PP2 real life pictures

[NIXPP2]

http://imgur.com/gallery/cD4EHia
She's on the way from Tennessee to Cali, I can barely contain myself. I'm coming from a 2010 335i that I love and have made into a incredibly balanced, capable, (and believe it or not) reliable canyon carver, but couldn't resist the PP2s I was seeing online. Delivery should be before or in 6/26. I may die in anticipation before then...

 

[saleen367]

http://imgur.com/gallery/cD4EHia
She's on the way from Tennessee to Cali, I can barely contain myself. I'm coming from a 2010 335i that I love and have made into a incredibly balanced, capable, (and believe it or not) reliable canyon carver, but couldn't resist the PP2s I was seeing online. Delivery should be before or in 6/26. I may die in anticipation before then...

You'll love it. Be sure to check it over when it arrives. The transport drivers tend to scratch up the rockers getting in and out if they aren't careful.

 

[gismo4]

http://imgur.com/gallery/cD4EHia

They delivered it with the front splitter on? Interesting. Enjoy the ride! Looks great!

 

[NIXPP2]

Scheduled delivery is by 6/26, I'm guessing it will be here this Sunday or sooner. At least I hope . The splitter is on, luckily I've been lurking here for the last few months and saw the possible issues. I had the kid at the dealership in Tennessee tell the driver and they made sure it went in without scraping. I'll be there at drop off and make sure of the same. I'm out of state right now and probably already have 10 boxes delivered that my neighbor's been putting in the garage for me. Already buying mods for a car I've never even seen in person . This could get ugly....

 

[gbgreen]

Be careful with Load Index comparisons, because there's more than one Load Index table, and they don't "line up" with each other.

IOW, a Load Index 97 in SL (Standard Load) compares to Load Index 101 in XL for rated load at the same inflation psi up to 36 psi. Not 97 SL ==> 97 XL like you might first think. It's only for inflation pressures beyond 36 that the 101 XL picks up any more rated load.

Working with the tables, you can adjust inflation pressures over a small range to at least match your car's rated load at the placard psi number(s). I do have the SL and XL tables (and a spreadsheet that takes the grunt-work out the lookups).

That's for rated load purposes, which you can take as a starting point for any psi tuning for handling, same as you would with the OE tires and OE inflation pressures.


Norm

Thanks Norm, I wasn't aware of that.
Any feedback regarding Prokiller's setup being "pinched" vs. "Stretched"?

 

[Norm Peterson]

Thanks Norm, I wasn't aware of that.

Don't feel bad or left out. Most people - including most people who call themselves 'car enthusiasts' - aren't aware of these things either.

Any feedback regarding Prokiller's setup being "pinched" vs. "Stretched"?

Using "measuring width" as the basis, 305/30's on 10.5" and 325/30's on 11's are slightly pinched at 1/2" narrower than their respective "measuring" width wheels (front and rear both).


Norm

 

[H@mmer]

Be careful with Load Index comparisons, because there's more than one Load Index table, and they don't "line up" with each other.

IOW, a Load Index 97 in SL (Standard Load) compares to Load Index 101 in XL for rated load at the same inflation psi up to 36 psi. Not 97 SL ==> 97 XL like you might first think. It's only for inflation pressures beyond 36 that the 101 XL picks up any more rated load.

Working with the tables, you can adjust inflation pressures over a small range to at least match your car's rated load at the placard psi number(s). I do have the SL and XL tables (and a spreadsheet that takes the grunt-work out the lookups).

That's for rated load purposes, which you can take as a starting point for any psi tuning for handling, same as you would with the OE tires and OE inflation pressures.


Norm

Is there anyway you could throw your tables together in a google docs spreadsheet and post it for us to download and use?

 

[Silver Bullitt]

Using "measuring width" as the basis, 305/30's on 10.5" and 325/30's on 11's are slightly pinched at 1/2" narrower than their respective "measuring" width wheels (front and rear both).


Norm

Correct. Measuring width for 10.5" is 295, and for 11" is 305. That's why I was initially going to go 295's front and 305's rear until my car showed up a week early and I didn't want to wait a week for the 295's.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Is there anyway you could throw your tables together in a google docs spreadsheet and post it for us to download and use?

I'm afraid this is the best I can do without having to spend a ton of time trying to convert a multi-sheet workbook down to a format I have zero experience with (and no idea how to protect against inadvertent changes).

But it ought to cover most cases anybody here is likely to come across. Red arrows show the new pressures required going from some original size and inflation. It's available in my "Tech Stuff" album here at M6G, if it's possible for people to see other peoples' albums.

Note that I have not included any Light Load (LL) information, and I know that some years and models of Mustangs have used LL tires as OE (IIRC the later years of GT500 with Goodyear Supercar G:2 tires was one such case). I've been given the impression that there may not be the kind of uniformity with LL as there is with SL and XL. Nothing is simple here.

Norm

 

[c-rizzle]

I like my tires to be a little wider than rim to offer a little extra protection from curb rash.

I think the stock set up 305 on both is probably perfect. The pinched front is probably better for handling the turns, allowing more flex to prevent understeer with the heavy front end. The more straight profile on the rear is probably better for acceleration and to keep the rear tires from flexing in turns and over steering.

You do realize that ford did a ton of track testing before they released this car!!! These are the best wheels Ford engineers could put on the car... with no BS compromising for the street. I mean look at the tires they picked. The only thing that they offer better is the GT350R wheel/tire combo.

The only thing I'd consider doing (if I had a PP2) is getting lighter wheels with similar ET's in same size.

 

[Grimace427]

I think the stock set up 305 on both is probably perfect. The pinched front is probably better for handling the turns, allowing more flex to prevent understeer with the heavy front end. The more straight profile on the rear is probably better for acceleration and to keep the rear tires from flexing in turns and over steering.

IIRC the rear wheels are wider than the front meaning the rear tires have a bit more stretch than the fronts.

 

[fstenuf]

https://www.walmart.com/ip/305-30-19-HANKOOK-VENTUS-V12-EVO-2-K120-102Y-BW-Tires/43079220

Does anyone have an opinion on these tires?

 

[Silver Bullitt]

https://www.walmart.com/ip/305-30-19-HANKOOK-VENTUS-V12-EVO-2-K120-102Y-BW-Tires/43079220

Does anyone have an opinion on these tires?

I ran a set of these on my GTO. For the price, they are a pretty good value tire. They are really good through the first 1/3 tread life. Then they start to lose a little dry grip and get rather loud. Wet grip is not the best, but they will get you by. Sidewalls also seem to be a little on the softer side. I considered them for the Mustang just because of the price point, but opted for Bridgestone Potenza S-04 Pole Positions instead. I'm very happy with the Bridgestones so far and would rate them above the Hankooks. I'd expect 30K miles out of either tire, but I'm hoping the last 15K is a little better from the Bridgestones. Time will tell. Tires typically seem to be one of those "you get what you pay for" items.

 

[NIXPP2]

I've run through 2 sets of the v12's on my 335i, different animal, but for that price they would be really hard to beat. I should take delivery of my car by the end of the weekend, I may have to get some on the way. Lots of rain in NorCal though fall and winter.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I think the stock set up 305 on both is probably perfect. The pinched front is probably better for handling the turns, allowing more flex to prevent understeer with the heavy front end.

I suspect what's happening is that behavior with the pinched setup up front is slightly more understeerish with slightly more progressive breakaway chracteristics. Progressive implies predictable (a good thing for less experienced drivers and quite possibly a better deal for AdvanceTrac as well). While a 'pinched' setup could possibly achieve a minutely higher peak lateral g figure with OE alignment specs, it will have slightly softer turn-in and slightly less steering precision. Ford probably has to assume that many (most?) customers would not be up to the task of dealing with the sharpest response they could have dialed into the car.

The flip side is that a stretched setup typically demands more in terms of roll control and alignment settings.

The more straight profile on the rear is probably better for acceleration and to keep the rear tires from flexing in turns and over steering.

Here I think the aim with the OE tire size is to make the rear naturally want to run at slightly smaller slip angles than if the wheel width sizing was 'square' as well. Understeer can be defined as front slip angle minus rear slip angle, and for most driving (other than drifting and similar hooning) the bigger the front vs rear difference the heavier the understeer. We're not talking about adding agricultural implement amounts of understeer here, just another little "percentage play" to help keep drivers out of tail-happy.

You do realize that ford did a ton of track testing before they released this car!!! These are the best wheels Ford engineers could put on the car... with no BS compromising for the street.

Be careful. Ford has to make compromises in order to satisfy internal standards regarding many aspects involving wheel and tire behavior. Understeer budget is only one.


Norm