× 1-800-946-2642 Home My Account Social / Forum Articles Contact My Cart
Shop Now
Select Your Car Type Sale Items Clearance Items New Items
   Forum Width:     Forum Type: 

 Posted: Jun 6, 2017 10:48AM
Total posts: 4134
Last post: Oct 13, 2020
Member since:Oct 8, 2011
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
US
Thank you, I'm looking at a set of 165/70 10s for my car. You are so correct, over here if you leave stopping room a semi and two mini vans pull into it before the next light. Steve (CTR)

 Posted: Jun 6, 2017 04:04AM
Total posts: 10232
Last post: Mar 26, 2024
Member since:Mar 24, 1999
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
GB

I ran 145/80/10s on Tubbs for a while, just to remember what they were like, and also had 145/70/12s on Betty before the switch to 10".

THE biggest difference was in braking performance.  

Yes, there is slightly more grip in corners with a 165, but it's under braking, especially emergency braking, that you really notice the difference.  With 4-pot calipers fitted, it was ridiculously easy to lock the front wheels (as it is with drums too ) and I can see how rear-ending someone would be super easy in US driving conditions.

For all-round performance, it is very hard to beat a 165/60/12 Yokohama A539.

 Posted: Jun 6, 2017 02:59AM
Total posts: 4134
Last post: Oct 13, 2020
Member since:Oct 8, 2011
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
US
The last few minis I have bought or done major body repair on have been drum brake cars with 1275 Metro power. Seems they tend to rear end others. After a complete mechanical rebuild I suspect this Mayfair will handle and stop as well as a street car can. I think I will go with the 165s, they will fill flares better. I don't expect this car will do a lot of highway driving. We are talking about trading the completed car for a Lotus Elan fixed head coupe project which has been apart for about 10 years.

I'm not surprised there are only a couple of people here who will talk about anything. 

I have 165/12 s mounted on Rover 4.5 alloy wheels on my 1360 Cooper S powered 85. I wore out a set of 145/12 s spinning them. A big difference in grip between the two. The other thing I'm wondering about is aqua planing. My 85 is a heavy car with a complete Rhino liner coating under, loads of sound deadening and twin tanks. There is a speed at which the fronts lift on standing water with the 145 s, so far I have not not got caught in a down pour at speed on the 165 s. Steve (CTR)

 Posted: Jun 6, 2017 12:04AM
Total posts: 1716
Last post: Oct 18, 2020
Member since:Oct 18, 2011
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
I think you'll find the sidewalls much of a muchness....  Are not 165 in 12" a 60 profile and the 145 a 70 ????  I don't think they can be the same profile as the 10s give a similar rolling radius.

This means the sidewall must be pretty much the same for both tyres.

You fit bigger brakes for exactly the same reason you fit the bigger engine .. to go faster... (where's the evil emoji   .  Round here the bigger brakes are pretty much a Rego authority requirement.  If you modify a car by fitting a more powerful engine you have the fit the same brakes the manufacturer used with the similar set up..

The car doesn't weight any more (maybe) but you generally arrive at each braking zone just bit quicker... meaning less time between application and bigger (or better) brakes just make sense.   You really answered your own question...

I was quite happy to have had my discs/Greenstuffs during last weeks fun run down into (and back out of) the Araluen Valley.  (more evil emojis needed).

Cheers, Ian

 Posted: Jun 5, 2017 11:10AM
Total posts: 9528
Last post: Mar 27, 2024
Member since:Aug 14, 2002
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
CA
For the two tire sizes, you nave not mentioned the aspect ratio - the 165's may have a lower sidewall, producing a slightly harsher ride.
The 145's would handle anything the 998 could produce in the way of acceleration, but cornering and braking are primarily dealing with the mass of the car - changing its direction or rate of speed. Hypothetically the wider tires would be better.

Random thought on braking and turning: What is the difference in weight of a Mini with a 998 vs a 1275 or bigger engine? Aren't they pretty much the same weight? If so, I've always wondered why the general conclusion is that you need bigger brakes when you put in a bigger engine. The only apparent conclusion is that with a bigger engine, one drives harder and riskier. Harder driving would work the brakes harder, increasing their wear and the tendency for fade. But even so, the car still weighs the same. 
(Hope that doesn't hikack!)

.

"Hang on a minute lads....I've got a great idea."

 Posted: Jun 5, 2017 05:55AM
Total posts: 4134
Last post: Oct 13, 2020
Member since:Oct 8, 2011
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
US
I have recently rebuilt a mid 80 s Mayfair. 998 engine DAM 5626 3.2 CWP complete cyl head up grade to lead free, guides hard seats late triple groove O/S valves. New rubber springs adjustable Spax Hi Los fully on car adjustable suspension. All drive and brake parts rebuild SS pistons new 8.4 upgrade disc spaced drums shoes pads steering rack also. It has been on 145/12 Falkins for 10 years. While it gives great MPG and will run 70 all day long it is not a quick off the line car. The 145 s while mounted on 5 inch alloys don't come close to filling the anniversary flares.  I think the 165 s will look a lot better and give the car a more aggressive stance. 

My question is will the 165 s be over kill for the car. With full adjustable suspension and big tires it should take any turn you point it at. The 145 s on the other hand should handle anything the little 998 can produce. They will ride smoother and be quieter on the road and better MPG. Looks like we are going to do the rust repair and interior and pretend we never had a budget. BTW going with Yoks either way. Steve (CTR)