Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 1
From: Never Never Land, Ohio, USA
Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15
Yeah, basically .... Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 in tires? 2000 Civic EX, soon but not yet on Pro Kit and AGX... Also, Would road noise/comfort be sacrificed in any noticable amount? These are Micheline Pilot Exalto A/S tires.
I am also thinking perhaps if handling is better, getting smaller for better gas mileage, for some reason higher RPM helps my car... sure my speedo is already off by 3mph (faster) and this will probably make it an even 5... but eh lol....
Thanks in advance.
I am also thinking perhaps if handling is better, getting smaller for better gas mileage, for some reason higher RPM helps my car... sure my speedo is already off by 3mph (faster) and this will probably make it an even 5... but eh lol....
Thanks in advance.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (CooBlueDAB)
No, you won't notice a difference in handling. Especially not with all-season tires. And no, road noise and comfort won't see a big difference either.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am also thinking perhaps if handling is better</TD></TR></TABLE>
It's not.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">getting smaller for better gas mileage</TD></TR></TABLE>
Smaller tires make the gas mileage worse, not better.
Note that it might appear that your gas mileage is as good, because the odometer will read high by 3.4 percent, making it look like you're getting more miles. But your actual gas mileage, based on actual miles rather than what your odometer tells you, will be worse. (It's like keeping the car in a slightly lower gear at all times.)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">sure my speedo is already off by 3mph (faster)</TD></TR></TABLE>
Why is it off with 195/55-15? It shouldn't be. The outer diameter of the 195/55-15 is almost exactly the same (within 0.1 percent) as your stock size of 185/65-14.
This is why I recommend sticking with the 195/55-15 size. Why create speedometer and odometer error of 3.4 percent, and make your car look a bit funny, when you don't have to?
On your 2000 Civic EX:
195/55-15
195/50-15
Incidentally, the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S is pretty expensive ($121/tire in 195/55-15), for what you get. You can get better performance for around half the price with the Kumho Ecsta ASX ($65/tire in 195/55-15), which is also an all-season tire.
Modified by nsxtasy at 5:08 PM 12/21/2005
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am also thinking perhaps if handling is better</TD></TR></TABLE>
It's not.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">getting smaller for better gas mileage</TD></TR></TABLE>
Smaller tires make the gas mileage worse, not better.
Note that it might appear that your gas mileage is as good, because the odometer will read high by 3.4 percent, making it look like you're getting more miles. But your actual gas mileage, based on actual miles rather than what your odometer tells you, will be worse. (It's like keeping the car in a slightly lower gear at all times.)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">sure my speedo is already off by 3mph (faster)</TD></TR></TABLE>
Why is it off with 195/55-15? It shouldn't be. The outer diameter of the 195/55-15 is almost exactly the same (within 0.1 percent) as your stock size of 185/65-14.
This is why I recommend sticking with the 195/55-15 size. Why create speedometer and odometer error of 3.4 percent, and make your car look a bit funny, when you don't have to?
On your 2000 Civic EX:
195/55-15
195/50-15
Incidentally, the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S is pretty expensive ($121/tire in 195/55-15), for what you get. You can get better performance for around half the price with the Kumho Ecsta ASX ($65/tire in 195/55-15), which is also an all-season tire.
Modified by nsxtasy at 5:08 PM 12/21/2005
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 1
From: Never Never Land, Ohio, USA
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No, you won't notice a difference in handling. Especially not with all-season tires. And no, road noise and comfort won't see a big difference either.
It's not.
Smaller tires make the gas mileage worse, not better.
Note that it might appear that your gas mileage is as good, because the odometer will read high by 3.4 percent, making it look like you're getting more miles. But your actual gas mileage, based on actual miles rather than what your odometer tells you, will be worse. (It's like keeping the car in a slightly lower gear at all times.)
Why is it off with 195/55-15? It shouldn't be. The outer diameter of the 195/55-15 is almost exactly the same (within 0.1 percent) as your stock size of 185/65-14.
This is why I recommend sticking with the 195/55-15 size. Why create speedometer and odometer error of 3.4 percent, and make your car look a bit funny, when you don't have to?
On your 2000 Civic EX:
195/55-15
195/50-15
Incidentally, the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S is pretty expensive ($121/tire in 195/55-15), for what you get. You can get better performance for around half the price with the Kumho Ecsta ASX ($65/tire in 195/55-15), which is also an all-season tire.
Modified by nsxtasy at 5:08 PM 12/21/2005</TD></TR></TABLE>
the reviews werent as good for that, as for the mileage, I was thinking since the car does better at a higher RPM, that a smaller tire might do justice... I always thought gearing lower until I read that we run rich in lower RPM to try to make up for lack of torque... for instance, today I drove 91 miles, a normal 65mph around 2500rpm, instead of 70 or so, at 3000rpm... instead of getting 33mpg in this cold, like I have... I got 24.7 mpg..... that is terrible man, ... unless something else is causing it... but in either case, right now the wheels are stock. 185/65/14.... Ill go 55 series though after hearing that.
It's not.
Smaller tires make the gas mileage worse, not better.
Note that it might appear that your gas mileage is as good, because the odometer will read high by 3.4 percent, making it look like you're getting more miles. But your actual gas mileage, based on actual miles rather than what your odometer tells you, will be worse. (It's like keeping the car in a slightly lower gear at all times.)
Why is it off with 195/55-15? It shouldn't be. The outer diameter of the 195/55-15 is almost exactly the same (within 0.1 percent) as your stock size of 185/65-14.
This is why I recommend sticking with the 195/55-15 size. Why create speedometer and odometer error of 3.4 percent, and make your car look a bit funny, when you don't have to?
On your 2000 Civic EX:
195/55-15
195/50-15
Incidentally, the Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S is pretty expensive ($121/tire in 195/55-15), for what you get. You can get better performance for around half the price with the Kumho Ecsta ASX ($65/tire in 195/55-15), which is also an all-season tire.
Modified by nsxtasy at 5:08 PM 12/21/2005</TD></TR></TABLE>
the reviews werent as good for that, as for the mileage, I was thinking since the car does better at a higher RPM, that a smaller tire might do justice... I always thought gearing lower until I read that we run rich in lower RPM to try to make up for lack of torque... for instance, today I drove 91 miles, a normal 65mph around 2500rpm, instead of 70 or so, at 3000rpm... instead of getting 33mpg in this cold, like I have... I got 24.7 mpg..... that is terrible man, ... unless something else is causing it... but in either case, right now the wheels are stock. 185/65/14.... Ill go 55 series though after hearing that.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (CooBlueDAB)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the reviews werent as good for that</TD></TR></TABLE>
The user reviews on the Tire Rack website are extremely misleading, because people don't try different tires. If people who buy tire X have higher expectations than tire Y, it will get lower ratings - even if it offers better performance.
Check out the side-by-side test results, rather than the user reviews. You'll see that the Kumho Ecsta ASX is every bit as good as the Michelin Exalto A/S. In fact, the Tire Rack considers it to be in a higher performance category entirely. You might want to consider discussing it with the folks at the Tire Rack before making up your mind.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as for the mileage, I was thinking since the car does better at a higher RPM, that a smaller tire might do justice... I always thought gearing lower until I read that we run rich in lower RPM to try to make up for lack of torque...</TD></TR></TABLE>
You're confusing a couple of different things.
Honda cars, particularly those with VTEC variable valve timing, make up for lack of torque, not by running rich in lower RPM, but rather, by keeping the torque curve flat at higher RPM. This enables the car to make up for torque through gearing, by staying in a lower gear longer while other, non-VTEC cars are forced to upshift and lose acceleration because they're in a higher gear. Read this article for a more detailed explanation. However, that is the case when you are driving your car for maximum acceleration, which is not relevant most of the time; for maximum acceleration, you stay in the lowest gear possible without exceeding redline, whereas for most everyday driving (particularly to maximize gas mileage), you generally stay in the highest gear possible without lugging the engine. Besides, the relationship between torque and horsepower and acceleration in our cars has virtually nothing to do with the proper tire size for your car.
I think I answered your original question, though - stick with 195/55-15. Feel free to ask more...
The user reviews on the Tire Rack website are extremely misleading, because people don't try different tires. If people who buy tire X have higher expectations than tire Y, it will get lower ratings - even if it offers better performance.
Check out the side-by-side test results, rather than the user reviews. You'll see that the Kumho Ecsta ASX is every bit as good as the Michelin Exalto A/S. In fact, the Tire Rack considers it to be in a higher performance category entirely. You might want to consider discussing it with the folks at the Tire Rack before making up your mind.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as for the mileage, I was thinking since the car does better at a higher RPM, that a smaller tire might do justice... I always thought gearing lower until I read that we run rich in lower RPM to try to make up for lack of torque...</TD></TR></TABLE>
You're confusing a couple of different things.
Honda cars, particularly those with VTEC variable valve timing, make up for lack of torque, not by running rich in lower RPM, but rather, by keeping the torque curve flat at higher RPM. This enables the car to make up for torque through gearing, by staying in a lower gear longer while other, non-VTEC cars are forced to upshift and lose acceleration because they're in a higher gear. Read this article for a more detailed explanation. However, that is the case when you are driving your car for maximum acceleration, which is not relevant most of the time; for maximum acceleration, you stay in the lowest gear possible without exceeding redline, whereas for most everyday driving (particularly to maximize gas mileage), you generally stay in the highest gear possible without lugging the engine. Besides, the relationship between torque and horsepower and acceleration in our cars has virtually nothing to do with the proper tire size for your car.
I think I answered your original question, though - stick with 195/55-15. Feel free to ask more...
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 1
From: Never Never Land, Ohio, USA
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The user reviews on the Tire Rack website are extremely misleading, because people don't try different tires. If people who buy tire X have higher expectations than tire Y, it will get lower ratings - even if it offers better performance.
Check out the side-by-side test results, rather than the user reviews. You'll see that the Kumho Ecsta ASX is every bit as good as the Michelin Exalto A/S. In fact, the Tire Rack considers it to be in a higher performance category entirely. You might want to consider discussing it with the folks at the Tire Rack before making up your mind.
You're confusing a couple of different things.
Honda cars, particularly those with VTEC variable valve timing, make up for lack of torque, not by running rich in lower RPM, but rather, by keeping the torque curve flat at higher RPM. This enables the car to make up for torque through gearing, by staying in a lower gear longer while other, non-VTEC cars are forced to upshift and lose acceleration because they're in a higher gear. Read this article for a more detailed explanation. However, that is the case when you are driving your car for maximum acceleration, which is not relevant most of the time; for maximum acceleration, you stay in the lowest gear possible without exceeding redline, whereas for most everyday driving (particularly to maximize gas mileage), you generally stay in the highest gear possible without lugging the engine. Besides, the relationship between torque and horsepower and acceleration in our cars has virtually nothing to do with the proper tire size for your car.
I think I answered your original question, though - stick with 195/55-15. Feel free to ask more...</TD></TR></TABLE>
I was looking at the side by side of Tire Rack, I tend to think most people don't have a clue what they are talking about in the reviews there. Well, Not really a side by side, couldn't find that, but looking at the test results from each, and comparing.
As for the max acceleration, didn't say that. What I am confused about is... Why does my car get close or above 10mpg higher, at 3000 RPM, around an actual 72mph, as opposed to 2500rpm about... at 65? If the engine isn't much more powerful compared to efficient at that RPM. Then I am confused, because from 60 up, wind resistance really starts to count and multiply, especially against our puny engines. That is what I meant by maybe the tire could help my fuel mileage, I think that makes it a little more clear.
Will probably get the 55, just for that extra almost 1/4 inch clearance, which no doubt, will probably be like paper thin actual height difference once mounted on the car and it is put down, but.. yeah lol... (yeah, silly WS2 exhaust resonator is 3 inches lower than rest of the car.. didn't seem to be a while ago... oh well, that is a question for another forum.)
Check out the side-by-side test results, rather than the user reviews. You'll see that the Kumho Ecsta ASX is every bit as good as the Michelin Exalto A/S. In fact, the Tire Rack considers it to be in a higher performance category entirely. You might want to consider discussing it with the folks at the Tire Rack before making up your mind.
You're confusing a couple of different things.
Honda cars, particularly those with VTEC variable valve timing, make up for lack of torque, not by running rich in lower RPM, but rather, by keeping the torque curve flat at higher RPM. This enables the car to make up for torque through gearing, by staying in a lower gear longer while other, non-VTEC cars are forced to upshift and lose acceleration because they're in a higher gear. Read this article for a more detailed explanation. However, that is the case when you are driving your car for maximum acceleration, which is not relevant most of the time; for maximum acceleration, you stay in the lowest gear possible without exceeding redline, whereas for most everyday driving (particularly to maximize gas mileage), you generally stay in the highest gear possible without lugging the engine. Besides, the relationship between torque and horsepower and acceleration in our cars has virtually nothing to do with the proper tire size for your car.
I think I answered your original question, though - stick with 195/55-15. Feel free to ask more...</TD></TR></TABLE>
I was looking at the side by side of Tire Rack, I tend to think most people don't have a clue what they are talking about in the reviews there. Well, Not really a side by side, couldn't find that, but looking at the test results from each, and comparing.
As for the max acceleration, didn't say that. What I am confused about is... Why does my car get close or above 10mpg higher, at 3000 RPM, around an actual 72mph, as opposed to 2500rpm about... at 65? If the engine isn't much more powerful compared to efficient at that RPM. Then I am confused, because from 60 up, wind resistance really starts to count and multiply, especially against our puny engines. That is what I meant by maybe the tire could help my fuel mileage, I think that makes it a little more clear.
Will probably get the 55, just for that extra almost 1/4 inch clearance, which no doubt, will probably be like paper thin actual height difference once mounted on the car and it is put down, but.. yeah lol... (yeah, silly WS2 exhaust resonator is 3 inches lower than rest of the car.. didn't seem to be a while ago... oh well, that is a question for another forum.)
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (CooBlueDAB)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What I am confused about is... Why does my car get close or above 10mpg higher, at 3000 RPM, around an actual 72mph, as opposed to 2500rpm about... at 65? If the engine isn't much more powerful compared to efficient at that RPM. Then I am confused, because from 60 up, wind resistance really starts to count and multiply, especially against our puny engines.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Well, as you state, that doesn't really make sense. I can only guess that there is some other variable involved (not the speed/RPM) that is causing the difference in mileage. It could be anything from a difference in driving conditions, to a difference in temperature, to inconsistent filling (topping off one tank but another clicked off when you could have fit another gallon or two), or some other cause. Otherwise, I have no idea why that might be happening. As you say, it's not what you would expect. If you feel like it, keep driving and keeping track of it both ways and I suspect that, with many additional tanks of gas, you might find that it doesn't happen consistently. < shrug >
Well, as you state, that doesn't really make sense. I can only guess that there is some other variable involved (not the speed/RPM) that is causing the difference in mileage. It could be anything from a difference in driving conditions, to a difference in temperature, to inconsistent filling (topping off one tank but another clicked off when you could have fit another gallon or two), or some other cause. Otherwise, I have no idea why that might be happening. As you say, it's not what you would expect. If you feel like it, keep driving and keeping track of it both ways and I suspect that, with many additional tanks of gas, you might find that it doesn't happen consistently. < shrug >
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 1
From: Never Never Land, Ohio, USA
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (nsxtasy)
the only other thing I can think of, is that I have a leak somewhere... It only comes to mind because the goodish mileage drive was right after fueling, and then to refueling, where as the next day, and day prior, it was fuel, sit for the night, then drive and refuel... go figure. With weather lately though, things are too dirty to spot anything obvious.
EDIT, also to what you said earlier about odometer, checking with GPS, the odometer measures the exact same distance, over 220 miles, within a tenth of a mile or so respectively, so only the spedometer appears to be off.
EDIT, also to what you said earlier about odometer, checking with GPS, the odometer measures the exact same distance, over 220 miles, within a tenth of a mile or so respectively, so only the spedometer appears to be off.
Trending Topics
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 2
From: ottawa,, top of the map
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (CooBlueDAB)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CooBlueDAB »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the only other thing I can think of, is that I have a leak somewhere... It only comes to mind because the goodish mileage drive was right after fueling, and then to refueling, where as the next day, and day prior, it was fuel, sit for the night, then drive and refuel... go figure. With weather lately though, things are too dirty to spot anything obvious.</TD></TR></TABLE>
If it has been getting colder expect a major loss in mileage. Also a possible reason for better mileage at that speed is that you are not traveling at a constant speed. Probably slowing down a mph then accelerating up a mph....etc. At 3000rpm it's a lot easier to accelerate because you are not bogging down as much where as at 2500 rpm you can floor it and not much will happen. Just a theory anyways. Try driving on cruise control, it will help.
If it has been getting colder expect a major loss in mileage. Also a possible reason for better mileage at that speed is that you are not traveling at a constant speed. Probably slowing down a mph then accelerating up a mph....etc. At 3000rpm it's a lot easier to accelerate because you are not bogging down as much where as at 2500 rpm you can floor it and not much will happen. Just a theory anyways. Try driving on cruise control, it will help.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 1
From: Never Never Land, Ohio, USA
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (old man neri)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by old man neri »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If it has been getting colder expect a major loss in mileage. Also a possible reason for better mileage at that speed is that you are not traveling at a constant speed. Probably slowing down a mph then accelerating up a mph....etc. At 3000rpm it's a lot easier to accelerate because you are not bogging down as much where as at 2500 rpm you can floor it and not much will happen. Just a theory anyways. Try driving on cruise control, it will help. </TD></TR></TABLE>
No, this was a straight shot on more or less level highway. and I tried cruise, it sucks worse lol... I did take a hit though,... in summer I could get 39-40mpg... 24... on highway, just not.... a hit... its a friggin issue. For whatever reason Ill be driving a trip again soon, and let you all know if it remains constant.
No, this was a straight shot on more or less level highway. and I tried cruise, it sucks worse lol... I did take a hit though,... in summer I could get 39-40mpg... 24... on highway, just not.... a hit... its a friggin issue. For whatever reason Ill be driving a trip again soon, and let you all know if it remains constant.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 1
From: Never Never Land, Ohio, USA
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (CooBlueDAB)
weee did it again, go figure ... 26mpg going 65 at 2500rpm.. 37mpg around 80mph or 33-3500rpm.... lol... i'd be happy if speed limits were like that... but....
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,089
Likes: 0
From: nashville/fresno, tn/ca, Cambodia
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (CooBlueDAB)
u know what i like 195/55/15 alot better in my case they take bumps a little easier than 195/50/15 but it all depends on the tire u choose i really like dunlops but cant rem what kind i had it had great grip compared to my yoko advans which was 205/15/15
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (jdmboi86)
If this helps any.
I went from 195/55-15's Michellin XGT V4's to Falken Ziex 205/50-15's on my Subzeros (15x6.5"). There's no difference in comfort, your losing about a fraction of an inch of tire height.
However, on the plus side (IMO) you gain more contact patch.
WATCH OUT if your low tho, (if you have adjustable susp.) you have to bring it up a bit or roll your fender with a baseball bat to avoid tire rub.
I went from 195/55-15's Michellin XGT V4's to Falken Ziex 205/50-15's on my Subzeros (15x6.5"). There's no difference in comfort, your losing about a fraction of an inch of tire height.
However, on the plus side (IMO) you gain more contact patch.
WATCH OUT if your low tho, (if you have adjustable susp.) you have to bring it up a bit or roll your fender with a baseball bat to avoid tire rub.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 23,478
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (EF4_Anthony)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EF4_Anthony »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">However, on the plus side (IMO) you gain more contact patch.</TD></TR></TABLE>
No, you don't. When you get wider tires, the SHAPE of the contact patch changes, but the overall SIZE doesn't. It gets wider side to side, but narrower front to back.
As long as the tires are inflated and supporting the weight of the car, the size of the contact patch depends only on the weight of the car and the air pressure in the tires. For example, a 2640-pound Integra with tires inflated to 33 psi (pounds per square inch) has contact patches whose area totals 80 square inches - regardless of whether the car has skinny 175 mm treadwidth tires or 245 mm steamrollers.
And a difference of 10 mm treadwidth is extremely small. It will have much less effect than the difference between different models of tires. If you're looking for better performance, concentrate on getting better performing tires, rather than merely a wider size.
No, you don't. When you get wider tires, the SHAPE of the contact patch changes, but the overall SIZE doesn't. It gets wider side to side, but narrower front to back.
As long as the tires are inflated and supporting the weight of the car, the size of the contact patch depends only on the weight of the car and the air pressure in the tires. For example, a 2640-pound Integra with tires inflated to 33 psi (pounds per square inch) has contact patches whose area totals 80 square inches - regardless of whether the car has skinny 175 mm treadwidth tires or 245 mm steamrollers.
And a difference of 10 mm treadwidth is extremely small. It will have much less effect than the difference between different models of tires. If you're looking for better performance, concentrate on getting better performing tires, rather than merely a wider size.
Re: Would I notice a difference in Handling 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15 (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
No, you don't. When you get wider tires, the SHAPE of the contact patch changes, but the overall SIZE doesn't. It gets wider side to side, but narrower front to back.
As long as the tires are inflated and supporting the weight of the car, the size of the contact patch depends only on the weight of the car and the air pressure in the tires. For example, a 2640-pound Integra with tires inflated to 33 psi (pounds per square inch) has contact patches whose area totals 80 square inches - regardless of whether the car has skinny 175 mm treadwidth tires or 245 mm steamrollers.
And a difference of 10 mm treadwidth is extremely small. It will have much less effect than the difference between different models of tires. If you're looking for better performance, concentrate on getting better performing tires, rather than merely a wider size.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Wow!! you definitely are a car guy. Thanks I liked that data.
No, you don't. When you get wider tires, the SHAPE of the contact patch changes, but the overall SIZE doesn't. It gets wider side to side, but narrower front to back.
As long as the tires are inflated and supporting the weight of the car, the size of the contact patch depends only on the weight of the car and the air pressure in the tires. For example, a 2640-pound Integra with tires inflated to 33 psi (pounds per square inch) has contact patches whose area totals 80 square inches - regardless of whether the car has skinny 175 mm treadwidth tires or 245 mm steamrollers.
And a difference of 10 mm treadwidth is extremely small. It will have much less effect than the difference between different models of tires. If you're looking for better performance, concentrate on getting better performing tires, rather than merely a wider size.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Wow!! you definitely are a car guy. Thanks I liked that data.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ieatrice
Honda Civic / Del Sol (1992 - 2000)
21
Oct 24, 2005 07:58 AM
mrmonk
Acura Integra
23
Feb 11, 2004 08:26 AM
