24s on a ZL1?

[radz28]

Not my cup of tea, but I thought I remember reading or hearing that the wheel openings were designed for a certain wheel/tire package ratio. Going outside that spec' might lose the proportions I guess...

IMHO - the 20s look perfect on the car how it is, however, it's your money It's your car - do what you like.

[Shurenuff]

24's are borderline donk wheels on a Camaro, let alone the highest performing one in the lineup. 20's are also the perfect size to me also, but IMO 22's should be the biggest size wheel for the Camaro for appearance purposes without it starting to look ridiculous.

Do what makes you happy, but don't expect a lot of positive feedback on these forums. It just seems wrong, especially on this car.

This doesn't even take into account the negative effect the heavy 24" wheel/tire combo may have on the mag suspension.

[fiascoes1]

The only way I would allow 24s on a camaro is if your getting a V6, I have never been a fan of big wheels on a car, I think they look ok on trucks though.

[SUX2BU]

Originally Posted by Shardik2SS

Smaller wheels fill the wheel well just fine if you go with a tall enough tire. I have 18s and they fill the wheel well slightly more than the 20s did. More comfortable ride too.

Originally Posted by Shardik2SS

Oh I know, I was just saying that 18s will fill the wheel well. I liked the 20s OK, but prefer more sidewall.

This is true but on a performance car more sidewall = less handling performance.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

As long as you keep the same overall diameter (or close to it), you shouldn't have any actual problems. That may require going to a bit skinnier wheel & tire (unless you can somehow find 305/20R24's)

That said, just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it. It pains me to see a such high performance car handicapped by gigantic rims. The only time I endorse going bigger is if the stock wheels don't fit over the upgraded brakes you plan on using. Personally, I'd rather see 19's on the ZL1 (or SS)

I think some forged 19's, 18's or even a 18"/19" setup would have really boosted ALL of the ZL1's performance numbers quite a bit. I bet that alone would definitely have put it in the 11's in the 1/4 mile.

Originally Posted by DWatkins15

The ZL1 has 580 HP, I highly doubt that 24s will take away 100 HP. I have a Crown Vic PI with 24s on it and it still gets up and goes. I beat an SS Impala with it. Changing gears and tuning to get shift points right make a world of difference.

Rotational mass is a bitch! I did some quick math when I went from 20s to 18s and it came out to about a 40 horsepower gain. 40 horsepower from going DOWN 2" in wheel size, now imaginge going the other way. Go UP 4" in wheel size, obviously the gains and losses aren't linear but you have to guesstimate about 60-70 horsepower loss in going from stock SS 20s to 24s. Now, factor in that the ZL1 wheels are quite a bit lighter than the SS wheels and that guesstimate goes up to a 70-80 horsepower loss. All this is just performance loss in the acceleration department, the handling performance losses would be catastrophic and if you are not buying the ZL1 for it's handling, you have more $$$ than brains.
Also, tunning also voids your brand new $60k car's warranty.

[IOMZL1]

Originally Posted by SUX2BU

This is true but on a performance car more sidewall = less handling performance.


I think some forged 19's, 18's or even a 18"/19" setup would have really boosted ALL of the ZL1's performance numbers quite a bit. I bet that alone would definitely have put it in the 11's in the 1/4 mile.

Rotational mass is a bitch! I did some quick math when I went from 20s to 18s and it came out to about a 40 horsepower gain. 40 horsepower from going DOWN 2" in wheel size, now imaginge going the other way. Go UP 4" in wheel size, obviously the gains and losses aren't linear but you have to guesstimate about 60-70 horsepower loss in going from stock SS 20s to 24s. Now, factor in that the ZL1 wheels are quite a bit lighter than the SS wheels and that guesstimate goes up to a 70-80 horsepower loss. All this is just performance loss in the acceleration department, the handling performance losses would be catastrophic and if you are not buying the ZL1 for it's handling, you have more $$$ than brains.
Also, tunning also voids your brand new $60k car's warranty.

I'm assuming the 40 HP gain was partly due to the weight savings realized from forged vs. cast wheels?

Other than simply weight, the further the weight is from the center of rotation, the more it effects performance. I've often wondered myself if there is perfect balance of wheel diameter - weight vs. sidewall height... Obviously there is going to be something filling in the gaps - what is heavier - tire or a wheel? How does performance suffer from a taller sidewall? Where is the balance? It seems like a fairly complicated equation if you ask me. Depends on the tire, wheel, and car. I don't think there is one all encompassing answer.

All of this said, I remember a few years back changing from steel to carbon brake rotors on an IndyCar during testing. The carbon rotors saved 8+ lbs per wheel, but did not produce a measurable difference in acceleration. Sometimes you have to dig yourself out of the numbers and look at the overall picture.

[GunnyG]

DO IT!!! I'd go 22's on front.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by IOMZL1

I'm assuming the 40 HP gain was partly due to the weight savings realized from forged vs. cast wheels?

Other than simply weight, the further the weight is from the center of rotation, the more it effects performance. I've often wondered myself if there is perfect balance of wheel diameter - weight vs. sidewall height... Obviously there is going to be something filling in the gaps - what is heavier - tire or a wheel? How does performance suffer from a taller sidewall? Where is the balance? It seems like a fairly complicated equation if you ask me. Depends on the tire, wheel, and car. I don't think there is one all encompassing answer.

All of this said, I remember a few years back changing from steel to carbon brake rotors on an IndyCar during testing. The carbon rotors saved 8+ lbs per wheel, but did not produce a measurable difference in acceleration. Sometimes you have to dig yourself out of the numbers and look at the overall picture.

Generally speaking, to maximize performance you'd want the smallest diameter wheel that will fit over the brakes.

Sidewall ... that gets a bit trickier. A shorter, stiffer sidewall will lead to better handling performance, but this will tend to cost you a bit in a straight line. Tires also protect the wheel, and the thinner the sidewall, the more likely you are to get a damaged wheel from potholes & such.

The brake rotors don't affect the inertia of the wheel very much because they are a fairly small diameter disk with relatively low mass. A wheel has its mass concentrated around the outside (and even more so with a tire), and the wheel & tire are also far heavier than the brake disk. I'm just guessing here, but the reduction in mass in the brakes might have a bigger effect on the unsprung weight (important for handling) than it does on the rotational inertia of the wheel assembly.

[SUX2BU]

Originally Posted by IOMZL1

I'm assuming the 40 HP gain was partly due to the weight savings realized from forged vs. cast wheels?

My Forgestar F14 18s are rotary forged flow formed, which is a fancy term for cast wheels but pressure formed into the final shape so they are a little stronger than regular cast, but still not true forged wheels.

[IOMZL1]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Generally speaking, to maximize performance you'd want the smallest diameter wheel that will fit over the brakes.

Sidewall ... that gets a bit trickier. A shorter, stiffer sidewall will lead to better handling performance, but this will tend to cost you a bit in a straight line. Tires also protect the wheel, and the thinner the sidewall, the more likely you are to get a damaged wheel from potholes & such.

The brake rotors don't affect the inertia of the wheel very much because they are a fairly small diameter disk with relatively low mass. A wheel has its mass concentrated around the outside (and even more so with a tire), and the wheel & tire are also far heavier than the brake disk. I'm just guessing here, but the reduction in mass in the brakes might have a bigger effect on the unsprung weight (important for handling) than it does on the rotational inertia of the wheel assembly.

So let's say you have a wheel made of carbon fiber... Now what is the rule? Still as small as possible?

It is interesting that a larger wheel is sometimes found on the rear of a car when that is actually hurting straight line performance. It would look weird to do a larger wheel up front to handle the usually larger brakes though.

The rotor experiment didn't have the goal of improved acceleration. Either way in racing every pound counts. Agreed about the weight having less effect than a wheel or tire but 8 lbs is still significant.

I remember a guy who had a WS6 and widened his back wheels from 8 to 10 or 11 inches. He dynoed before and after and I think the loss was 2 RWHP.

[SUX2BU]

Originally Posted by IOMZL1

So let's say you have a wheel made of carbon fiber... Now what is the rule? Still as small as possible?

Yes.

[GEEo]

24's on a 5th Gen is stupid IMO.

but it's your car and money so you can do what you want.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by IOMZL1

So let's say you have a wheel made of carbon fiber... Now what is the rule? Still as small as possible?

It is interesting that a larger wheel is sometimes found on the rear of a car when that is actually hurting straight line performance. It would look weird to do a larger wheel up front to handle the usually larger brakes though.

The rotor experiment didn't have the goal of improved acceleration. Either way in racing every pound counts. Agreed about the weight having less effect than a wheel or tire but 8 lbs is still significant.

I remember a guy who had a WS6 and widened his back wheels from 8 to 10 or 11 inches. He dynoed before and after and I think the loss was 2 RWHP.

It applies regardless of the material used. A 24" carbon fibre wheel will still have more inertia than a 16" wheel of the same design, material, & width. The question becomes much more interesting if you're comparing say a 24" CF wheel against 16" steelies that weigh twice as much yet are much, much smaller. You would assume that the lighter wheels are better, but the advantage actually goes to the steelies. Now ... tiny little 16" (wait ... when did 16" wheels become 'tiny'? meh) carbon fibre wheels would be substantially better than either one and take very little power to get spun up

[klatterblast]

Not no but HELL NO !!!

[IOMZL1]

I guess my question wasn’t if a wheel made of the same material would have higher inertia if it is larger and wider…

There are several considerations when picking a wheel / tire combination and one size tire / wheel combination can’t be ideal for all performance aspects. Things to consider would be lateral grip, longitudinal grip, moment of inertia, and overall weight. These aspects will affect launch, braking, acceleration, cornering, steering feel, and suspension response to name a few.

That said, what is the primary goal of the vehicle if there is one, or what is a good balance of performance if there isn’t one? Clearly tires and wheels on a drag car are much different than a road course vehicle. Granted, there will be some predetermined factors affecting the wheel tire choice such as rotor size, vehicle weight, weight distribution, etc..

My other question is best illustrated with a wheel with 0 mass. Clearly the larger the wheel the less mass the wheel / tire combination has for a given tire overall diameter. For a lead wheel, the opposite is true. Now back to our carbon fiber wheel. Is it possible the added diameter of the wheel and reduced sidewall height of the tire produces a wash inertia wise? I think at some point this has to happen but it really depends on the tire and wheel and I think the wider the tire/wheel, the less likely this is to happen.

So – can there really be a hard and fast rule such as the smallest wheel that will fit over the brakes unless all of the above is analyzed? I’m not so sure.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by IOMZL1

I guess my question wasn’t if a wheel made of the same material would have higher inertia if it is larger and wider…

There are several considerations when picking a wheel / tire combination and one size tire / wheel combination can’t be ideal for all performance aspects. Things to consider would be lateral grip, longitudinal grip, moment of inertia, and overall weight. These aspects will affect launch, braking, acceleration, cornering, steering feel, and suspension response to name a few.

That said, what is the primary goal of the vehicle if there is one, or what is a good balance of performance if there isn’t one? Clearly tires and wheels on a drag car are much different than a road course vehicle. Granted, there will be some predetermined factors affecting the wheel tire choice such as rotor size, vehicle weight, weight distribution, etc..

My other question is best illustrated with a wheel with 0 mass. Clearly the larger the wheel the less mass the wheel / tire combination has for a given tire overall diameter. For a lead wheel, the opposite is true. Now back to our carbon fiber wheel. Is it possible the added diameter of the wheel and reduced sidewall height of the tire produces a wash inertia wise? I think at some point this has to happen but it really depends on the tire and wheel and I think the wider the tire/wheel, the less likely this is to happen.

So – can there really be a hard and fast rule such as the smallest wheel that will fit over the brakes unless all of the above is analyzed? I’m not so sure.

I'm not saying 1 specific size is the best for everything, just that the optimal size is whatever is smallest that accommodates whatever it is that you're trying to do. I suppose an inch of carbon fibre rim weighs less than an inch of sidewall, but I don't really see how that matters. Because if a smaller wheel works, and a thinner sidewall works ... best results will come from using a smaller wheel with the thinner sidewall. And if you can get the smaller wheel made out of something like carbon fibre, so much the better. Nothing says that overall diameter needs to be kept at a given size. Afterall, when the goal is maximum performance things like having a larger gap in the wheel arches become secondary.

[collins motorsport]

Why is it that people who don't like large rims try to make those of us who do look like asses? I mean I don't make it a point to tell you that I think you cars with little rims look like they're rolling on donuts to me.

[hognutz]

to me it has nothing to do with upsizing the rim it is doing it without makign the car perform worse. I hate nothing more than watching a 600hp car run high 12's because they have a crappy tire combo.

I really feel ike a Zl1 on 24's with the tires that are out there would lose .5sec in the quater. maybe I am wrong but on my Z06 you get the wrong tire on it and you will struggle and loose et rather fast.

the fact there are no tires out there for 24's and this level of car makes me stand by my statement of 22 no bigger.

I don't understand why you spend on money on performacne to then un-do that with poor choises afterward.

these cars have 20" rims. maybe in the rapper world those are small but there are actually rather large in reality. 20" wheel clears huge brakes.

[IcePick06]

I wouldn't go bigger than 22" just because ZL1 is a high performance car and you want to find a nice balance of looks and performance.

[Revo1]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'm not.

20" is perfect in my eyes. Any smaller and I don't think it fills the wheel-well enough, any bigger and it starts to look "DUB" to me....

[Pappa Joe]

Originally Posted by mcdoogle6969

Is gross.

I concur!

[Pappa Joe]

Originally Posted by collins motorsport

Why is it that people who don't like large rims try to make those of us who do look like asses? I mean I don't make it a point to tell you that I think you cars with little rims look like they're rolling on donuts to me.

There comes a point when its just to big, 20s are perfect. I agree with you on the too small. Those 30s or 35s on that Camaro on U tube just look disgusting, that womans license should be revolked.I personally havent seen anthing more revolting in my life and the scary part is, they think it looks good ! arghhhh!

[blackSSRS]

been thinking of 22's. now that i've seen 24's on the camaro... i actually think 24 is the perfect size rim. and those saying no bigger than 22's were saying no bigger than 20's 5 years ago. its obvious it will hamper performance a little but with 580 hp who gives a sh*t... and i doubt its as much as people make it out to... anyone do a 1/4 mile run with 20's vs 22's vs 24's? i highly doubt its much different than riding with your fat girlfriend/wife in the car....

[SSSylentZL1]

Why in the hell would you put 24's on a ZL1 when it is built to be a performance car. You don't see the mustang retards put 24's on the GT500. Thats just plain stupid, sorry if i offend someone, but wouldnt you want to receive the full performance of the ZL1 that you paid 60k for?? I throw up in my mouth when I see any camaro on anything bigger than 20's because its not made for that. Its a beautiful special edition camaro, please dont mess it up by throwing rims on it.

[The IOM Ninja]

Originally Posted by SSSylentZL1

Why in the hell would you put 24's on a ZL1 when it is built to be a performance car. You don't see the mustang retards put 24's on the GT500. Thats just plain stupid, sorry if i offend someone, but wouldnt you want to receive the full performance of the ZL1 that you paid 60k for?? I throw up in my mouth when I see any camaro on anything bigger than 20's because its not made for that. Its a beautiful special edition camaro, please dont mess it up by throwing rims on it.

Actually the Camaro was built for 22" in the back 21" in the front but other wise I agree

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by The IOM Ninja

Actually the Camaro was built for 22" in the back 21" in the front but other wise I agree

Are you referring to the concept car that couldn't go above 30 or 35 mph?