265/40 on 19x10?

[Condor1970]

I have searched, and searched, and searched, and... well, you get the idea. It seems absolutely no one has ever run 265/40's on a 19x10 rim for the Mustang. A few 19x9.5's (like RTR Tech-7), but not the 19x10.

What I find interesting, is arguably a slightly stretched 265/40 will actually provide better handling. And I don't mean stretched like some ridiculous pimp-mobile. But instead, stretched by only a 1/2" over recommended width. I started a thread about stretched tires a while ago, but still no takers on trying a 265 stretched tire.
I've talked to some guys who track Porsche Caymans, and they all agree that with the stock 19x10 rims on the Cayman, the 265/40 stretched actually seems to handle the best compared to the 275/40's they tried in the past. All I can figure, is something about a very slight sidewall angle provides more tightness and support when cornering quickly....along with an arguably better contact patch. Not sure how that works though.
In fact, all Formula-1 cars have stretched tires for the given rim width by a good 1-2" on each side. This obviously is in the design to assist in handling to prevent excessive sidewall collapse when cornering.

Heck, i figure, if it's good enough for the Porsche Cayman, then maybe it's good enough for a Mustang. I think I may try this setup for my R350's.

Has anyone else even thought about giving this a shot with the S550?

Pic below is a Cayman with Flow Form 19x10 running 265/40/19

Sponsored

 

[wcharon]

Interested as well. I am thinking going wit 40 also as the streets over here are not fun to ride.

 

[BmacIL]

Well you're not wrong about what it does. That said, a wider, properly fitted tire is better for a heavy car like the Mustang. It will have higher load capacity, and that means you can and should run less air pressure, gaining a larger contact patch (otherwise it just changes shape and doesn't grow). 285/35R19 on a 10" is typically an excellent fit and is in the middle of the rim width range.

 

[Condor1970]

Well you're not wrong about what it does. That said, a wider, properly fitted tire is better for a heavy car like the Mustang. It will have higher load capacity, and that means you can and should run less air pressure, gaining a larger contact patch (otherwise it just changes shape and doesn't grow). 285/35R19 on a 10" is typically an excellent fit and is in the middle of the rim width range.

But would going with say a 285 vs a 265 provide better all-weather performance as well? I think it's pretty well known that overall performance in heavy rain and snow is almost always better when running a slightly more narrow tire for more pressure to be applied to a given area of contact. Hydro-planing is a perfect example of how a 255 tire will almost always provide better performance on wet roads than a 285.
If you live anywhere but the Southwest, one would think something under 285 may be a smarter option, with similar dry road performance, yet superior safety.

If I can find that video again of some Aussie guy testing BMW's with 225, 255, and 285 tires again, I will. Granted he was testing with a BMW 320, with a curb weight of about 3,300lbs, but he showed undeniably that on anything other than dry roads, the 225 and 255 tires were not only safer, but provided better lap times and handling.

 

[BmacIL]

But would going with say a 285 vs a 265 provide better all-weather performance as well? I think it's pretty well known that overall performance in heavy rain and snow is almost always better when running a slightly more narrow tire for more pressure to be applied to a given area of contact. Hydro-planing is a perfect example of how a 255 tire will almost always provide better performance on wet roads than a 285.
If you live anywhere but the Southwest, one would think something under 285 may be a smarter option, with similar dry road performance, yet superior safety.

If I can find that video again of some Aussie guy testing BMW's with 225, 255, and 285 tires again, I will. Granted he was testing with a BMW 320, with a curb weight of about 3,300lbs, but he showed undeniably that on anything other than dry roads, the 225 and 255 tires were not only safer, but provided better lap times and handling.

Yeah that's definitely true regarding snow, a bit less so but valid nonetheless with rain. That said, with the right tire it's not an issue. All seasons?

 

[Condor1970]

Yeah that's definitely true regarding snow, a bit less so but valid nonetheless with rain. That said, with the right tire it's not an issue. All seasons?

Yeah, that's the plan. I have 19x10's, and was seriously on track to getting the Conti DWS-06's in 285/35. However, after seeing that video, I had remind myself that I DD my car here in the Seattle area. Here, the weather is only like SoCal 3 months of the year, so my view is changing. I keep thinking I should really consider sticking with the Michelin AS/3+ in 265/40 now.

Along with that, I think the 265/40 with a slight stretch and a 1" Steeda drop, might really provide the aesthetics I'm looking for, yet keep the best performance I need for this environment.

Found the video. I posted this in another thread too.

 

[Roadway 5.0]

A lot depends on which tire you choose. All 265s/40s are not the same width/fit even though math hints that they should.

Regardless, I would not go below a 275 on a 10” wheel. The stretch is perfect for steering feel/performance but isn’t so much that you’ll have issues.

 

[BmacIL]

Yeah, that's the plan. I have 19x10's, and was seriously on track to getting the Conti DWS-06's in 285/35. However, after seeing that video, I had remind myself that I DD my car here in the Seattle area. Here, the weather is only like SoCal 3 months of the year, so my view is changing. I keep thinking I should really consider sticking with the Michelin AS/3+ in 265/40 now.

Along with that, I think the 265/40 with a slight stretch and a 1" Steeda drop, might really provide the aesthetics I'm looking for, yet keep the best performance I need for this environment.

The Conti need more stretch too, as they are a bit soft sidewall. Personally I'd get the Michelin between the two. Another option is the Pirelli Pzero A/S Plus (not the horrible Pzero Nero). It's tested very well by Tire Rack.

 

[Condor1970]

The Conti need more stretch too, as they are a bit soft sidewall. Personally I'd get the Michelin between the two. Another option is the Pirelli Pzero A/S Plus (not the horrible Pzero Nero). It's tested very well by Tire Rack.

P-Zero Nero came stock on my car in 235's. In snow, they are "almost" useless. We got a terrible snow storm this winter, and if I hadn't grown up in Wisconsin knowing how to drive in snow, my life would have been.... well, fml. But I got home, none the less. I was really thinking about how much better my drive would have been if I had gotten the 265/40 Michelin AS3's instead.

 

[BmacIL]

P-Zero Nero came stock on my car in 235's. In snow, they are "almost" useless. We got a terrible snow storm this winter, and if I hadn't grown up in Wisconsin knowing how to drive in snow, my life would have been.... well, fml. But I got home, none the less. I was really thinking about how much better my drive would have been if I had gotten the 265/40 Michelin AS3's instead.

This is basically a perfect fit for handling. See specs. Tread width is just about half an inch under the rim width.

 

[Condor1970]

This is basically a perfect fit for handling. See specs. Tread width is just about half an inch under the rim width.

Add to the fact that in that video, that guy got his best performance lap times on the wet track using the 255's squared up with a 3,300lbs car.

So, I'm thinking 265's squared on a 3,720lbs car will be just about perfect for handling in rain, which of course we get A LOT of here in the Seattle area.

Sponsored