Tyre widths

GroovyCarrot · Post by **GroovyCarrot** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:00 pm

Sod's law strikes again.

The increased profile on the new tyres means that the sidewalls bulge slightly further out than the old ones did, so they catch the arches. I've stuck it back on my old steels now (wahay.. byebye ability to stop without locking up..).
I'm so tempted just to take a hammer and tap back the lips of the arches that the tyres are catching on.. probably end up bucking the whole panel though.. can't afford to have the arches rolled or pay for new rubber until I get my bonus from work, which isn't until the end of march, and until then I have 9 alloys sitting in a pile in my back garden

bstardchild · Post by **bstardchild** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:08 pm

GroovyCarrot wrote:Sod's law strikes again.

The increased profile on the new tyres means that the sidewalls bulge slightly further out than the old ones did, so they catch the arches. I've stuck it back on my old steels now (wahay.. byebye ability to stop without locking up..).
I'm so tempted just to take a hammer and tap back the lips of the arches that the tyres are catching on.. probably end up bucking the whole panel though.. can't afford to have the arches rolled or pay for new rubber until I get my bonus from work, which isn't until the end of march, and until then I have 9 alloys sitting in a pile in my back garden

How close is it?

GroovyCarrot · Post by **GroovyCarrot** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:20 pm

Very.. I thought they were going to clear when I put them on, so it can't be more than a couple of mm. Had 5 wheels + tyres in the back and it was only rubbing when I cornered or hit a bump, and only on the drivers side so with my weight as well, so not as bad as the 185's.. but bad enough that I can't really drive like that.

bstardchild · Post by **bstardchild** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:50 pm

GroovyCarrot wrote:Very.. I thought they were going to clear when I put them on, so it can't be more than a couple of mm. Had 5 wheels + tyres in the back and it was only rubbing when I cornered or hit a bump, and only on the drivers side so with my weight as well, so not as bad as the 185's.. but bad enough that I can't really drive like that.

It's obviously not rubbing all round the arch - got any playdough?

Slap a bit on the arch edge and take it for a drive as you did before

get back and where the playdough has rubbed off the arch is where it is tight clearance
Two choices then roll it there - can't need much so either

- mole grips and gentle persuasion

or

- angle grinder and trim it back & slap some paint on the eposed edge

Cheap and chearfull approach

genesisGT · Post by **genesisGT** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:27 am

Hi just noticed your post!

My squareback has 165/60/14s with 38et wheels and they scrubbed on one side at speeds over 70 when you hit a bump. So i got my rear arches rolled and sealed and no scrubbage at all so i am going to lover it 40 as a dont think it will catch!

if a wasnt lowering it i would probubally fit the width size above the 165s as it looks like they would fit.

hope some of that is of use.

GroovyCarrot · Post by **GroovyCarrot** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:00 pm

Might just give the playdough a try this evening.. cheap and cheerful approach is exactly what I need

GenesisGT, 165/60's catch?? Blimey. I guess that's on 14" rims though, makes a difference, but even so, 165/70r13's were one of the original options iirc..

genesisGT · Post by **genesisGT** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:57 pm

yeah there aint much room on the back arches! think the 14"s are 6 inches wide so thats probubally why the rub.

When a got the polo as it was genesis spec it had larger tyres than the standard cl and fox models but a cant remember the size! they fitted with loads of room.

give the playdough a shot!

GroovyCarrot · Post by **GroovyCarrot** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:12 pm

I think that it was 145/75r13 standard, 155/70r13 optional, and 165/70r13 if you had the alloys... although come to think of it, I'm not sure that alloys were an option on the squarebacks

genesisGT · Post by **genesisGT** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:10 pm

Well done! made me remember it had 155/70/13s! The only one with alloys as standard was the match with the five spoke raider wheels but i have only ever seen one squareback match - got a photo (sad) of it somewhere.

Always wish they made a G40 squareback would have been well cool!!!

When my trye rubbed on the arch it was dangerous it left a ring on the tyre - could have caused a blow out! the chap who folded my arches did it cheaper as my arches were in very good nick. Give them a good clean before you go anywhere for a quote as then they see what is actually there. If its only rubbing by a tiny amount i would file it back slightly -less paint damage - then clean the area thourouly (dam spelling) zinc primer it then paint it and cover it in a waterproof sealant = sorted!

Tahrey1043 · Post by **Tahrey1043** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:21 am

in wintery countries you got 135 Rs

for dealing with snow & ice

1.0s most places had 145s
1.3s 155s
GTs.... ?? 165?
G40s...? 165-175-185

as much as i've heard is that 175 is pushing the envelope for a none-rolled squareback (and for which rolling the rears can be complex), 165 is more comfortable.

GroovyCarrot · Post by **GroovyCarrot** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:10 pm

According to my haynes, 135/75's were also standard issue on early UK mk2's

Cheapo 145's are scary enough, I'm suprised there are any early mk2's left that haven't been put into a ditch by now..

GroovyCarrot · Post by **GroovyCarrot** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:50 am

Well, I took the drastic approach and took a dremel to the arches.. much better

Still a bit more that needs to come off, it scrapes over bumps with 5 people in the car, but it's getting there

Does seem a little drastic though, somehow I'm not entirely comfortable with cutting great chunks out of my car...

bstardchild · Post by **bstardchild** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:27 am

GroovyCarrot wrote:Well, I took the drastic approach and took a dremel to the arches.. much better
Still a bit more that needs to come off, it scrapes over bumps with 5 people in the car, but it's getting there Does seem a little drastic though, somehow I'm not entirely comfortable with cutting great chunks out of my car...

Not as drastic as

- driving around with a tyre rubbing the arch and risking a blow out

- Sticking with skinny tyres

With 5 people in the car isn't it easier and quicker to use public transport?

GroovyCarrot · Post by **GroovyCarrot** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:26 pm

Hah, yes, probably is

But hey, I'm a student, I should be cramming at least seven people into a citroen 2cv by now

Gareth_GT_Hatch · Post by **Gareth_GT_Hatch** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:21 am

165/65, 165/70, 175/60 and 175/65 are the 4 I have to choose from. Just got some GTi 9 spokes for my ranger (5.5Jx13et38) and in the past Ive had 175/65s on the back of a squareback with the same size/width/offset wheels (were ronals last time) and I had no problems with them. If I were to lower the car though it might be a problem so id go for 165/70s instead (Which might be cheaper as well)

although with mine being a 1.3 hatch the standard tyre size is one profile higher than yours, so yeah i agree with bstard child wrt to the 165/65s.

what wheels have you got by the way?