Lorinser 17's with stock suspension

[bacque]

Anyone riding the Lorinser Speedy's on the stock suspension? how do you like them?

what size tires are yall running?

[Poleposition]

I was but I since lowered the car with the H&R's and it is a different machine. Handles amazing. Not harsh at all. Highly recommend the H&R's especially when running the speedy's. My tire sizes are 195/40R17 Yokohama S.drive on the front and 215/35R17 Yokohama S.drive on the rears. Currently, I have the winter setup on the car

All the best

[bacque]

so you didn't like the speedy's on the stock suspension? what was your motivation for lowering it? was it problematic with stock springs?

i live in an area thwart with road hazards, don't want to lower the car....17's are risky as it is....

thanks so much!

[El Kabong]

I have Lorinsers on my Coupe with the following configuration:

17" x 6.5" Front with 215/35/17 Yokohama S-Drive AS01 83W

17" x 7.0" Rear with 225/35/17 Yokohama S-Drive AS01 86Y

So far, I like them a lot. Looks, as they say are personal, but I love them, and get lots of compliments. YMMV tho, as opinions vary. I also find the car to be much more stable at speed whilst cruising compared to the stock rims & tires. I also have the DT single exhaust, and Breathless air filter, which more than compensate for any power loss due to the extra weight. There was empirical testing to prove my last statement, but I did have the butt dyno calibrated last month .

Do you have any specific questions about the set-up I'm using?

Merry X-Mas, and/or Happy Holidays to you all............

[roadking40]

I also had the Speedys on for a while with the stock suspension. Really no issues at all. I can tell the car looks better lowered and handles WAY better with the HR springs. The lowering is very slight and should not cause any issues with rough roads. Speedy's are very cool wheels!

Happy Holidays Smartys!

[Poleposition]

Originally Posted by bacque

so you didn't like the speedy's on the stock suspension? what was your motivation for lowering it? was it problematic with stock springs?

i live in an area thwart with road hazards, don't want to lower the car....17's are risky as it is....

thanks so much!

Dont try and read into it bacque. The wheels work just fine on the stock suspension. If you want a better handling smart, a more sporty and aggressive appearance, do the H&R's. Simple

[Poleposition]

Originally Posted by El Kabong

I have Lorinsers on my Coupe with the following configuration:

17" x 6.5" Front with 215/35/17 Yokohama S-Drive AS01 83W

17" x 7.0" Rear with 225/35/17 Yokohama S-Drive AS01 86Y

Who gave you the recommendation to run those tire sizes? They're WAY off. Your speedo is most definitely highly inaccurate. Going to 17's from 15's, its very imporatant to try and keep the overall circumference of the originally engineered setup. Your 215/35 fronts and 225/35 rears are stretching the envelope a bit. I've been modding cars with aftermarket wheels and tires for 20 years. I wouldnt run those sizes. But hey, what do I know. If it works for you, then great. More power to you.

All the best

[El Kabong]

I've only been building, modifying, racing various vehicles for 45 years or so. That being said, I don't consider myself an expert in all things related to motorized vehicles. "Here's what happened"................

I bought the rims & tires from another forum member at an unbelievably low price, and have no complaints whatsoever. Why did he pick the sizes? I suspect that the shop he bought them from made that recommendation. Are they WAY off from stock. There is certainly a difference. Here's what I found published on the Tire Rack web site:

Front
Continental 155/60R15 - Diameter = 22.3" Revs Per Mile = 859 / 904
Yokohama 215/35R17 - Diameter = 22.9" Revs Per Mile = 880 / 880

Rear
Continental 175/55R15 - Diameter = 22.6" Revs Per Mile = 895 / 892
Yokohama 225/35R17 - Diameter = 23.1" Revs Per Mile = 897 / 873

Math was/is not my strongest subject, but by dividing 20168 by the diameter, I get something different (shown in red). Based on this, I can see how it's easy to make a mistake. Based on the published specs, the rears are very close to stock diameter. It looks like the tires may have been chosen because they appear to be the closest diameters available in that particular tire.

Anyhoo, this all tells me that the error at the rear is about 1.3 MPH (about 2.2%) faster at 60 MPH (61.3 at 60). The error at the front end is a bit higher at 61.6 at 60 MPH (about 2.7%). Is this the perfect scenario? No, but it's close enough for now. Would I have chosen these particular sizes? I can't really say, but I would have done my due diligence prior to purchase. It seems the most important lesson to learned here is to "trust yet verify" what you see in print and are told by "experts", prior to making an important purchase.

Here comes the disclaimer. I did not spend a lot of time researching the information presented here, and could have made a mistake. There may be errors in my calculations, or the information used, as I found it on the internet. If that's the case, feel free to point them out.

Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it (for now)

best....................

[Poleposition]

Understood. The fact is, at the end of the day, it doesnt really make enough of a difference to worry that much about it. My theory applies moreso to higher performance cars as that is my experience. The Smart wont really see any negative effects.

All the best