wat are the average tire sizes for 16x7? any body have pictures of tires on 16's?

 

205/45-16

 

205/45/16 Falken Ziex on my old Black Racing wheels

 

http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html

205/45/16 or 215/45/16s are the most popular.

 

Yup.

Most tires come in 205/45-16 or 215/45-16, but not both. So decide on the tire you want, and get the size it comes in.

Quick recommendations:

If you ONLY care about dry traction, get the supersticky Falken Azenis RT-615, $95/tire in 215/45-16. Downsides are so-so wet traction and short treadlife (figure 10-12K miles).

If you care about performance (dry traction and wet traction) as well as value (purchase price and/or treadlife), get the Kumho Ecsta SPT, $64/tire in 205/45-16, less $40 rebate on a set of four. Great in wet, and typically last 30-45K miles.

Both of the above tires are summer tires, good for use in moderate to warm temperatures. If you need to use the same tires in snow and frigid cold as the rest of the year, you'll need all-season tires, in which case consider the Kumho Ecsta ASX, $66/tire in 205/45-16, less $40 rebate on a set. But this probably doesn't apply to you in SoCal, unless you travel to the mountains for ski trips.

 

yes 205/45/16 is perfect. i would suggest some yokohama prada spec. a buddy of mine has them and he loves them.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DaTeggy92 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i would suggest some yokohama prada spec.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Compared with the Kumho Ecsta SPT, those old Yoko Parada (not Prada - the devil rolls prada ) Spec tires are crap. The performance of the SPT is so much better in EVERY way, and they're cheaper too (in 205/45-16, the SPT is $54/tire after rebate, the crappy Parada is $66).

I don't know why Yokohama still sells the crappy Parada Spec. Their own ES100 is also better in every way (although not as cheap as the SPT).

 

im on 16x7s right now and im running 205 45 16s imo id go with a 205 40 16 because of rubbing if youre going to be dumped

 

yeah im on paradas right now id say they compare to falken ziex the kumho ectsta spt is a much better tire and it is very affordable

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jdm tommy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">im on 16x7s right now and im running 205 45 16s imo id go with a 205 40 16 because of rubbing if youre going to be dumped</TD></TR></TABLE>

Nope. Even a lowered Integra should be fine with 205/45-16 (or 215/45-16). There's no reason to get the smaller 205/40-16, which is too small for an Integra (but perfect for a CRX, del sol, or pre-'96 Civic).

 

I can verify that I used to be slammed and never had a problem with my 205/45-16 tires.

Yeah I believe those Parada crap tires are actually marketed in Japan as a "show" tire and nothing more.

 

I Just Bought The Kumho Ecsta SPTs In 205/45ZR16s For My Gs-R On 16" Rota c-8s. They Only Cost $315 Shipped, Mounted And Balanced, Cant Beat That. Awesome Performance

Heres A Picture Of Them Mounted

 

you're not using stock lug nuts on there are you? If so you need to get some aftermarket taper-seat lug nuts on there ASAP.

I might consider those tires for my next set if they are quieter than my current ES100's.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4DRDB8GSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I Just Bought The Kumho Ecsta SPTs In 205/45ZR16s For My Gs-R On 16" Rota c-8s. They Only Cost $315 Shipped, Mounted And Balanced, Cant Beat That.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Sure I can. How would you like them for $275 instead? Send for your $40 rebate within thirty days. That will bring your net price down to $275.

Oh, and please don't capitalize the first letter of every word in your posts. It makes them look goofy and hard to read.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I might consider those tires for my next set if they are quieter than my current ES100's.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Tire Rack side-by-side comparison test rated the SPT better for noise comfort than the ES100.

However, it's also worth noting that noise tends to be a function of tire wear. The ES100 (I've got a lot of experience with them) generally sounds okay when it's new, gets louder as it wears, and it's even worse if you have a suspension problem that makes the tires wear unevenly (ask me how I know). So a lot of the noise can be due to wear factors rather than the tire itself.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">However, it's also worth noting that noise tends to be a function of tire wear. The ES100 (I've got a lot of experience with them) generally sounds okay when it's new, gets louder as it wears, and it's even worse if you have a suspension problem that makes the tires wear unevenly (ask me how I know). So a lot of the noise can be due to wear factors rather than the tire itself.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah my current ES100's is my 3rd set (had them in 205/50-15 and currently in 195/50-15 on my stock GS-R wheels), so I know how they get loud as they wear down.

But my current set of 205/45-16 seemed like they got noticeably loud after maybe only 10K miles of use, if even that much. My car is only lowered a slight amount using stock springs on Koni shocks, and the inner 1/3 of the tire is worn down maybe only 50% or so after 15K miles of use.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My car is only lowered a slight amount using stock springs on Koni shocks, and the inner 1/3 of the tire is worn down maybe only 50% or so after 15K miles of use.</TD></TR></TABLE>

If they're not wearing evenly, you may have an alignment or suspension problem.

 

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

Sure I can. How would you like them for $275 instead? Send for your $40 rebate within thirty days. That will bring your net price down to $275.

Oh, and please don't capitalize the first letter of every word in your posts. It makes them look goofy and hard to read.</TD></TR></TABLE>

$315 is what i paid after the $40 mail-in rebate, shipping, mounting and balancing!

I Would Be Surprised If You Could Get These For $275 A Set Mounted Balanced And Shipped.

They are $64/tire + $39 shipping + $8 valvestems + $40 mounting + 12 balancing - $40 Rebate = $315 a set mounted, balanced and shipped.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you're not using stock lug nuts on there are you? If so you need to get some aftermarket taper-seat lug nuts on there ASAP.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Don't worry i am already using tapered lug nuts

 

ES 100s suck ***. If you like to take the corners super hard, then get the falken azenis rt 615. If you just want some mediocre tires, then get the falken ziex. If youre running 16x7, get the 215/45/16. Wider is better. why would you want to get 205 when you can run the wider 215?

 

for 3 years (and about 100k miles) i ran 205/40s on my 16x7 5zigen wheels. my teggy was dropped on h&r sports and kyb agx shocks...

i had about a finger or so gap in the front and 2-3 finger gap in the back. running 45 series tires probably would've made me rub,especially when my son is in the back so i chose 40 series.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lghnea &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...If youre running 16x7, get the 215/45/16. Wider is better. why would you want to get 205 when you can run the wider 215?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why...215s cost about 50% more than the comparable 205s, that can add up to hundreds more for a a set of tires for just another 10mm of rubber that you wont be able to notice. 205/45ZR16s Are The Closer Size To Our Stock 195/55R15s. And there are a lot more options for 205/45R16s than 215s. A wider tires creates more drag. These are just a couple of reasons why you would not go with 215s.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lghnea &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ES 100s suck ***.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Nonsense. The ES100 is an excellent tire for what it offers - pretty good dry traction, excellent wet traction, excellent treadlife, and a reasonable price. Sure, there are some tires that do some of those things better, but there are also plenty of crappy tires out there that cost as much as the ES100 and do nowhere near as well.

Granted, I think the Kumho Ecsta SPT does everything as well as, or better than, the ES100, and costs less, so I think the SPT is a better buy than the ES100. But the ES100 is still a good tire if you're looking for both performance and value.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lghnea &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you like to take the corners super hard, then get the falken azenis rt 615.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree - as long as you don't mind very short treadlife (about one third as many miles as the ES100) and so-so traction in rain. If you only care about fast cornering on dry pavement, the RT-615 is excellent. If you also care about value (purchase price and treadlife) and/or wet traction, it's not a good choice. Different choices for different folks with different priorities.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lghnea &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you just want some mediocre tires, then get the falken ziex.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Falken Ziex ZE-512 is indeed a crappy tire. Even compared with other all-season tires, it's a crappy tire. The ES100 is a much better choice, assuming you don't need to drive in snow (and there are other, better choices if you DO need to drive in snow).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lghnea &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If youre running 16x7, get the 215/45/16. Wider is better. why would you want to get 205 when you can run the wider 215?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Any or all of three reasons:

1. The difference in performance due to differences in the tire make/model (design features like tread compound, tread block shape/size, etc) is about 100 times greater than the difference in performance due to differences in treadwidth. For example, the reason the Falken Azenis RT-615 in 215/45-16 gives better dry traction and cornering than other street tires in 205/45-16 is mostly because the RT-615 features a supersoft rubber compound, large tread blocks, and other design features, rather than just because it's wider. In 15" sizes, compare the Falken Azenis RT-615 in 205/50-15 against the crappy BFG g-Force Sport in 215/50-15, and the narrower RT-615 will easily give MUCH better performance.

So if you are looking for better performance, you should be looking for better, stickier tires, rather than wider tires.

2. Most tires don't come in a choice of 205/45-16 or 215/45-16. Here is a list of all the tires that come in both sizes, among the 16 brands sold at the Tire Rack:

(list is empty)

3. Narrower tires give better performance in rain and in snow, if that matters to you.

So - as noted in point number 1 - the decision that matters is which tire make/model you're going to get, not which size you're going to get. (A stickier tire in 205/45 will give you better performance than a less sticky tire in 215/45, ten times out of ten.)

Again, if you are looking for better performance, you should be looking for better, stickier tires, rather than wider tires. If the tires you want come in 205/45-16, get that size; if they come in 215/45-16, get that size. Chances are, they won't come in both sizes.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4DRDB8GSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Why...215s cost about 50% more than the comparable 205s, that can add up to hundreds more for a a set of tires for just another 10mm of rubber that you wont be able to notice.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not exactly true. Remember, there are VERY few (almost zero) tires that come in both 205/45-16 and 215/45-16, so you don't have costs to compare. It may just be that the tires that come in 215/45-16 are more expensive than the different tires that come in 205/45-16.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4DRDB8GSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">205/45ZR16s Are The Closer Size To Our Stock 195/55R15s.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Just barely. The 205/45-16 is 0.18 inch (0.77 percent) smaller than stock, and the 215/45-16 is 0.17 inch (0.74 percent) larger than stock.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4DRDB8GSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">These are just a couple of reasons why you would not go with 215s.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The big reason not to go with 215s is if the tire you want doesn't come in 215. Decide on the tire you want, based on your preferences (and willingness to trade off) among dry traction, wet traction, snow traction, treadlife, purchase price, etc. If the tire comes in 205/45-16, get that size; if it comes in 215/45-16, get that size. (Chances are it won't come in both sizes.)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If they're not wearing evenly, you may have an alignment or suspension problem.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I have negative camber. That will wear the inside edge slightly. Even with toe set correctly the inside edge will still wear slightly. Like I said I've gone 15K miles on these ES100's and have only worn maybe 50% off the inside 1/3 of the tire. If the toe was out of whack (like when a car is lowered w/o an alignment and the tires are toed out), the inside edge would wear down to the belts in just a few thousand miles.

Actually I just had my ball joints and wheel bearings replaced so I'm getting the car aligned again tomorrow, so the alignment will be good for sure after that.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have negative camber. That will wear the inside edge slightly. Even with toe set correctly the inside edge will still wear slightly.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Very true. And an alignment may not be the best in all circumstances. For example, on a car driven on both the street and the track, the more negative camber you have, the more the inside edge will wear in daily driving; but the less negative camber you have, the more the outside edge will wear on the track. So you have to pick the setting that best meets your needs in some conditions, and live with it in others. (I'm sure you already know this, Patrick, but perhaps some others don't, or need reminding.)

Our GS-R is only a street driven daily driver, not tracked or driven hard, with stock alignment, and the ES100 wears pretty evenly (except when we had a suspension problem - worn bushings).

 

I'm sure my bushings are worn, being 12 years old. But until I can find a suitable decently-priced rubber replacement (don't want to deal with squeeky polyurethane, and OEM bushings are too expensive) I probably won't do anything about it in the near future.