In the context of handling, road racing, not drag racing. I can start to understand if you have a VERY high-powered rwd car. But is that the best set up for newish BMWs or is it simply a style thing like the Accord I saw this morning?
In the context of handling, road racing, not drag racing. I can start to understand if you have a VERY high-powered rwd car. But is that the best set up for newish BMWs or is it simply a style thing like the Accord I saw this morning?
It rarely makes sense, thus why you see so many staggered --> square conversions in the world of racing (esp. BMWs and Corvettes). I think a lot of the reason cars are sold with this setup is visual.
Some platforms are set up for it, some aren't. FWIW, the BMW "Square conversions" are running the same rear size on the front. 
It's usually to give more traction on high-hp, front engined, RWD cars. With the motor up front, the Corvette for example has plenty of traction over the front meats, but the rears need help hooking up.
In reply to freestyle:
On the Accord, it's a style thing. The stance scene is all about staggered setups. Wide in the rear with insanely low offset.
Looks cool (to me) but function isn't a concern in a setup like that.
Some style, some safety, some basis in weight distribution.
Since 99% of all modern cars exhibit terminal understeer anyway, 99% of all staggered setups are making a bad problem worse.
Sometimes it's done for easier steering effort. On the later C4 Corvette, 255 tires were standard up front while 275 was part of a handling pkg. upgrade.
On the 86-87 Fiero GT, 7" wide wheels used all around, in '88 the fronts narrowed to 6' for reduced steering effort. Adding 7" was a popular upgrade.
On my race car VW GTI I run 225 on frt and 185 on rear. Is that considered staggered or reverse staggered?
Smaller/lighter wheels in the front of the car can also lighten up steering effort, make turn-in more immediate, or just be a factor of limited space through the steering sweep.
On a FWD car they don't make a lot of sense.
Duke wrote: Since 99% of all modern cars exhibit terminal understeer anyway, 99% of all staggered setups are making a bad problem worse.
Exactly. They are really common for Mustangs because you have more room in the rear, so why not fill it up? Looks cool! BUT it makes the problem worse. It can be partially compensated for with aggressive sway bar tuning and such, but I'd much rather run the widest square setup I can as dictated by the front. WHy spend extra effort tuning out a problem you created?
Although it's technically just staggered, I'd go with "reverse staggered" since the semi-current streeeet stylin trenz think nothing of putting wider wheels on the back of an FWD car, and you wouldn't want to be associated with that.
My Civic had 275's on 10's up front and 225's on 7's out back. The reason for my fronts was that it made retarded power and needed the rubber. The reason for the narrower rears was to avoid hitting cones, and to balance the handling. A LOT less weight out back means less need for rubber, and since the rear follows a tighter line than the front, it would be more inclined to clip cones if the track were the same.
the Grand Prix GXP with the V8 had wider tires up front right from the factory.
Sorry, I meant that in terms of style staggering a FWD vehicle doesn't make sense if your putting wider wheels in the back.
But yea, I always liked the idea of a FWD vehicles with wider fronts and narrower rears.
sometimes it's just necessary...
Im surprised by the number of people deriding it in this thread. If you stop assuming normal=right, the extreme ubiquity of square setups becomes pretty strange considering how unevenly distributed the weight, braking, acceleration, and turning demands are between the 4 tires on most cars.
Square setups are the standard for pragmatic and financial reasons, not because they have ANY inherent performance value. They dont! If every enthusiast had an unlimited tire budget and the know-how to take advantage of it, a lot of our cars would probably have 4 different tire sizes on them!
I don't get the hate of all staggered setups either. The fwd with larger rears doesn't make much sense to me though.
If you take a theoretical car with tons of room for more tire...yeah it would be very strange to get the best possible performance out of a square setup. In practice however, your typical factory staggered setup could better be described as "undersized front wheels for no reason. Have fun with maintenance and tuning!"
Vigo wrote: Im surprised by the number of people deriding it in this thread. If you stop assuming normal=right, the extreme ubiquity of square setups becomes pretty strange considering how unevenly distributed the weight, braking, acceleration, and turning demands are between the 4 tires on most cars.
See my post above. Since most cars understeer, there's no reason except the alleged cool factor to put narrower tires on the front.
If your car doesn't understeer (or you're a drag racer), and you need wider stuff out back to get the power down, then by all means, have at it with my blessing. But that only describes about 1% of the cars out there.
And it describes 0% of the FWD cars seen running wider rears. Much hate, no love. Narrower rears for balance on an FWD setup? Much love, no hate.
Vigo wrote: Im surprised by the number of people deriding it in this thread. If you stop assuming normal=right, the extreme ubiquity of square setups becomes pretty strange considering how unevenly distributed the weight, braking, acceleration, and turning demands are between the 4 tires on most cars. Square setups are the standard for pragmatic and financial reasons, not because they have ANY inherent performance value. They dont! If every enthusiast had an unlimited tire budget and the know-how to take advantage of it, a lot of our cars would probably have 4 different tire sizes on them!
Agreed. My thinking is that BMW wouldn't have done it on my car unless there was a reason. Who am I to question BMW?
Vigo wrote: Im surprised by the number of people deriding it in this thread. If you stop assuming normal=right, the extreme ubiquity of square setups becomes pretty strange considering how unevenly distributed the weight, braking, acceleration, and turning demands are between the 4 tires on most cars. Square setups are the standard for pragmatic and financial reasons, not because they have ANY inherent performance value. They dont! If every enthusiast had an unlimited tire budget and the know-how to take advantage of it, a lot of our cars would probably have 4 different tire sizes on them!
Not sure if trolling or ...........
Duke wrote: If your car doesn't understeer (or you're a drag racer), and you need wider stuff out back to get the power down, then by all means, have at it with my blessing. But that only describes about 1% of the cars out there.
That does describe about 99% of V8/RWD cars though. Even though a stock 04-06 GTO understeers on the 245's, it oversteers worse. 275's on the back help a lot.
bravenrace wrote: Agreed. My thinking is that BMW wouldn't have done it on my car unless there was a reason. Who am I to question BMW?
Before you throw yourself on their mercy, understand that both lawyers and marketing departments have direct design input at car companies, not just engineers.
Witness the 20" wheels on the new Camaro, which are widely regarded to noticeably compromise both handling and ride.
Duke wrote:bravenrace wrote: Agreed. My thinking is that BMW wouldn't have done it on my car unless there was a reason. Who am I to question BMW?Before you throw yourself on their mercy, understand that both lawyers and marketing departments have direct design input at car companies. Witness the 20" wheels on the new Camaro, which are widely regarded to noticeably compromise both handling and ride.
Or that even between the '95 and '96 M3 they went from non-staggered to staggered.
Or that the new 420HP Mustangs are square while being front heavy?
Or that Vette's are staggered while also being front heavy?
You'll need to log in to post.
