The tires can be a lot of the difference. Without going way OT into a
tire debate, let me say how much I love Bridgestone S02s. Good wet/dry
grip, gradual transition from stick to slide. The new S03s are
supposedly similar, and available in many more popular sizes than the
S02s.
Another difference might be that the Saab wasn't quite as nose-heavy as
the Civic and the bias might not be set right. My CRX locked up the
rears very easily under braking because the rear was so light. You
could relocate the battery to the trunk, or maybe install some big
subwoofers to add some weight to the rear. <g> I used Performance
Friction (forget the model) pads up front and left the rears with the
stock shoes and that balanced things a bit better.
One case where weight and width are related is on a race tire that needs
to get up to a certain temperature. A really light car without much
downforce might not be able to get a wide tire hot enough to stick well.
In that case, a hot narrow tire might be better. Also the WRC folks use
motorcycle-width tires in deep snow, maybe there's some kind of rudder
effect, or maybe sinking into the snow a bit is good as long as you have
enough ground clearance.
-----Original Message-----
It definitely depends on what you are doing, but in general there's no
hard relation between tire width and car weight. _If_ everything else
is equal, then narrow tires do have an advantage in some limited
situations, like moderately deep snow and standing water. But, tread
design and whatnot are bigger considerations.
> was never this bad. Admittedly, the SAAB had all-season performance
> tires, but can this be ALL the difference?
>
> It seems to me that the tires might just be too damned wide. I ran my
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/shop-talk
|