Ask the Car People.SM


Subaru Outback/Legacy Tires and Wheels

124 messages,  Last post on Feb 23, 2012 at 5:42 PM

You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback Forum.

What is this discussion about? Subaru Legacy, Subaru Outback, Tires, Wheels, Wagon

Messages Page 12 of 13

#105 of 124 Re: What all terrain tires are best for a 2005 Subaru Legacy Outback wagon? [monalea] by capriracer

Nov 06, 2010 (3:10 am)

Replying to: monalea (Nov 05, 2010 5:50 pm)
One thing xwesx didn't mention was load carrying capacity. You do NOT want to go down - which is what usually happens when you put on tires with a smaller overall diameter. Going down in load carrying capcity increases the risk of a load related tire failure which sometimes has tragic results.
 
In your case, 225/60R16's are currently the most poular tire size, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding suitable tires.
 
And for the record: The first number in a tire size is the section width in mm, not the tread width. The width of the tread is always smaller than the section width.

#106 of 124 tires for 05 OB by cptplt

Nov 06, 2010 (8:35 am)

If there is any chance of snow and in CO there will be you should get something which is true winter traction approved - the snowflake/mountain emblem. If you don't plan on being off road a whole lot then get Nokian WRG2s, they are true snow rated, in fact in this years CR they are the best snowtires tested, yet can be run all year round. I have put 57K on a set of the WRs(the predecessor to the WRG2) on a Tribeca and 40K plus on a Windstar running them all year round. I have a set of the WRG2 on an 09 OB for the last 18 months and they seem as good as the WRs in summer and winter.
 
 They are a little pricey. A good on line source is tiresbyweb or Mktires. I had a local nokian dealer match the mktire price, ended up paying the same price fully installed as the mkprice for tire/shipping only, which was almost 50 bucks a tire less than the local guy originally advertised. When the michelin XIce snowtires on my daughters 08 OB need replacing I will put WRG2s on the car all year round.
 
They may not be as good on ice as a dedicated "ice tire" like the blizzak WS series but they are far better than high performance snowtires on snow/ice and run much better than the blizzaks on dry roads and they don;t lose their tread when run in summer and on all the vehicles I have had them on they are better in summer than the factory all seasons.

#107 of 124 Is replacing all four tires necessary? by wired1

Nov 07, 2010 (5:20 pm)

Last year, I purchased a 2005 Subaru Legacy with fewer than 30k miles on it. Anyhow, I recently realized that my back two tires are worn to the point of needing to be replaced; the two in the front are fine.
 
After going to several tire dealers, I was told by each of them that I would need to replace all 4 tires because all tires on an AWD must be the same make and have the same tread left on them. Moreover, my specific model of Tigerpaw is no longer made.
 
To compile the issue, when I bought the car (from a Subaru dealer) last year, the tires that were on it were different makes in the front and back (Tigerpaws up front / Goodyears in the back). At the time, I didn't know about this issue with AWD vehicles. I typically get all of my service done at this dealer. Should I bring this up to them? They are trying to sell me two new rear tires of yet another make.
 
Do I have a legitimate concern here? Do I need to replace all four, or should two new ones suffice? Should I bring this up to the dealer and complain?
 
Thanks for your help.

#108 of 124 Re: Is replacing all four tires necessary? [wired1] by somainer

Nov 07, 2010 (9:20 pm)

Replying to: wired1 (Nov 07, 2010 5:20 pm)
In a word .... YES. I've owned Subarus since 1991, and have always been told this. The only "exception" has been when one goes early on and the others have almost no wear at all. Even then it's been stressed to get the same mfr and tread pattern in the new one. Replacing both front or back only (as in 2 at a time) just doesn't work. Subarus can be very twitchy with bad tires or different wear patterns. Good luck!

#109 of 124 Re: Is replacing all four tires necessary? [wired1] by xwesx

Nov 08, 2010 (11:40 am)

Replying to: wired1 (Nov 07, 2010 5:20 pm)
You're probably not going to notice any problems with the 2+2 configuration, but it does put additional stress on the car's center differential. That's an expensive repair, so I wouldn't chance it. In fact, I would definitely bring it up to the dealership that sold you the car, and have it documented, in the even you have a center differential failure in the not-so-distant future.
 
In the grand scheme of things, tires are cheap; I would just replace all four now and start fresh.

#110 of 124 Re: Is replacing all four tires necessary? [xwesx] by rschleicher

Nov 08, 2010 (4:37 pm)

Replying to: xwesx (Nov 08, 2010 11:40 am)
With two different brands of tires on front and rear, I would be very leery of having a different rolling circumference, even with tires that were nominally the same size.
 
With the same model of tire on front and back, I have heard guidance that the difference in tread depth between front and back tires should be kept to 1/16" or less (so that the diameter difference is 1/8", or about 3mm, or less).
 
(Circumference is easier to measure on a tire, and the circumference difference will be 3.14 (pi) times the diameter difference, leading to a maximum allowable circumference difference of around 3/8", or 9-10mm. Not much, in other words...)
 
I don't think this is an absolute limit, but in sustained highway driving even a modest difference in diameter (really rolling circumference) is potentially leading to heating-up of the center diff, depending on the type of center-diff used.

#111 of 124 Help requested: Minus sizing for winter tires by goldenone

Nov 23, 2010 (4:44 pm)

I've got a 2006 outback with 225/55R17 tires. We're going to get some winter tires (probably the Continental ExtremeWinter Contact - but I'd like thoughts on that as well). The Tire Rack website is recommending using a 225/60R16. What are thoughts on minus sizing in general, and with winter tires specifically.
 
Thanks

#112 of 124 Re: Help requested: Minus sizing for winter tires [goldenone] by robr2

Nov 24, 2010 (7:39 am)

Replying to: goldenone (Nov 23, 2010 4:44 pm)
Minus sizing is a good idea. First, when changing to a smaller rim size, you reduce cost as the tire is less expensive and you may be able to go to a steel rim.
 
Second, a narrower tire is better in snow as it has to move less snow out of the way to gain traction.

#113 of 124 Re: Help requested: Minus sizing for winter tires [goldenone] by xwesx

Nov 24, 2010 (11:27 am)

Replying to: goldenone (Nov 23, 2010 4:44 pm)
First on the tire size: The 225/60R16 is a near-perfect match to the 225/55R17; it is only 0.4% larger! 215/65R16 is also a good match, being 1% smaller. What that means is that when your speedometer is reading 60 mph, you would actually be traveling 60.257 mph with the first tire and 59.423 with the second.
 
I agree with the advantages Rob mentioned as well. I prefer the smaller rim size just because the tires are generally less expensive (sometimes as much as $40 per tire between a 16" and 17" rim). For my '10 Forester, I picked up a used set of those silver-painted steel rims Subaru used extensively during the middle part of the last decade. For winter tires, I also prefer the additional sidewall height to help absorb the deteriorated roads, debris (such as chunks of ice!), etc, and to protect the wheels.
 
Regarding the Continental tires, they are very good. If you deal with deep snow, I highly recommend Goodyear's Ultra Grip Ice, which are as good as the Conti's on ice and kick the pants off them, Blizzaks, etc., in deep snow.
 
I have a set of the Continentals on my Escort, and they do me very well. In fact, we are having pretty much the worst episode of freezing rain in the history of Fairbanks, Alaska, right now, and I managed to drive 20 miles to work (then home again) on Monday while most other vehicles were sliding into ditches merely due to the crown on the road! Granted, I had to *work* to keep my car on the road, but the fact that I had that option is a testament to the fact that the tires were giving me much more traction than other rubber on the roads that morning. When I went home that afternoon, I was the *only* FWD vehicle that I saw during that twenty miles. There were the occasional 4WD or AWD (plenty of Subaru's around here!).
 
Depending on how they end up wearing, I am likely to purchase them again.

#114 of 124 AWD & all 4 tires by gjksn

Nov 26, 2010 (8:22 am)

On the way to work Wednesday, I picked up something on a Minneapolis freeway that destroyed my left rear tire. This tire was one of a set of four Blizzaks that had only one season on them. Several sources advise replacing at least the two tires on the same axle and preferably all four. Suddenly, a flat tire becomes a fairly large expense. I always do everything that either the owner's manual or my Subaru service department advises, or I exceed it. I am not even remotely "mechanical" but like knowing my car is always at its best and safest. Are there AWD systems out there that are not so "sensitive" to 1/32" or 2/32" difference in tire diameter? My car is a 2003 Legacy L SE, and although I wish I'd known the 2005 GT wagon was coming so soon after, it's a great car, and I love it. Does anyone know of a site where AWD systems are described and compared?

Messages Page 12 of 13

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement