Non runflat tyre sizes - implications?

D

DR-Z

Member
Ashbourne (Derbyshire) and Aberdovey
Even though I have practically new RFTs, I'm going to take the (expensive) plunge to go to normal tyres.   My 19" 326 wheels are currently crack-free, and I'd like to keep it that way. Also would be nice to soften the ride a little. 

Reading around,  seems likes the optimum tyre sizes will be 235/35 front and 255/35 rear. That will increase the diameter a little on the fronts, and quite a lot (an inch) on the rears. Apart from the benefits of a better ride, there appear to be a few other implications of upping the tyre size:

• Speedo will read lower - but as it reads a bit high at the moment, should be OK. 
• Wider tyres may give a bit more grip
• ..but greater rolling resistance of the wider tyres could affect mpg (which is already pretty poor) 
• The car will sit 1/2 inch higher at the rear on the stock Msport suspension.  Those of you who have done this, it's this noticeable? (I don't particularly want to start messing with the springs).
• Larger rears will also reduce acceleration - not sure how noticeable this would be.  

Not sure if I've missed anything significant. Any views on the above?
 
DR-Z said:
Even though I have practically new RFTs, I'm going to take the (expensive) plunge to go to normal tyres. My 19" 326 wheels are currently crack-free, and I'd like to keep it that way. Also would be nice to soften the ride a little.

Reading around, seems likes the optimum tyre sizes will be 235/35 front and 255/35 rear. That will increase the diameter a little on the fronts, and quite a lot (an inch) on the rears. Apart from the benefits of a better ride, there appear to be a few other implications of upping the tyre size:

• Speedo will read lower - but as it reads a bit high at the moment, should be OK.
• Wider tyres may give a bit more grip
• ..but greater rolling resistance of the wider tyres could affect mpg (which is already pretty poor)
• The car will sit 1/2 inch higher at the rear on the stock Msport suspension. Those of you who have done this, it's this noticeable? (I don't particularly want to start messing with the springs).
• Larger rears will also reduce acceleration - not sure how noticeable this would be.

Not sure if I've missed anything significant. Any views on the above?
Click to expand...

Given the wide range of wheels/tyres fitted over the life of the car in simple terms your changes are all like it to have a minimal impact save that of changing from runflats to nonrunflsts..imho

I’ve now tried 17 18 and 19 in different widths, asymmetrical and symmetrical with cheap and premium tyres.

On stock m sport suspension the best ride comfort/subjectively best road oriented handling was asymmetrical 17” wheels running 235 fronts and 255 rears in premium rubber...
 
255/35 is way too tall for the rear, you'd be better with a 265/30 if you're desperate to move away from the standard sizes.
 
If you're just going for comfort I'd agree with [ref]Pbondar[/ref],
I on the other hand went for looks, and it's far from comfortable, but transformed the car :driving:
235/35/19 - 265/30/19
 
I ran 235/35/19 and 265/30/19 on my 326 wheels on my E89 and was very happy with the result and the improvement in the ride. :)
 
My main aim is to protect the flimsy rims, although any improvement in comfort would be a bonus. But I don't want to compromise handling. As expected, I get mixed messages when i read this and other forums, but these seem to be favoured options:

• Standard is 225/35 and 255/30 - keeping this but with non RFTs may be more forgiving to the wheels.
• 225/40 and 255/35 - increases both wheel sizes by an inch - maximum forgiveness
• 235/35 and 265/30 - a slight increase in diameter for both, plus some extra width
• 235/35 and 255/35 - bigger increase in diameter for rears than front.
 
20190323_085217-1.jpg

20190323_085230-1.jpg

20190323_085244-1.jpg

20190323_085300.jpg

This is my Zed. Non M sport with standard suspension. I've got 235 x 35s front and 255 x 35 rears and in my opinion they fill the arches nicely. On level ground the gaps around the tyres and arches are spot on. I don't think the rears are too tall. The car does sit approx. 15mm higher at the rear but I don't find it an issue.
 
Mister T said:
255/35 is way too tall for the rear, you'd be better with a 265/30 if you're desperate to move away from the standard sizes.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, 255/35 is the perfect size for 326 rears imo.

I've been running 225/35 and 255/35 non runflats for a good while now and I'd go the same again next time too
 
[ref]del_tl1000r[/ref], Not to highjack the thread, but mines on non-Msport suspension too, but rides much higher, any ideas why?
I'm sporting 235/35/19 - 265/30/19

IMG_1798.jpg
 
del_tl1000r said:
I've got 235 x 35s front and 255 x 35 rears and in my opinion they fill the arches nicely. On level ground the gaps around the tyres and arches are spot on. I don't think the rears are too tall. The car does sit approx. 15mm higher at the rear but I don't find it an issue.
Click to expand...
Looks really good. My msport suspension will be a little lower than yours (10mm?), but I think this may only be at the front. No issues with having 1/2" larger diameter rears than fronts?
 
DR-Z said:
del_tl1000r said:
I've got 235 x 35s front and 255 x 35 rears and in my opinion they fill the arches nicely. On level ground the gaps around the tyres and arches are spot on. I don't think the rears are too tall. The car does sit approx. 15mm higher at the rear but I don't find it an issue.
Click to expand...
Looks really good. My msport suspension will be a little lower than yours (10mm?), but I think this may only be at the front. No issues with having 1/2" larger diameter rears than fronts?
Click to expand...
DR-Z said:
del_tl1000r said:
I've got 235 x 35s front and 255 x 35 rears and in my opinion they fill the arches nicely. On level ground the gaps around the tyres and arches are spot on. I don't think the rears are too tall. The car does sit approx. 15mm higher at the rear but I don't find it an issue.
Click to expand...
Looks really good. My msport suspension will be a little lower than yours (10mm?), but I think this may only be at the front. No issues with having 1/2" larger diameter rears than fronts?
Click to expand...

I originally had 225 x 17 runflats all round. The only thing I can say I noticed was that my average mpg is around 3mpg less.
 
ZedConvert said:
[ref]del_tl1000r[/ref], Not to highjack the thread, but mines on non-Msport suspension too, but rides much higher, any ideas why?
I'm sporting 235/35/19 - 265/30/19

IMG_1798.jpg
Click to expand...

Do you mean the car sits higher or the gap between the arch and the tyre looks bigger? If your car originally had 17s it will sit higher at the rear. The overall diameter of 17s is 634mm compared to 642mm for the tyres you have but it should only be half the difference higher i.e 4mm.
 
The fronts overall diameter that you have is 647mm. A difference of 13mm over stock which will make the car around 6mm taller at the front. The tyres fill the arches better though with the 19s rather than the 17s.
 
[ref]del_tl1000r[/ref], gap between tyre and arch seems quite a bit more than your set up, surprising considering my tyre dimensions and the std suspension.
 
I see what you mean. Is your driveway perfectly flat as mine isn't and the car sits a bit weird on it? One side can look as though the car is high and the other side looks like it has been lowered
 
https://z4-forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=109399&start=15

Check out my before and after pics here and see what you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Non Runflat Tyre Pressures
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
mcbutler
M
T
Wanted: part worn non runflat rear tyre 18"
Replies
4
Views
475
kis
K
T
Wanted: part worn non runflat rear tyre 18"
Replies
1
Views
358
z4all
Z
S
Facebook post re changing to non runflat tyres.
Replies
14
Views
2K
Darkangelv2
D
N
Cheap rear non runflat upgrade
Replies
2
Views
559
mcbutler
M
Back
Top Bottom