I feel like i'm starting to exhaust my allowed quota of questions here.

Anyways, I've decided to put winter tires on my stock steel wheels and put some summer tires on my alloy rims when the spring comes around again.

I have a 97 Civic CX and the stock tire size is 185/65 14, now i'm under the impression that this size is fine for winter tires, but a narrower tire sizes is better. Is this the case? and what would be the better size in this situation, Tire Rack suggests 175/70 as the optional size and Discount Tire is suggesting 185/60, 195/60 and 195/65.

I figure I'll probably just go with the stock size and get continental viking SnowTech tires from Discount Tire, they're $45 each and I understand they're decent.

Much obliged.

 

i would run stock size but get a better snow tire.......like michelin x-ice or hankook 409 i-pike tire

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by pushlatency &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I feel like i'm starting to exhaust my allowed quota of questions here.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

As long as they are presented in a mature fashion and you don't bitch about the replies you get then you have an inexhaustable quota of questions you can pose.

Might as well go for the 185/65s, there is probably a much better selection of tires available in that size. Yes, narrower tires are better for the snow, that being said the majority of the time spend driving in winter will be in slush and wet roads not through deep snow. Like others have said, just get good winter tires.

Cheers.

 

Have you come across any reviews about the W409 ipike? I haven't seen anything concrete about them one way or the other.

The Viking snowtechs though seem to have good reports here and there. There's a review in consumer reports from about a year ago. I'd link it but I believe you need to be registered.

Anyways, thanks alot.

 

looks like not to many favorable reviews on the i-pike tire but i like the directional tread design and the tons of sipes in the tire...nice 23 degree chanels to disperse water and slush.......another good tire would be the yokohama ice guard

 

more narrow the better, smaller contact area hitting the ground means more pressure equally more traction

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SupersonicBlueGSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">more narrow the better, smaller contact area hitting the ground means more pressure equally more traction</TD></TR></TABLE>

No. The contact area is determined by the pressure in the tires and the wieght of the car. a 2000lbs car will always exert 2000lbs of force on the ground. Narrow tires are effective in the winter because they cut through the snow better, the contact patch is not as side and more elongated.

Cheers.

 

There are a lot of excellent winter tires on the market, and most of them are available in 185/65-14. They tend to break down into two groups:

a) tires that have the very best traction on snow and ice, but have so-so ride and handling on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50, Dunlop Graspic DS-2, and Michelin X-Ice. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "studless ice and snow tires".)

b) tires that have good traction on snow and ice and in cold, although not quite as good as the previous group, but they also have very good ride and handling characteristics on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-22, Dunlop Winter Sport M3, and the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "performance winter tires".)

The choice between these two categories depends on the climate in your area, how much highway driving you do in the winter, how much you care about ultimate snow/ice grip versus ride comfort, whether you have another vehicle to use in the worst of winter, etc. Oh, and the tires in category (a) are usually significantly less expensive than category (b), which may be important. For example, I want the best snow/ice traction and I don't mind sacrificing some ride comfort and handling for those three months a year (mid-December to mid-March around here), and winter weather here in Chicago can be fairly nasty, so I have category (a) tires. But your priorities may be different, and you might be better off getting the category (b) tires.

The best category (a) "studless" tires, IMHO, are the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50. These tires have a "multicell compound" in the outer half of the tread, which acts like a sponge to soak up the moisture which melts when you drive on snow and ice. They really grip much, much better than other tires on those surfaces. They're $76/tire plus shipping from the Tire Rack. Granted, this is more than the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($55 after rebate). But keep in mind that one set of winter tires may last you 6-8 winter seasons, if you drive on them 2-3K miles per winter, so you won't need to buy another set for many years.

All good info for you to consider in deciding what makes the most sense for you. Good luck.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by old man neri &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

No. The contact area is determined by the pressure in the tires and the wieght of the car. a 2000lbs car will always exert 2000lbs of force on the ground. Narrow tires are effective in the winter because they cut through the snow better, the contact patch is not as side and more elongated.

Cheers.</TD></TR></TABLE>

NOOOOOOO. YOU ARE WRONG MY FRIEND. Yes the force is always the same, thus being a constant but when you decrease the tire width, theres more PSI thus creating more pressure. Read and educate yourself:

http://www.brickboard.com/RWD/index.htm?id=738867

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P..._inch

 

Looks like we're having an outbreak of ignorance here.

old man neri is correct, as usual.

If you have a 2640-pound Integra, and you inflate the tires to 33 pounds per square inch, then the size of the contact patches will total 80 square inches. And it doesn't matter whether you have skinny 175 treadwidth tires, or 245 steamrollers; the shape of the contact patch may be different, but the size will be the same. If you disagree, please tell us how you divide 2640 by 33 and come up with a number other than 80. Show your work.

Incidentally, the Tire Rack did an experiment just like the above, in which they actually measured the area of contact patches for identical cars with identical tire pressures using wide and narrow tires, and found that the difference in the two measurements was less than their measurement error (around 2 percent, they estimated).

Oh, and if YOU would like to educate YOURSELF - by reading articles from experts (instead of posting links to something that some idiot posted on the internet where anyone can post anything no matter how wrong it is, along with an unnecessary definition of "pounds per square inch") - then read this article, which appeared in an actual magazine put out by a staff of professional automotive journalists. Read and learn. Please.

 

locked because some people like to call people names.