but it's not the look i want. I think the 225/50s are just too small, there's so much wheel well in the front. The back are practically new and i just put them on so i'm gonna get some front ones to match and i just don't know what size to get. How does the side wall height of a 245/50 or 245/45 compare to the 255/50? How bad is that going to rub? My car is lowered but not slammed...it has Eibach Pro Kit springs on it and the back springs are cut 3/4 coil to get rid of the race, but it still sits a tad lower in front than back.
Here's the rule with tires, kinda easy.
Up 20mm in width, down 5% in profile gives you roughly the same height.
So for example, a 225 50 16 is the same height as a 245 45 16, which should be about the same height as a 265 40 16.
Also use this site:Tire Size Calculator - tire & wheel plus sizing
Up 20mm in width, down 5% in profile gives you roughly the same height.
So for example, a 225 50 16 is the same height as a 245 45 16, which should be about the same height as a 265 40 16.
Also use this site:Tire Size Calculator - tire & wheel plus sizing
For refference sake....
My last car. '87 LX Hatch 245/50/16's all the way around on 16x7 Pony's.
View attachment 186473
View attachment 186474
View attachment 186475
My current car. '90 LX Coupe 225/50/16's front, 255/50/16's rear on 16x7 Pony's.
View attachment 186476
View attachment 186477
View attachment 186478
My last car. '87 LX Hatch 245/50/16's all the way around on 16x7 Pony's.
View attachment 186473
View attachment 186474
View attachment 186475
My current car. '90 LX Coupe 225/50/16's front, 255/50/16's rear on 16x7 Pony's.
View attachment 186476
View attachment 186477
View attachment 186478
smokin joe
Founding Member
I had 245/50/16's all the way around on my 93 on ponys, but the front looked to large to me. My 93 currently has 225/55/16 (stock size) front and 245/50/16 rear. I just wanted a little wider back tire. I would suggest you go with a 215/55/16 front and 245/50/16 rear.
JustA5.0
Member
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.
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.
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.
I just don't like that they dwarf the front tires, so i'd like to even out the ratio a little.
JustA5.0
Member
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.
I will agree with you that the OP has to consider that a 245/45/16 is 15/16" smaller than the stock 225/60/15 (stock tire size for 1985, this car was not calibrated to the ponies), but not "more than a full inch shorter than stock". Yes it will affect speedo calibration, but being a mechanical gear/cable setup is not 100% accurate to begin with (take a GPS with you in a said stock car, my speedos have been off 2-4mph at cruising speeds).
JustA5.0
Member
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.
If you are set on the 255/50s on the back, visually about your only smaller option to fill up the wheel well on the front is 245/50. If there is as much gap as you say, then it should clear that way. Width wise a 245 clears on an 87, I don't know if there is less clearance in the wheel wells of an 85. Hopefully someone with a pre 87, that's lowered, can chime in for you.
Similar threads
