[olrocker]

They were intent on getting the absolute best numbers on the track and at Nurburgring they could. I’m sure they tried a bunch of configurations and this one worked the best.

Don’t forget, one rear axle is slightly smaller in diameter than the other, for as perfect weight balance as possible with the driver, and they weighed all the parts in the car in grams instead of American pounds and ounces in order to get some really precise weights on parts.

[Vtor_ZL1]

Not all models were staggered, lower spec stuff was same all around. Around 30mm offset at 8.5 in ch wide and variety of wheel diameters.


You can only go do wide evenly before you run out of room (strut) so add wider fenders. From there... it's how wide can you go for lowest cost.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

They were intent on getting the absolute best numbers on the track and at Nurburgring they could. I’m sure they tried a bunch of configurations and this one worked the best.

Don’t forget, one rear axle is slightly smaller in diameter than the other, for as perfect weight balance as possible with the driver, and they weighed all the parts in the car in grams instead of American pounds and ounces in order to get some really precise weights on parts.

FWIW - all GM vehicle programs track component weight in grams. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Vtor_ZL1

Not all models were staggered, lower spec stuff was same all around. Around 30mm offset at 8.5 in ch wide and variety of wheel diameters.


You can only go do wide evenly before you run out of room (strut) so add wider fenders. From there... it's how wide can you go for lowest cost.

This is a good point, space is always at a premium up front and in general you can go a lot wider in the rear with no obstructions from a design standpoint. Everything is a compromise. That they put 255s on the rear V8 cars like Mustangs and now LT1s is criminal. Up front on my stinger I managed to fit 255s, but that's it, you are out of space and nothing wider will fit. Luckily they designed the C6 Camaro from the beginning with the space needed to run some real wide front rubber.

I've been playing around with 295s up front on my Camaro and I don't think I'd do it again if I had a choice, I did not due to availability, but the car seemed a bit better balanced with the 285. That could also be due to sidewall flex though, which will be more with the fatter tire without a fatter rim to support it (racing).

[DorsoDuroJohn]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Cause big fat rear tires look really cool?

THIS is the only explanation that works in my head! preach!

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

FWIW - all GM vehicle programs track component weight in grams. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

Ok, I just remember watching an interview with Ed Welbourne before the debut of the 6th Gen with touting how precise they measured every component for the Alpha chassis in grams. I didn’t know it was common for GM by then.

[olrocker]

If you guys remember the last generation Pontiac Bonneville GXP with the Northstar V8, it actually had wider FRONT tires

[sr71bb]

Originally Posted by VR Baron

All else same with suspension, stagger increases understeer, which mfgs like so people won’t tail first into a wall as understeer easier for Joe average to control on the street.

I think VR has this EXACTLY correct. I vividly remember in the 70's and 80's when the best handling production cars in the world were Porsches. They ALSO had staggered tires BUT the factory designed those cars to be almost NEUTRAL as far as handling goes.

At the time they were the best handling cars in the world BUT in the hands of an inexperienced driver they could be deadly because they give VERY little feedback in terms of understeer that you were at the EDGE of losing control of the car. The old WHALE TAIL 911 for example was a great handling car but it gave you VERY little time to correct if you pushed it over the handling limits.

Personally I like neutral handing cars and I run always square tire/wheel setups because I am convinced they are faster than staggered setups. The car is able to transfer its weight easier when cornering at the limits. Of course it is easier to run a non-staggered set up if the car is more balanced front to rear in terms of its weight. An SS for example is easier to run a square setup on when compared to a ZL1 because of the extra 150-200 pounds front end weight that the Zl1 lugs around with it (I have had both).

I think POWER levels as well as how you get to that power level applies here as well. MY car is NA with a 416 stroker engine and it has MORE HP than my ZL1 1LE had. BUT, the car being naturally aspirated does NOT have as much torque as my ZL1 !LE had. PLUS, my SS has a smoother power band than my ZL1 had. With the torque coming on MUCH faster with my ZL1, traction was always an issue so the widest tires possible were beneficial in terms of traction. 325's here are almost a necessity and since the widest you can generally run on the front is 305's, then a staggered setup is ALMOST a necessity on the ZL1 to compensate for the increased torque of the supercharger set up.

The bottom line though is I think GM got it right by building in some understeer because it does make safer for the majority of drivers in terms of more predictable handling.

[NashZL1]

So you can go through a set of rear tires in 4,500 miles, with only 80 of those track miles.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by NashZL1

So you can go through a set of rear tires in 4,500 miles, with only 80 of those track miles.

Some car companies actually put warning stickers on the windows advising that the tires could wear out before 15,000 miles just so owners aren't "surprised" when they see no tread left on their garage queen with only 8900 miles.

[Iconic]

Originally Posted by NashZL1

So you can go through a set of rear tires in 4,500 miles, with only 80 of those track miles.

I generaly don't stutut... stutut... stutter, but kee kee riste that is CRAYZAY

[Jus Cruisin]

Originally Posted by CalgaryZL1

Have you ever seen a tractor with the same big fat tires in the front? Torque torque torque

Yep, my father in law had one of these.

And yep big and littles are cool. My old Chevy II

[WhiteMale]

A push will effectively slow you down in a corner while it too works to not have the rear end come out on you. I hate a Front end push, I'd rather have the rear end loose to an extent. I saw it on my otherwise stock 1LE, just a tire change from the SC3 and I tried a set of Conti ECS and my car pushed really heavy on the front with those tires, it wouldn't take a turn at speed like the SC3 would. Plus it took the tire a split second to seemingly roll over or find it's bite which was still not nearly as good as the SC3.

[Crushin_LT1]

Originally Posted by olrocker

If you guys remember the last generation Pontiac Bonneville GXP with the Northstar V8, it actually had wider FRONT tires

They wanted oversteer.