Hi everyone , I`m from Bulgaria , i like your forum very much and I hope to forgive me if my english is not very good. Now to the point ... i have Bravo 1.6 16v 103 and i think that the car has great acceleration ( for this engine ). At the moment i have 14" rims ( 185/60/14) and i hesitate to put 16" ( 204/45/16 ) but a lot of friends tell me that the acceleration will decrease as a result of the bigger rim and widder tyre. How do u think , have anyone done this?

And one more question ... have u heard of a rims named Binno , are they good?

205/40R16 will be 2.3% larger than 185/60R14. That shouldn't affect your acceleration too much. What you might notice is decreased grip in the wet/snow due to a much wider tyre. I'm not sure what weather you get in Bulgaria but here in the UK it's very mixed. I found the change from 195/55R15 to 205/50R16 made my Marea handle very poorly in the wet.

A good compromise would be to go to 195/50R15 or 185/55R15. Both of these are very similar to your original wheel size but are on 15" alloys.

P.S. Your English is very good, better than many English people on this forum, and infinitely better than my Bulgarian

:yeahthat:

i've noticed a massive loss of acceleration and top speed when fitting bigger wheels, but the difference is related to the overall increase in diameter. as hellcat said the 2.3% difference wont have too much of an impact in your situation.

never heard of Binno, but to be honest even the cheap "no-namer" alloy wheels are good quality so i'm sure they'll be fine.


and you're right hellcat, wide wheels are bloody dangerous in the wet. cars on 13" steelies can go round roundabouts faster in the wet. i think its because a larger surface area means less pressure per square inch on the tyres, so they can slip more easily, and also wider tyres can ride over the surface of the water more easily that narrow tyres that can cut through the water. aquaplaning with alloys is easy. i've noticed my new kumho ecsta spt tyres are A LOT better in the wet than any other tyre i've ever tried. you really can tell the difference, especially on the motorway. i've still got a set of 14" steelies in the garage ready for winter.

Wide wheels in the wet?... bring it on, just let's keep the contact patch to footprint ratio low (loads of tread grove to disperse the water) . Best wet tyres I used on my punto were 200/540R13 slicks cut to deliver the same contact patch of a 165 road tyre.

While were on width, going from 185 to 205 will likely increase your rolling resistance some, this might impact performance more than running on a 2.3% ratio increase.

ah true, the extra width will also have an effect, but i'd say its a worth while one as the improvement in cornering is well worth it.

to sum it up... with bigger rims i`ll have more grip in the corners due to the wider tyres , but unfortunately the acceleration will decrease coused by the same reason ... The question is is the reduction of the acceleration going to be very noticeable because after all I still want to make fun with the boys with VW Golf 3 ( they don`t have very good reputation here in BG - we call them Golfers )

anyone who doesn't respect a golf obviously hasnt drove one. its probably the best 3door hatchback chassis ever made.

the effect on performance will be more noticable on a car with less power & torque. a turbo diesel wont suffer much, but a 1.4 would be far worse off. i had 17s on a 1.3 escort once, they came off the next day as the car stuggled so much. in the end i settled for 16's with 205/45 tyres, but it was still a massive blow to the performance. i now have 195/50/15s on my bravo, and i dont think i'll ever go bigger unless i have a bigger car, or i'd get 205/40/16's.

jug said:

anyone who doesn't respect a golf obviously hasnt drove one. its probably the best 3door hatchback chassis ever made.

the effect on performance will be more noticable on a car with less power & torque. a turbo diesel wont suffer much, but a 1.4 would be far worse off. i had 17s on a 1.3 escort once, they came off the next day as the car stuggled so much. in the end i settled for 16's with 205/45 tyres, but it was still a massive blow to the performance. i now have 195/50/15s on my bravo, and i dont think i'll ever go bigger unless i have a bigger car, or i'd get 205/40/16's.

Click to expand...

jug, it is not about the Golf , I also think that the car has many advantages , it is about the drivers in the Golf , they think they r the fastest and the coolest :bang: and very often in car accidents there are golfers involved.

Like I said before my car is 1.6 103 HP and i don`t think this is a weak engine.It it best someone who has already experienced conversion like this to give his opinion.

i had a 1.6 bravo before the 1.8 i have now, it made no difference putting 15" alloys on. didnt try anything bigger, but 103bhp isnt very much at all. i've seen big wheels have a big effect on more poweful cars, such as a 1.8 corsa sri that was much slower with 215/45/17s on, and it rubbed like a bitch over bumps. what a waste of £850.

jug said:

anyone who doesn't respect a golf obviously hasnt drove one. its probably the best 3door hatchback chassis ever made.

Click to expand...

*cough*

http://www.members.shaw.ca/tipoboy/tipo/articles/performancecar/april1992/article.html

Another odity to watch is if you significantly change the ratios you might make acceleration better (you stay in a lower gear for longer) hence why my Sei is faster on 175/55R15 than 175/50R13 (a 13~14% difference)

thats true, i've experimented with doing this on motorbikes a lot over the years, its so easy to change sprocket sizes so every bike basically has a constantly adjustable final drive.

what i've found is that a bike that has more than enough power for the current gear ratios will benefit from longer ratios because you dont have to change gear as much. the acceleration can actually increase in lower gears, and so does fuel economy (a lot) but in every case where this happened the top speed was reduced and the final gear was difficult to maintain speed in, nevermind accelerate up a hill on a motorway. i've ruined more than one bike by going too far with the ratios. on average i find a slightly shorter than standard ratio, combined with a few mods to increase power output and make revving more free (air filter, rejet carb, full exhaust) is usually the best way to improve overall performance (alleceration and top speed).

on cars i've done similar experiments by changing gearboxes with ones from other cars to see what effect it had. on my 1985 ford orion ghia 1.6mfi i used the gearbox from a 1990 ford escort 1.1 pop plus (basically a fiesta gearbox). the orion flew after that with an easily achievable top speed of 125mph+ and acceleration that was very surprising. it would leave an xr3i easily. considering the extra weight i was carrying i'd say that was an excelent result (and an insurance proof mod with great returns for the small cost).
accidentally i once replaced the gearbox on a 1.3 escort with the gearbox from a turbo diesel, and that was a disaster. the car stuggled in every gear past second and wasnt happy at all. it felt like there was low compression the way the revs rose so slowly. i'll never do that again.

Hellcat said:

*cough*

Click to expand...

yeah but out of a Tipo 16V, Sunny GTI and Golf GTI Mk3- which has survived the test of time? you can still buy a good condition mechanically sound mk3 golf GTI easily. finding a tipo that isnt rotten is hard enough, never mind one that works properly. the sunny gti's have all rusted to bits so quickly that the great engine was wasted on such a crappy town car, and they have no style or passion so its basically a grandad car with a nice engine. i've driven a couple of the sunny gti's and a pulsar gti-r, they arent as nice to drive as the golf and dont feel as safe when cornering, but the engines are great and deserved a better car. i've never driven a tipo so i cant compare, but even if they do handle better than a golf and go faster, you cant escape the shoddy build quality and reliability problems. i rarely see a tipo on the roads, but far more often in a scrapyard. the golf is easly the best all round package and has stood the test of time.

its kind of the same situation to this day, the modern golf is very well built and reliable, but it gradually lost its sporty edge more and more over time, the civic still has excellent technology and engineering but its still got little style or passion (even the type R is only just sexy), and the stilo has good engines and a willing chassis but it falls to bits and wont last for years to come (much like a bravo & tipo, and i'm guessing the grande bravo). little has changed, the golf was best back then and it still is now.

Isn't the problem with motorbikes that when cruising they are well out of the powerband, where cars, as they're lower revving, tend to be near the bottom of the powerband so can handle more gearing increase while cruising. I don't find the Sei has many problems with 5th but then again I've gained a fair bit of torque & I think the box was lower ratio that the punto's to start with. Even so 4th gear for road use is tall enough to cover 99% of situations if I need to keep revs flowing.