275/35 vs 265/35

for some reason it's easier to find Michelin PS4 in the 275/35 size rather than 265/35, i'm on carrera wheels (18), i assume this should work ok?

You have a 2003 C2 car from looking at your signature, so that's supposed to run 285/30/18 at the rear, the pre facelift cars ran 265/35/18. There is some feeling that 285 rears are a bit wide and there is more than enough rubber on a 265 profile.. Running 275 35 18 is going to give you a bigger rolling radius at the rear, the tyre wall is going to be taller than the two normal sizes, your speedo may be a tiny bit out. Tyreleader has 265 35 19 PS4 in stock if you want that

Asterix is right with pretty much all of that although as you say Asterix sone of it is opinion. I wouldn't be fitting 265s on a mk2 as it should have 285/30. My Mk1 should have 265s but they look stretched and under tyred to me so I've gone for Mk1 GT3 sizes which are 285/30. People always go on about "too much grip". I'd wager nobody will feel any difference at road speeds. The Mk1 GT3 only had 360bhp vs 300/320 for C2s so not a quantum leap ahead that required loads more grip. The side wall heights are as follows. 265/35 = 92.75mm 275/35 = 96.25mm 285/30 = 85.5mm So the 275 is 3.5mm higher radius wise than a 265. Once it's worn a bit it'll be the same as the 265. I'd be going that route. I nearly did with Michelin Supersports as they didn't come in the ideal size either. Of just choose another tyre. You don't have to do the N rated thing on anything out of Porsche warranty.

thanks folks. My car is a 996.2 and has 225/40/18 and 265/35/18 as standard, and that's how websites selling tyres identify it based on license plate. (blackcircles.com for example). I put UNiroyal Rainsport 3's on the car and it ruined the handling - those tyres have super soft sidewalls. I have to replace them with MIchelins or ANYTHING harder However, it seems hard to find PS4's in both sizes at the same time at the moment that are not priced ridiculously. 275/35 seems to be cheaper. That's why I asked.

https://www.willtheyfit.com/index.p...t2=35&wheel_size=18&wheel_width=10&offset2=65 Interesting comparison. Looks like the speedo will under-read (which is fine, since it over-reads now ), slight ride height gain and arch gap loss - which is fine for me at the moment, car is low slung as hell.

Will they fit is a great resource for these kinds of questions: I have completely wrong rear tyres on mine aspect ratio wise but my speedo reads bang on to GPS. The tyre wall is noticeably taller at the rear but how often do you stand there looking. No where near needing to change mine yet so not thinking too hard about it, but if it went any lower I'm going to be scraping a lot more..

I've been running 275/35-18s for three years now without issue on a 2003

Thanks chaps. For some reason PS4's are far easier to buy in 275/35 then 265/35.

I'm currently running 255s on the back and if the rim was narrow enough I would go to 245. It's grip at the front that's the probelm, not the back. However, if it's just the aesthetic that you're after then go as wide as you want. 305 is over tyred just the same as 285.

When I put new tyres on I checked the Michelin website, they recommend 285/ 30s https://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/ca...n=285-30-18-0-ZR&retainFitment=285-30-18-0-ZR They seem fine to me!

I always had 285s on the rear of the 996.2. 265 is the 996.1 size.

Trouble with that is that 265(Mk1)-285(mk2) is the proper size that Porsche designed the other aspects of the car around, such as suspension etc. 305 isn't. Sounds like what you need is a set of space savers. Ultimate narrow contact patch for the driving gods. Forget about all the work Porsche put in when designing the car. They messed up bigstyle those jokers, they don't know ***** from yellow clay. :wink:

Or Porsche thought 'hmm, our market research has indicated that potential customers regard a wide rear tyre as in indicator of performance and desirability and so we'll sell more cars as if we put the widest tyre on it that doesn't look daft.' Take a look at ELA's thread regarding his build. He uses 255 section rears. Presumably you should post the same dismissive remarks in his build thread.

Hmm, I'd agree if you were talking about wheel diameter, which has definitely gone down the "bigger is automatically better" route by manufacturers. Not so much with tyre width though. I don't think any buyers would have bought or not bought a 996 back in the day due to it having 255, 265 or 285 tyres fitted. Rich's car is massively different to almost all other 996s. It's over 200kg lighter than it was, hence much less mass to control and much less load on the tyres. When we are talking largely standard cars I'll stick to what to Porsche spent hundreds of thousands developing. We'll have to agree to disagree. :thumb: Oh and my comments were just banter and no more dismissive than yours, which suggested anyone using 285's was "just after the aesthetic". If you make a comment like that you can't then get the hump because someone answers. :grin:

I think you're not really grasping how the selling of cars works. BMWs of nearly all ilks have always come with standard tyre widths wider than equivalent cars from other manufacturers. Is it because their suspension designs are inferior and they need the extra tyre width in order to make up the difference? Of course not, -it's because they are sold under the tag line of 'the ultimate driving machine..' and all the sporting pretensions that goes along with that. BMW knows that this creates the expectation that a BMW is a sporty car that requires more rubber,(even though a 316 on 225 section tyres is as pointless as a Mondeo 1.8 on 225 section tyres) and by giving it wider tyres than the competition they will pander to that expectation and sell more cars. Porsche did/does the same thing. Just what is the benefit that you think Porsche has designed in by specifying 285 section tyres on a car that only puts down 315 hp? Even the BMW e46 M3 (which actually had sensible tyres on, unlike BMW's non-M cars) has 255 section rears but with more power and torque to handle.