Just need to know what tires are the best for my '97 civic coupe. I'm going to pick up some wheels that are 17x7.5 with a +45 offset. It's for daily driving, not road racing or drag. I was thinking 205/45/17s but someone help me out, thanks!

***EDIT! Here are the rims I'm getting...




Modified by CBR_15 at 9:38 PM 7/9/2006

 

The best matching size for your car is 205/40-17, which has the same outer diameter as your stock size, so they shouldn't rub. That will also preserve the accuracy of the speedometer and odometer.

As for which tires, there's one great choice in 205/40-17 that combines value and performance, and that is the Bridgestone Potenza RE750. The RE750 offers performance that's slightly better than the leading "bang for the buck" tires like the Kumho Ecsta SPT and the Yokohama AVS ES100; all these tires offer very good dry traction, excellent wet traction, and long treadlife (30-40K miles). In most sizes, the RE750 is over $100 and a lot more expensive than those other tires (as much as double the price). But for some reason, the Tire Rack has the RE750 on special in 205/40-17 for $56/tire, which is a great deal, a lot less than those other tires.

If you want better performance than the RE750, it's going to cost you, in the purchase price of the tires and possibly also in treadlife. Two alternatives for better performance, you can either (a) pay $94/tire for the Falken Azenis RT-615, and realize that it's only going to last you about a third as many miles as the RE750 and it's not very good in rain; or (b) pay $133/tire for the Goodyear F1 GS-D3, which is excellent in dry and wet conditions and lasts a long time but costs more than twice as much. Both of these offer better performance on dry pavement than the RE750, but the trade-off is the higher purchase price and, in the case of the Azenis, rapid treadwear and so-so wet traction. If you don't mind just a wee bit lower (but still very good) performance, then go for the RE750 - they're a very good tire at a terrific price.

I'm assuming that you don't plan to use these tires in snow or frigid cold - hopefully you have a separate set of winter tires - as these are summer tires, good in moderate to warm temperatures but not in winter conditions. Otherwise you will need to consider all-season tires if you have to drive on the same tires all year round, including Minnesota winters.

 

205/40/17s will cover the 17x7.5 good right? I don't wan the rim to stick out more than the tire that's all...and yes, tires are only for summer driving..thanks nsxtasy

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CBR_15 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">205/40/17s will cover the 17x7.5 good right?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes. Most tires that size are approved for rim widths 7.0-8.0 inches wide. Tires have a tendency to look a bit "bulging" at the low end of the approved range, and "stretched" at the high end. So that size should look perfect on 17x7.5

 

ok, thanks A LOT! nsxtasy, you're way cool

 

nitto neo-gen, yokohama parada's are also good.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JSPECSIR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yokohama parada's are also good.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Yokohama Parada Spec 2 is crap - nowhere near as good as Yokohama's ES100 tire. Heck, the Tire Rack tested it and in the dry it couldn't even match the old crappy Dunlop FM901, which is no longer competitive in that price range (which is why Dunlop introduced the newer and much better Direzza DZ101).

 

well whatever, i used to have a set and they stuck pretty damn good.

 

The best explanation is, tire offerings change. For example, five years ago, people who didn't want to spend a lot of money for tires were pretty happy with tires like the Dunlop FM901 and Kumho Ecsta Supra 712. If you wanted to spend $50-60 each on tires, they were as good as it gets - okay, better than most other tires in that price range or less. So everyone thought they were decent.

Then Yokohama came out with the ES100 in the same price range. This was a revolutionary tire - not in terms of technology, but in terms of marketing, because it was substantially better than other, similarly-priced tires. It did everything better - dry traction, wet traction, treadlife, etc. It "raised the bar" in the budget performance segment of the tire market.

In the years since then, other tire manufacturers developed and introduced tires to compete with the ES100 in the same price range - tires like the Kumho SPT, Dunlop Direzza DZ101, Avon Tech M500, Bridgestone RE750, etc. Tires that could compete with the ES100 in price and performance.

While I like to say that tires like the 712 and FM901 are "crap", they're not any different than they were five years ago. Like the Parada Spec 2, they're still okay tires - "pretty damn good", as you put it, which is what people generally thought back then. But they're just not as good as the tires that have hit the market since then. And, since they're in the same price bracket, they no longer represent the value that they did years ago, compared to the much better tires now on the market. So, to be more accurate, they are not "crap"; their "performance is significantly inferior to many other tires in the same price bracket", so they are "not a good value".