Is 16 inch too small?

>>16933228
Good news is that you can still buy total shitboxes brand new like the Mitsubishi Mirage. They come with manual windows and everything

But you can't even afford that much, can you?

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:46:30 Post No.16933248
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:46:30 Post No.16933248 [Report]

>>16933236
>honda fangirl
>straight to the ad hominem "you're poor" shit
kek-a-roonie
Keep worshipping your fat ugly econobox kiddo im out

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:46:41 Post No.16933251
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:46:41 Post No.16933251 [Report]

>>16929433
Depends on the era of the car, what you're trying to do with the car, and how big your brakes need to be.

>40s to early 80s
Stick with 14 or 15
>80s to mid 2000s
15 or 16, 17 only if you're building up your car and the big brakes just don't fit under a 16, like if I wanted to put WRX brakes on my Legacy.
>late 2000s up
17-19. 20 and up is just ridiculous and adds a lot of unnecessary unsprung weight. You could get away with 16 or maaaybe 15 on compact/subcompact car.

Smaller wheels with taller sidewalls will be better for comfort and off roading, and tires are cheaper. If you need a poorfag car and want to keep running costs down, buy one with small wheels. I work at a tire shop and we have customers every day who bought a shiny new shitbox with the fancy big ass alloys and they always get all mad and huffy when they find out their 17"+ low profile tires are expensive.

Larger wheels with shorter (and stiffer) sidewalls will be better for handling and steering feel, but they need to be lightweight to keep the unsprung weight down.

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:47:33 Post No.16933258
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:47:33 Post No.16933258 [Report]

>>16933248
You're so kewl anon, I bet your $3000 Civic pulls all the bitches

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:12:54 Post No.16935462
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:12:54 Post No.16935462 [Report]

what the fug

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:32:51 Post No.16935547
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2017-03-31 03:32:51 Post No.16935547 [Report]

File: 18.jpg (154KB, 1176x706px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1176x706px

yes

Anonymous 2017-03-31 04:12:49 Post No.16935736
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2017-03-31 04:12:49 Post No.16935736 [Report]

File: 20170329_104117.jpg (3MB, 3405x1918px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3405x1918px

>>16933251
I had 17s on my AE111 and it looked decent. I put those same wheels on an AW11 and it looked a little ridiculous. So I got some nice 15s and it looks great.

Anonymous 2017-03-31 05:36:26 Post No.16936062
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-03-31 05:36:26 Post No.16936062 [Report]

>>16933055

Ok, here's how this started:

>Marketing and product placement went: racing cars have larger wheels, so they're better. That makes people want to buy cars with larger wheels

What they miss is, this started because the larger wheels allowed the teams to install larger brakes, not necessarily because they grip better. Then things escalated from there. And when it comes to selling to the public, marketing has the final word over engineering.

For instance, the S2 Lotus Elise shipped with 16' at the front and 17' at the rear, but the engineers wanted to go 15' all around. Caterhams sell with fifteens, but their engineers recommend off the record to swap to 13' if you want to increase performance.

Also, an acquaintance of mine was a mechanic at a bmw's btcc team mid 90's. They were forced by bmw's marketing dept. (and later the board itself) to run their cars with 19' wheels, even though the cars performed better with 18's on about every situation.