205/50/16 vs 215/45/16
11-01-2007, 08:13 PM
#1
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
205/50/16 vs 215/45/16
EDIT - Typo in title. Meant to say 205/50/16 VS 215/45/16
Lookin for tires for some 16x7 +43 RPF1's im getting an not sure which tire size to get.
Tirerack recommends 205/50 which is _alot_ cheaper than 215/45 but according to the online wheel calculator, 205/50 and 215/45 are both approximately 1% larger and smaller than the stock 205/55/15.
Which is the better choice overall in terms of looks, performance, and fit?
Lookin for tires for some 16x7 +43 RPF1's im getting an not sure which tire size to get.
Tirerack recommends 205/50 which is _alot_ cheaper than 215/45 but according to the online wheel calculator, 205/50 and 215/45 are both approximately 1% larger and smaller than the stock 205/55/15.
Which is the better choice overall in terms of looks, performance, and fit?
11-01-2007, 09:22 PM
#2
Batpool
Re: 205/50/16 vs 215/45/16 (jmai86)
First off, what car are these tires going on? If the tire calculator says they are within 1% then you should have no problem. As long as they aren't outside 3% you should be ok. Looks are up to you. Other than that you'll probably have to wait until nsxtasy chimes in because I'm not familiar with 16s. Also, check the FAQ.
11-01-2007, 10:31 PM
#3
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 205/50/16 vs 215/45/16 (SilentEdge)
Sorry, it's for a 94 prelude lowered on Neuspeed Race springs. Daily driven, no snow.
Stock size is the mentioned 205/55/15
I basically just want a flushed fit, no stretch or bulging.. but dang 215's are so much more expensive.
Stock size is the mentioned 205/55/15
I basically just want a flushed fit, no stretch or bulging.. but dang 215's are so much more expensive.
11-02-2007, 08:50 AM
#4
H-T Order of Merit
Re: 205/50/16 vs 215/45/16 (jmai86)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmai86 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">EDIT - Typo in title. Meant to say 205/50/16 VS 215/45/16</TD></TR></TABLE>
Fixed.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmai86 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Lookin for tires for some 16x7 +43 RPF1's im getting an not sure which tire size to get.
Tirerack recommends 205/50 which is _alot_ cheaper than 215/45 but according to the online wheel calculator, 205/50 and 215/45 are both approximately 1% larger and smaller than the stock 205/55/15.
Which is the better choice overall in terms of looks, performance, and fit?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You are correct; 205/50-16 is 0.8 percent larger in diameter, and 215/45-16 is 1.1 percent smaller. Since they're both off by around 1 percent, which is reasonable, you can really use either one without problems. The rim width isn't a consideration, either; both sizes are approved for mounting on 16x7 rims. So either one will work for fit.
Regarding looks, (a) it's a matter of personal preference, and (b) you're talking such a small difference in size, I doubt anyone would notice the difference anyway.
Performance depends more on the specific tire than on the tire size.
Bottom line, you can use either tire size with 16x7 wheels on your car. My suggestion is that you decide what kind of tire you want to get, and see which of these sizes it comes in. That may make the decision for you, since most tires come in one size or the other, not both. More specifically...
a. If you care only about getting the maximum dry traction - such as if you occasionally use these tires for autocross or track use - then get the Falken Azenis RT-615, which comes in 215/45-16 ($90/tire at Vulcan Tire). Downsides include rapid treadwear (treadlife of 10-12K miles is typical) and so-so traction in rain.
b. If you want the very best dry traction as well as great rain traction and treadwear, and you don't mind spending a bit more for better performance, get the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, which comes in 205/50-16 ($119/tire at the Tire Rack). Outstanding dry traction, outstanding wet traction, should last a long time (25-40K miles).
c. If you want very good dry traction, wet traction, and treadwear, but you're willing to sacrifice some performance for a lower purchase price, get the Kumho SPT, which comes in 205/50-16 ($87/tire at the Tire Rack). Very good dry traction (not as good as the previous two, but still decent), excellent in rain, should last a long time (25-40K miles).
I assume from your location that you won't be driving in snow so you don't need all-season tires. (Otherwise, the Kumho ASX comes in 205/50-16.)
Fixed.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmai86 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Lookin for tires for some 16x7 +43 RPF1's im getting an not sure which tire size to get.
Tirerack recommends 205/50 which is _alot_ cheaper than 215/45 but according to the online wheel calculator, 205/50 and 215/45 are both approximately 1% larger and smaller than the stock 205/55/15.
Which is the better choice overall in terms of looks, performance, and fit?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You are correct; 205/50-16 is 0.8 percent larger in diameter, and 215/45-16 is 1.1 percent smaller. Since they're both off by around 1 percent, which is reasonable, you can really use either one without problems. The rim width isn't a consideration, either; both sizes are approved for mounting on 16x7 rims. So either one will work for fit.
Regarding looks, (a) it's a matter of personal preference, and (b) you're talking such a small difference in size, I doubt anyone would notice the difference anyway.
Performance depends more on the specific tire than on the tire size.
Bottom line, you can use either tire size with 16x7 wheels on your car. My suggestion is that you decide what kind of tire you want to get, and see which of these sizes it comes in. That may make the decision for you, since most tires come in one size or the other, not both. More specifically...
a. If you care only about getting the maximum dry traction - such as if you occasionally use these tires for autocross or track use - then get the Falken Azenis RT-615, which comes in 215/45-16 ($90/tire at Vulcan Tire). Downsides include rapid treadwear (treadlife of 10-12K miles is typical) and so-so traction in rain.
b. If you want the very best dry traction as well as great rain traction and treadwear, and you don't mind spending a bit more for better performance, get the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, which comes in 205/50-16 ($119/tire at the Tire Rack). Outstanding dry traction, outstanding wet traction, should last a long time (25-40K miles).
c. If you want very good dry traction, wet traction, and treadwear, but you're willing to sacrifice some performance for a lower purchase price, get the Kumho SPT, which comes in 205/50-16 ($87/tire at the Tire Rack). Very good dry traction (not as good as the previous two, but still decent), excellent in rain, should last a long time (25-40K miles).
I assume from your location that you won't be driving in snow so you don't need all-season tires. (Otherwise, the Kumho ASX comes in 205/50-16.)
11-02-2007, 03:37 PM
#5
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 205/50/16 vs 215/45/16 (nsxtasy)
Thanks for the info manI think I'll go with the SPT's then. How's the Yoko ES100's in 205/50 compare to the SPT though? They are pretty much the same price on tirerack..
11-02-2007, 04:44 PM
#6
H-T Order of Merit
Re: 205/50/16 vs 215/45/16 (jmai86)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmai86 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How's the Yoko ES100's in 205/50 compare to the SPT though?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Their performance is very similar on dry pavement. On wet pavement, the SPT is substantially better. Not that the ES100 is bad - it's actually pretty good in rain. But the SPT is even better.
The Tire Rack tested the SPT and the ES100, side by side. You can view the results here.
Their performance is very similar on dry pavement. On wet pavement, the SPT is substantially better. Not that the ES100 is bad - it's actually pretty good in rain. But the SPT is even better.
The Tire Rack tested the SPT and the ES100, side by side. You can view the results here.
Trending Topics
11-03-2007, 07:16 PM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 205/50/16 vs 215/45/16 (jmai86)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jmai86 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Good stuff thanks again
SPT it is then, and off to tirerack I go.. Can't wait for my RPF1's </TD></TR></TABLE>
The SPT also comes in 225/45R16, which would be fine on going 16x7s.
Fitting a 225mm tire on a +43 offset wheel under the fenders, though, could be a potential issue.
SPT it is then, and off to tirerack I go.. Can't wait for my RPF1's
</TD></TR></TABLE>The SPT also comes in 225/45R16, which would be fine on going 16x7s.
Fitting a 225mm tire on a +43 offset wheel under the fenders, though, could be a potential issue.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
