Sacrilege: Staggered to non-staggered?

[samer0214]

2005 4.8iS with the factory 20" staggered wheels. I am tired of not being able to rotate my tires because the wheels are staggered?

1) Has anyone considered, or actually made the switch over to non-staggered wheels?
2) Is this even possible or recommended given that the handling was designed with a staggered configuration?
3) If you've done the switch, can you please write about your experience?

[andrewwynn]

BMW doesn't recommend rotation even with non staggered tires but clearly there are times when it makes sense.

https://www.carbibles.com/tire-size-calculator/

Use this tire size calculator to determine the tire rolling circumference. I'm betting the rolling size of the staggered wheels are nearly the same and you just need to find wheels that clear the brake hardware and width that doesn't rub on the wheel well. It shouldn't be hard.

Start by looking in your manual and on your door jamb it may show a square setup designed for your model.

[CleanIsFast]

Square setup has been done numerous times, I don't personally see the benefit besides aesthetics. I'm sure there will be some trammeling as well on the highway since the tires are so wide (315) that they just grab everything.

I went square setup on my M5 a few years ago - 275 all around and I didn't like it at all. Went back to staggered, Germans know what they were doing.

[PropellerHead]

Originally Posted by samer0214

2005 4.8iS with the factory 20" staggered wheels. I am tired of not being able to rotate my tires because the wheels are staggered?

1) Has anyone considered, or actually made the switch over to non-staggered wheels?
2) Is this even possible or recommended given that the handling was designed with a staggered configuration?
3) If you've done the switch, can you please write about your experience?

1) I have. I did it just prior to my most recent 6k mile road trip.
2) Larger rear wheels have more to do with reducing oversteer and making the V8's look good. They're also heavier than their OE counterparts, so the unsprung weight is increased- negatively affecting performance, however slightly.
3) I was worried about the difference in my switch to smaller rear tires. I did not get into the same high speed hi jinks as I have on some of these trips, but I will say I did not notice a *negative* affect on the handling. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I've written a few times about swapping wheels and my experience is pretty broad. Across both an '04 3.0 I drove for 7 years and the 4.8is I've driven for the most recent 7 years. I added 20" staggered wheels to the 3.0 after driving the OE 18's for about 3 years. I never really took time to notice anything but the look on the 3.0 as I had committed never to mod the thing- which did not last.

It wasn't until I bought the 4.8is and needed to get the 20's refinished that I swapped back to the OE 18's on the 3.0. The difference in unsprung weight was noticeable. Peppy starts from the line and a little less 'wiggle' on road imperfections out of the back end with so much less weight to throw around.

This is particularly obvious in my 20" staggered application since they were replicas. Heavier than most OE. So, at the start of this Summer when I added the OE 9.5x20" 87's, I immediately noticed the lighter touch from the wheels.

What was a little more peppy in the 3.0 was outright 'zippy' in the 4.8is. I moved the Eibach sways from the 3.0 to to the 4.8 a number of years ago. I was curious about how I'd feel with 285's and the sways both working to dial up the oversteer. I never felt the back end run away.

Quite the opposite, in fact. I noticed that the 285's handle the Interstate rain puddles much more readily than the wider 315's. While the 315's would more easily 'skip' or hydroplane, the 285's did not do this as much.

Now, one consideration is that I did keep my H&R spacers on the rear 9.5's. I think this is VERY necessary given the offsets for the fronts. I suspect without them, they'd be *really* tucked in and would look terrible. The stance is not anywhere near as aggressive as it is with the steam rollers, but it's not bad. The unsprung weight benefit has me waiting to find just the right set of rear style 87's before I add them again.

So that's my experience. I still *love* the looks of 315's in the rear. I will do it soon. But I am not in any hurry.

Here's a shot with my 9.5x20 and 285's all around:

[andrewwynn]

My car came with square setup but much smaller wheels than the stagger setup. 255/55-18. They have nearly identical rolling circumference as the 235/65-17 spare works nice that way.

I push the 255s pretty hard in the corners and don't feel the need for wider tires but I have the 3.0 it's a big difference.

I'm about to rotate my wife's tires front to back because of cupping on the front due to worn thrust bushings.

That being said: what are the current rim/tire combinations: are the wheels different tires same that you could swap front and rear tires if dismounted? Walmart will swap a tire for $10

Do you have directional tires? If not you can swap left to right.

If you do have directional tires and different size you can rotate left to right for $40 at Wal-Mart. I used to do that at least once on my Camaro during the life of a set of tires. They were square but directional so to chew up the other edge I would swap left and right front at least once by swapping rims.

I would recommend the same just like the previous post don't mess with a good thing just work within the rules.

If you pick a non directional tire you can rotate left-right a couple times then after say 10-15,000 miles swap rims so you can wear opposite sides of the tires.

It'll save money over the long run and be less work

[xbimma]

When I acquired my first E53 (‘03 4.4i) in 2010, it came with square 255s. I started learning about the car and found out almost 2years later my tires were not up to specs. I ordered specs 255/285, and was just amazed by the difference in handling. Cornering all of sudden was so smooth, it felt like driving a newer car.

[wpoll]

xbimma, are you saying you had 255 tyres mounted on rims designed for wider tyres, i.e. the 255/55 tyres (designed for an 8.5" rim) were fitted to a 9.5" rim or something? But only at the back?

No wonder it handled weird....

Or are you saying you changed the wheels along with the tyres?

[xbimma]

Originally Posted by wpoll

xbimma, are you saying you had 255 tyres mounted on rims designed for wider tyres, i.e. the 255/55 tyres (designed for an 8.5" rim) were fitted to a 9.5" rim or something? But only at the back?

No wonder it handled weird....

Correct. Only the back tires were out of specs.

[wpoll]

Running the math on 255/50-19 tyre on a 10" rim, there is very little difference in terms of diameter etc. to the correct 285/45-19 on the 10" - a slight sidewall stretch is all. Plus 30mm less rubber on the road!

BTW, is it just me that shakes my head at modern tyre (tire) sizing nomenclature? Who the heck came up with a nomenclature that combines metric (in millimetres) with a ratio (as a percentage) and imperial (inches) for the rim...

[deepblonde]

Originally Posted by wpoll

BTW, is it just me that shakes my head at modern tyre (tire) sizing nomenclature? Who the heck came up with a nomenclature that combines metric (in millimetres) with a ratio (as a percentage) and imperial (inches) for the rim...

The great thing about the strange mix of metric and imperial,
is that tyre sizes are now pretty much universal-
you can buy tires from anywhere in the world,
there's no converting, etc

it's all the same standard...