245/60/14s on 82 Celica GT

[jp2weloveyou]

I have put the BFG Radial T/As on the rear already, 245/60/14, fit just fine. I know I've seen people using the 235/60s, but has anyone had any problems with any rubbing or anything with the 245/60s? These are the only halfway decent tires i could find for these cars anymore. $120 each special order with Wal-Mart. I work there, get 10% off and get my choice of who I want working on my car, and I only trust a couple of them where I work. But anyways, anyone have any issues with rubbing? I can switch the rear to front and turn them lock to lock and all, but that doesn't exactly compare to real driving conditions, now, does it?

BTW, the vehicle does have factory fender flares, pics available if you need them.

[zank]

I use to have 235-60-14 up front with stock suspension and no rubbing issues
and on the rears I had 245-60-14 on stock suspension with no rubbing issues. They were also BFG's, but these were on a supra.

the only issue I had was that my speedo was off by a bit.

[83CelWA]

215/60-14 is a better choice of tire than a 245/60-14. Plus the fact that the stock tire size for a GT was 185/70-14. Also there is a point in time that too wide of a tire and too tall of a tire, and you are losing traction.

[jp2weloveyou]

83CelWA, you're used to an '83 i take it, so I'll forgive the oversight, but unfortunately, this car is stickered in the glovebox as being a celica supra, which means stock was 225/60HR14, even though it has a 22r, still stickered as a Celica Supra, go figure. As far as losing traction, not really because the T/As have a soft compound for enhanced traction. They look good under the car, and I think if someone can use a 235 with no rubbing issues, a 245 isn't much different, and I think that I have seen people using 245 online with no rubbing issues. Also, i chose this size because it MAKES my speedo correct, I had some issues with it somehow, and going with the larger size has fixed the incorrect speedo, for the most part, I'm now about .5 over at 60, instead of 7 under, old size was 195/60/14

Zank - supra that you have a pic of in your signature is the same body, different headlights, hood, and rear hatch, but same body panels otherwise, including the fender flares, so now I don't have to post a pic for people

[83CelWA]

If it is not a GT-S or a Supra, it is a GT which means that it uses 185/70-14's. Now either you have a Supra, or a Celica, if it is a Supra, it is not a GT since they did not come in GT form, only L and P type. If you also look at that glovebox sticker a little closer, you will see they provide more than one tire size since this was pretty much a default Celica/Supra sticker.

Also it makes no difference be it between a 82-85, an ST is an ST, a GT is a GT, and a GT-S is a GT-S. Now there is the "special" '82 GT-S that got everything the 83+ GT-S' got, but will still and SRA. Also all GT-S' were badged as a GT until '84.

You seem new to the Celica's, so I will forgive the oversight.

[jp2weloveyou]

ya know, it's not worth the argument, I have the Supra wheels, i know what I need, and I don't need to explain myself or how well I know my car, because I do know my way around cars, if I didn't, I wouldn't own this car, i'd be driving a Honda.

[triggerman]

I had an 83 Celica GT completely stock and untouched (original paint and stickers) and it had flares and IRS. I think that some of these were labeled GT. My parts catalogue shows a GT sticker on the back for both a GT and GT-S (still dont know why they wouldnt properly label there cars). Even ask mark at Vancouver Toyota. He probably does have the 14x7 supra wheels on it like mine did. I ran a 225-70-14 and had some rub issues on potholes while turning

[83CelWA]

I had an 83 Celica GT completely stock and untouched (original paint and stickers) and it had flares and IRS. I think that some of these were labeled GT.

Ahem.........


Also all GT-S' were badged as a GT until '84.



I ran a 225-70-14 and had some rub issues on potholes while turning

That was probably due to that a 225/70 is quite a bit larger than a 225/60, it is 45.22mm larger in diameter, and the sidewall is 22.61mm taller.


ya know, it's not worth the argument, I have the Supra wheels, i know what I need, and I don't need to explain myself or how well I know my car, because I do know my way around cars, if I didn't, I wouldn't own this car, i'd be driving a Honda.

I am not arguing, I have been dealing with the Celica's for the past 8 years so I also know my way around the Celica thing also. Are you the original owner of the Celica, can you guarantee that they were the stock rims? One way to tell is do you have fiberglass fender flairs? Or is it just a small flare that is part of the fender?

[jp2weloveyou]

as far as I can tell they are stock rims, I am the 4th owner, and every receipt for tires, with the exception of one from the previous owner, are 225/60/14, I think I've seen as far back as '85 for tires. I even have original purchase receipt, and the fender flares are the same as any other that had the optional(might have been stock, can't remember from my research) fender flares. The '82 ST, however, DID have 185/70s as stock size, and as for triggerman with the 225/70s, those are much taller so it wouldn't surprise me if you had rubbing on potholes. And as for you arguing, the touch at the end about me being new to celicas so you'll forgive the oversight was a bit assanine, you could of just let it drop and corrected my newbie mistake, without being an ass. There were no GT-S '82s, that wasn't an available trim, that started in '83, but was not badged as such until '84

[83CelWA]

Hmm, so if I read that correctly, you have the fiberglass fender flares?

If so, do not let go of that Celica. It is not a GT, it is actually a GT-S, but unlike the 83+ it has the SRA with the ability to run wider tires. If you look at your VIN, it should say RA65 in there, the GT was is a RA64. And there was an 82 GT that was just the GT, which is where my disconnect was since it had no fiberglass flares, SRA, not so great seats (compared to the GT-S/Supra) and ran the 185/70 tires since it just had steel rims with beauty rings on them.


the touch at the end about me being new to celicas so you'll forgive the oversight was a bit assanine, you could of just let it drop and corrected my newbie mistake, without being an ass. There were no GT-S '82s, that wasn't an available trim, that started in '83, but was not badged as such until '84

I was only quoting you on the "forgive the oversight" bit, if you think it is assanine, remember you brought it out of the bag first.

Also there was a GT-S option in '82 but it was techinically called the GT Sport package, and that is how it got the flares, rims and seats off of the Supra/later style GT-S, there was still just the GT version in '82 with no flares, steel rims, and "normal" seats.

Also if you will stay here long enough, or look at celica-gts.com, you will see that it is not easy for me not to be an ass, I never mean harm by it though.

[jp2weloveyou]

just found out suspension was replace in '01, carb rebuilt in '96 (at least, the receipts I saw, there's a ton more in there though, lol), VIN says RA64, would it help you any to tell you it's a California car? LOL, i hate that emissions crap in there. The seats have the adjustable side bolsters, lumbar support, all that. So maybe mine's just unique, lol.

[83CelWA]

Yeah, it's unique. Sorry for the cross communication. So what carb are you running on it, or plan on running? And since you are in WA, you can get rid of the emissions crap and save some weight and sometimes the engine will even run better since most of the EGR stuff gets clogged.

[jp2weloveyou]

Actually, when I did the engine rebuild, I cleaned all the EGR stuff, just because I didn't want to deal with it at the time. If I'm gonna deal with it, it'll be because I'm putting a Weber on. The carb on now is the stock California carb, I haven't done much research into what model or manufacturer or anything, just the standard 2 barrel, but i have an intake with carb from a non-california model, and I can see a few differences, some subtle, some not so subtle, don't remember them all as I haven't seen the two side by side in forever. Since April when I did rebuild.

[jp2weloveyou]

Also, when I did the rebuild, I eliminated the air injection line on the top of the exhaust manifold, and plugged the holes, it's been a fun one, so now I just wanna pull the A/C off (don't use it, and don't want it), and the air pump, which pisses me off all the time because the hoses off the air pump sit on top of the oil filter, and I have to reach around the oil pressure sending unit AND motor mount AND air pump AND whatever is on the backside of the oil filter since I can't remember because I can't access oil filter from that side, mostly crossmember there thought, PLUS all the hoses and intake on top of the oil filter so you can't even see it or reach it from above. Oil changes are always so fun in this car.

[kmfdmk]

We should hang out. I live in Vancouver, just off of 500 & Andresen. My buddy James lives down off Mill Plain. Between my wife & I we have 4 85 P-type Celica Supras! (but one is in Ohio)

And I used to have an 84 Celica GT, I fit 245-60-14's on it no problem, no rubbing.

83CelWA, care to elaborate on how increased surface area (on dry surfraces) can decrease traction? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Chris Sullins(STIX)]

83CelWA, care to elaborate on how increased surface area (on dry surfraces) can decrease traction? Inquiring minds want to know.

:buttkick:LOL!!:owned:

[83CelWA]

83CelWA, care to elaborate on how increased surface area (on dry surfraces) can decrease traction? Inquiring minds want to know.

When you go from a 225/60 to a 245/60, you will could likely introduce tire roll/tuck.

Also doing a little digging around I kept finding this over and over again:
"A larger contact patch causes less friction force per unit area, which means less shearing on the rubber. This shearing force causes the tire to deform and lose true contact with the road and/or lose rubber."

[jp2weloveyou]

"A larger contact patch causes less friction force per unit area, which means less shearing on the rubber. This shearing force causes the tire to deform and lose true contact with the road and/or lose rubber."

HMMMMMMMMM......... AH! I see, take this as two seperate things:

"A larger contact patch causes less friction force per unit area, which means less shearing on the rubber"

This portion says that there is less friction on any ONE area, which means less wear, friction is the enemy of rubber, as this would seem to state - more shearing, more wear.

"This shearing force causes the tire to deform and lose true contact with the road and/or lose rubber"

This says that the tire shearing causes the loss in traction, but since the above statement says a larger contact patch reduces shearing, you are, in fact, gaining traction.

Easy to misinterpret though, it is saying one thing, and making it seem like you're losing traction, when it is, in fact, saying the opposite. Now then though, if a larger tired ends up DECREASING your contact patch, you WOULD lose traction, however, a 245/60 compared to a 225/60, there is the extra width, and only slightly more hight, you shorten the contact patch, but you gain more on width, making cornering stability better, while decreasing straight line traction (think hydroplaning). So in essence, the wider tires are more beastly looking, but will be more prone to hydroplaning.

kmfdmk, I live in Washougal, you can shoot me a pm with a cell number and I could text. And thanks so much for the info on 245s, i take it you fit those on the front as well?

I'll post some pics here once I get the tires on, let you guys see how nice they look on there. Should be able to get them in two weeks time.

[83CelWA]

Yes, we are still waiting on pictures.:naughty:

[jjbenzo]

I had 245-60-14's on my first Supra with no rubbing.

[jp2weloveyou]

thanks guys!! I have been in debates with "tire techs" about this for quite some time, and am about ready to challenge them to pay for my tires if they don't rub

[Cap'n 2jz]

post pics when you get them!

[jp2weloveyou]

Been working on it. Finally have a day off, so now I can catch up on all the things I haven't been able to do while I've been working my ass off at work or the gym.

[CarFreek]

a 245/60 compared to a 225/60, there is the extra width, and only slightly more hight, you shorten the contact patch, but you gain more on width, making cornering stability better, while decreasing straight line traction (think hydroplaning).Ask anyone who has run 225/60 vs 235/60 vs 245/60 on stock 14x7 inch rims(as I have), and they will tell you that the sidewall height is NOT an insignificant difference. There is an extra inch of height on the same rim, plus the now too small rim creates a "non-optimal" sidewall profile-The rim will move around more inside the tire with the larger sidewalls at the sharper angle. This can take some getting used to...... I like the fatty look, which is why I ran em before. But not a handling upgrade without a rim width increase, In my experience. I now run 225/50-15s on a 15x8 rim.

[jp2weloveyou]

I'm thinking of some day going for something around a 245/45/17 or something like that. something close to stock size, just bigger wheels.

[jp2weloveyou]

Test fit the 245s up front today, looks like no problems with binding, and MAYBE might hit some issues at a full lock turn while hard cornering, but not likely to rub at all.

[jp2weloveyou]

let's try for those pics again

Pitiful 195/60/14s up front:
http://s348.photobucket.com/albums/q334/jp2_we_love_you/Car/?action=view&current=IMG_0012_edited.jpg

Beastly 245/60/14s in rear:
http://s348.photobucket.com/albums/q334/jp2_we_love_you/Car/?action=view&current=IMG_0008_edited.jpg

Rear view of 245/60/14s:
http://s348.photobucket.com/albums/q334/jp2_we_love_you/Car/?action=view&current=IMG_0005_edited.jpg

[jp2weloveyou]

Update:

Bonus has been delayed a pay period at work, so the tires are gonna have to wait an additional two week for them.

[84supra74vette]

ive four 245/60-14 and of course, its beautiful.

sometime, these are losing traction onto water.

[jp2weloveyou]

well, thanks to lack of funds, I had to cancel getting them on front. So just the rears. Maybe something cheaper up front when the need arises