Ask the Car People.SM


Will Narrower Tires With Taller Sidewalls Return, To Improve Fuel Economy? - READ ONLY

62 messages,  Last post on Jun 27, 2011 at 9:33 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Tires

Messages Page 5 of 7

#33 of 62 Re: just walked past [nippononly] by andre1969

Jun 13, 2008 (6:10 am)

Replying to: nippononly (Jun 12, 2008 12:56 pm)
Those mammoth, oversized truck tires are one thing that makes me leery of getting a newer truck. I just don't want to incur that expense...although at the rate I drive, the tires will probably dry-rot before they wear out!
 
When I got the 255/70/R15's on my Silverado back in early 2006, I think the tires were around $375 delivered, from Tirerack, and the local mechanic charged something like $100-125 to mount & balance them, do the valve stems, etc. It was around $500 total, I remember. I thought it was pretty pricey at the time, and started regretting that I didn't just put the stock 235/75/R15's back on. I think that would've only saved me about $40-50, though. I might just put the stock size tires back on the next time around. The wider tires seem to help a bit with hard cornering...not that I do that on a regular basis in this truck! But they also seem to react a bit more noticeably to imperfections on the highway, such as the ruts left by heavy trucks.
 
Next time around is probably a long ways off though. In the 2 years and 3 months since I got those tires, that truck hasn't even gone 10,000 miles.

#34 of 62 Re: i noticed...(explorerx4) [hpmctorque] by bumpy

Jun 13, 2008 (9:03 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Jun 12, 2008 11:16 pm)
Not all "225"s are created equal. Tread width of a nominal size can vary between manufacturers and even model, and be affected by the width of the rim it's mounted on. The stock 225/50-16 Bridgestone S-02 on the early S2000 is as wide as most 245/50-16s.

#35 of 62 one thing is for sure by nippononly

Jun 13, 2008 (10:30 am)

Tire widths have gone up in order to compensate for uncontrolled increases in curb weights, so as to keep handling constant. If these automakers would just take weight loss seriously, tires could get smaller again, a triple benefit to car owners when you consider (1) the decreased cost of replacement, (2) the fuel economy benefits of lighter vehicles, and (3) the fuel economy benefits of smaller tires.
 
The sharpest-handling car I ever owned personally wore 195 mm tires. An '02 Celica. That thing cornered on rails. Of course, it helped that it weighed only slightly more than 2400 pounds. The '04 RSX I owned later was less sharp, despite wearing 205s. Of course, it also weighed 300 pounds more. Even tires like the stock 225s on the S2000 are probably overkill, put there to look good (in person and for specs on paper), when 205s or 195s would serve just fine in such a small, light, low car.

#36 of 62 Re: one thing is for sure [nippononly] by british_rover

Jun 13, 2008 (10:49 am)

Replying to: nippononly (Jun 13, 2008 10:30 am)
Ehh the 225s on the S2000 are probably necessary. The S2000 originally had a snap oversteer problem and I wouldn't want to drive one with even smaller rear tires that would be overwhelmed more easily.

#37 of 62 Re: one thing is for sure [british_rover] by bumpy

Jun 13, 2008 (2:39 pm)

Replying to: british_rover (Jun 13, 2008 10:49 am)
Actually, the cheesy all-season true 225s on mine slide out steadily before the suspension gets wound up tight enough to snap out. Less grip, but also less risk.

#38 of 62 Re: i noticed...(explorerx4) [hpmctorque] by explorerx4

Jun 13, 2008 (3:53 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Jun 12, 2008 11:16 pm)
there is a lot less 'open space' in the mustang tires than the fusion,although they are the same width.

#39 of 62 tire pressure by bvdj84

Jun 14, 2008 (7:38 am)

I have been putting a bit more air in my tires, it says a maximum of 40, so I have been putting 35 in. It has made a world of difference, the dealer normally puts 30 in, and that is just too low, it feels spongy. With 35, it feels more grippy, and hugs the road better.
 
I think more cars these days have bigger rims, only because they look better. I truck with small rims, doesn't appeal as much as a truck with nice big rims to go along with them. But, replacing them is more expensive, if you get the cheapest model to replace them, then its only sooner you'll have to do it again. I have 08 Pontiac G6 with Hankook optimo tires on them, I have seen this tire with like 42k miles on them, and they seem to wear pretty good. I don't see me having a problem, because I lease, so I will be no where near that mileage, and I don't drive hard. Keeping tires rotated helps out so much. Having slimmer tires could help getting better mileage.

#40 of 62 Narrower tires--probably not. by raychuang00

Jun 15, 2008 (5:40 am)

There's good reason for this: narrower tires compromise handling and braking, since there is less "tire patch" for contact on the road.
 
Better solutions include changing the tire tread design to reduce rolling resistance and eventually doing away with the inflated tire completely (remember Michelin's unusual non-pneumatic tire design from a few years ago?) to drastically reduce the unsprung weight of the tire-wheel combination.

#41 of 62 Re: Narrower tires--probably not. [raychuang00] by andys120

Jun 15, 2008 (8:38 am)

Replying to: raychuang00 (Jun 15, 2008 5:40 am)
narrower tires compromise handling and braking, since there is less "tire patch" for contact on the road.
 
Gee you'd think I was slipping and sliding all over the road with the 165/75-13s on my Fiat Spider. Like most roadsters of the day it's handling was precise and predictable because the cars were light and well-balanced.
 
  As gas mileage becomes more important cars will be built smaller and lighter, and will provide great handling, braking and safety using narrower, taller tires.

#42 of 62 Re: Narrower tires--probably not. [andys120] by andre1969

Jun 15, 2008 (9:19 am)

Replying to: andys120 (Jun 15, 2008 8:38 am)
Like most things in the automotive world, it's all about balance. Bigger isn't always better, but neither is smaller. Every car out there has a size that's "just right" for it, and naturally it's going to vary from car to car.
 
I remember when most generic family cars back in the day came with a 75-series radial standard. For instance, the 195/75/R15's on my 1980 Malibu, or the 205/75/R15's on my grandmother's '85 LeSabre. My old '69 Dart had bias-ply tires that roughly equated to a 195/75/R14. With cars like this, it seemed like going down to a 70-series, but bumping up one, maybe two tread width sizes was all it really took to improve these cars' handling considerably, with little loss in comfort. But going down to a 65 or 60-series tire would just make it ride rougher without giving you any better handling. As for tread width, go too wide, and those tires will get downright scary in wet weather!

Messages Page 5 of 7

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement