17" and 18" rim weights, vettes & F-body ???

[1 FMF]

I am in the market for some new rims for a 2002 camaro.
Current setup is the stock 10-spoke clearcoated aluminum rim with 275/40-17 goodyears. They weight about 40 lbs per wheel with tire if I remember correctly. I also have a set of chrome zr1 Replica rims, 17x9.5, with michelin 275/40-17 pilot sport a/s tires. They weigh 55 lbs per wheel with tire.

Looking at about a 15 lb difference per wheel going with a chromed wheel, and there is a noticable difference in acceleration and the way the car rides.

Can anybody provide accurate rim weights to comparable rims, with or without tires, say with an accuracy to +/- 0.5 lbs? I'd like to buy some new chrome rims but I want to find the lightest ones if there is such a thing. Would consider 18" rims, I like the thin 5-spoke 18" corvette rim best actually.
Had also been told, by tirerack I think, that all tires sized for 17" rims weigh 25 lbs. I don't know how accurate that it, since that was just their shipping weight.

 

[Steve S]

What is wrong with the stock rims?

 

[1 FMF]

I don't particularly like look of the 10-spokes and they're hard to keep clean.

I like the 5-spoke zr-1 style, and I like the look of a chrome wheel (car is black) which is why I bought them. Unfortunately they are heavy.

If my numbers are correct, with a ~25 lb tire a chromed aluminum rim is 30 lbs vs a non chromed aluminum rim at 15 lbs.

 

[CapriRacer]

This is the type of request that ought to be directed towards the folks that sell this stuff. The average guy who posts on this web site - as intelligent and as knowledgeable as they are - just isn't going to catalog this type of info.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Not sure if it contains the particular rims you're looking for, but it's the largest such database I know of:

http://www.wheelweights.net/


Also, if you go on TireRack, they list weights for most of the rims they sell. They also list weights for their tires, and it's not true that all tires in the same size weigh the same. For example, I used to buy 225/45/17 tires - they would vary in weight from 20 to 26 lbs each.

 

[1 FMF]

that's great, thanks.

I noticed yesterday, tirerack had some weights for some rims. Never noticed weights for tires though, will have to look again.

 

[wantin150]

I'm sure you have already but look under the "Specs" section of the tire. It lists the weight there.

 

[CBODY67]

Lighter wheels will ride smoother due to the less work the springs and shocks/struts have in keeping them from bouncing around--generally. The old "sprung/unsprung weight" issue.

With the larger diameter wheel/tire setups, there is also more of a flywheel effect with most of the weight being located that much farther away from the pivot point, which CAN affect braking and performance--which means that upgraded brakes aren't necessarily there (as OEM) due to the higher-performance orientation of the vehicle, but just to keep things on the improvement side of things rather than the larger wheels/tires causing braking performance to deteriorate.

Also, the wider tires will need a little more "reinforcement" in the tread area to keep them from buckling on the wiiiiider rims, hence, more weight in the tire itself, not to mention the wheel (a reason that you don't typically see any steel wheels in those wider widths).

This is an area that many enthusiasts don't tend to think about when they opt for those larger diameter wheels and matching tires.

Another thought . . . when the front wheels of the car move to turn the car (for a corner), they will "camber" to a certain extent. This is to compensate for the "lean" of the body on the chassis as centrifugal force acts on the car as it turns at higher speeds. With the ultra-short sidewalls on may "higher perfomance" aspect ratios, the flex in the sidewall that would compensate for this camber action is basically gone. Therefore, with stiff swaybars and such, only a portion of that wide tire's tread is really working as the camber action puts more force on the inner or outer portions of the tread rather than it being totally flat.

Not to mention the lack of impact absorption of the shorter sidewalls, not just on bumps, but "chuck holes" or "pot holes" in the road. By observation, when the aspect ratio gets lower than about "50", the possibility of bending a rim from an unexpected pot hole increases dramatically . . . ending up to be an expensive tire/wheel repair/replacement.

When the last gen GTO was "discovered" it had 17" wheels on it that performed as well as the larger rubber that was speculated to be on it IF it had been designed in the USA rather than OZ. Better ride and handling package, it was noted, due to the fact that the like to drive fast on not-so-smooth roads "down under".

I suspect that if you downsized to a 16" wheel of formerly "normal" wideness, you'd see how much money you might be spending for cosmetics and very little improvement in road handling, not to mention probably accelerating and stopping faster with existing hardware. Not to mention that hydroplaning tendencies increase with the wider and less narrow tread contact patches (think how your foot is when it's pointed straight ahead, which would "slice" through standing water as you walk with respect to the direction of travel, then turn it sideways and see how much slicing it might do, rather than not, by comparison) --which makes tread patterns highly important in this area Just my gut suspicion . . . Of course, its' your car and your money . . .

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67

 

[INMY01TA]

Read this. http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=471204

 

[INMY01TA]

There's no way there's a 15lb difference in those wheels unless you have the cheapest ZR1 knock offs ever. Must be the tires.