<FONT SIZE="6">---195/50/15 VS 195/55/15---</FONT>


<FONT SIZE="2">planning on buying new tires at the end of this month. Just Trying to See what the minor/major differences are between the sizes.</FONT>

my wheels are 15x6.5 & 35 offset.

Thanks!



ive ran most of the typical sizes all around..195/50/15 & 205/50/15

 

I always thought that taller tires are a little better for auto-x because you have more tire roll area so you run a smaller risk of rim damage and over rolling the tires. Not that that is much of a problem with less sticky tires.

For drag purposes, taller seems better because you have more tire flex are because of the taller tires so you get some of the flex feeling that helps slicks perform so well, though the sticky feeling is not there

But from all that I have seen, 55's would be better. I'm not saying go super huge because obviously taller tires cause the car to flex around the tires under larger tuning forces which effects handling as well.

With all that being said, I'm running 50s and you see how after auto-x events where I spin out from pushing too hard, the side walls of the tire are a little ashy. This is from over rolling the tire a little.

If I got something wrong, let me know. I'm still new to auto-xing so I don't claim to be 100% right.

 

that sounds like pretty good answer

 

I would go with 195/55 cause that is the stock size for you car. Haveing a smaller side wall will result in your speedometer and odometer over reading. Although it's only about a 3% dif. Proably a little cheaper too.

 

<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">I would go with 195/55 cause that is the stock size for you car. Haveing a smaller side wall will result in your speedometer and odometer over reading. Although it's only about a 3% dif. Proably a little cheaper too.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree on all points, except that the 195/55 isn't usually cheaper than 195/50. The percentage difference in outer diameter is more like 3.3 percent, which is pretty big. I would stick with the stock size unless there's some reason not to do so.

 

i will probably go with the Yokohama ES100's $264 shipped.

195/55/15

im just mixing a lil comfort and perf together...
any other suggestions would be nice. as far as tire brands.

 

The Yokohama ES100 is a very good choice. It offers very good dry performance, excellent wet performance, reasonably long tread life, and a bargain price at $61/tire in 195/55-15. Another good choice is the Kumho Ecsta SPT at $64/tire, which is similar, but better in wet conditions. You can see a comparison test of both tires on the Tire Rack website here.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Yokohama ES100 is a very good choice. It offers very good dry performance, excellent wet performance, reasonably long tread life, and a bargain price at $61/tire in 195/55-15. Another good choice is the Kumho Ecsta SPT at $64/tire, which is similar, but better in wet conditions. You can see a comparison test of both tires on the Tire Rack website here.</TD></TR></TABLE>

thanks!...ill look into those Kumhos more.

 

the Falken Ziex's might be the best bet for my situation. they've never done me wrong

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ECAhatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i will probably go with the Yokohama ES100's $264 shipped.

195/55/15

im just mixing a lil comfort and perf together...
any other suggestions would be nice. as far as tire brands. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Nice hatch by the way.

 

All I know is I had Kumho Ecsta Supra's and they were horrible. I would slide everywhere (dry traction).

Went to the Toyo T1R's and I'm never looking back

 

$290 shipped from http://www.onlinetires.com

195/50/15 Toyo T1-R's

or $264 shipped from http://www.discounttiredirect.com

195/55/15 Yokohama ES100's

ill think about this shed some more light H-T peeps im bored at work.

 

T1R's is the sex.


&lt;---- had them before, getting them soon

 

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ECAhatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the Falken Ziex's might be the best bet for my situation.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Only if you need an all-season tire to drive in snow and frigid cold as well as warmer temps. Because, in moderate to warm temperatures, summer tires like the ES100, SPT, and T1-R perform much much MUCH better than the Ziex, which is an all-season tire.

The Toyo T1-R is a good tire, but I would still get the proper size for your car, which is 195/55-15, instead of getting a tire in the wrong size for your car. You can get the Toyo T1-R in 195/55-15, if you're interested, but it will cost more than the 195/50-15.

 

thanks dude!

 

Nice hatch .

 

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

I agree on all points, except that the 195/55 isn't usually cheaper than 195/50. The percentage difference in outer diameter is more like 3.3 percent, which is pretty big. I would stick with the stock size unless there's some reason not to do so.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I always thought that the smaller the side wall the more expensive (for a given width and whell diameter)...........oh well,

And I got a 3.15% difference in <U>cirumfrance</U> which in my opinion is not all that much. If you are reading 50MPH you would actually only be doing 48.5MPH and if you odometer just turned over 1000mi you only actually did 965mi.

In anycase, stick with stock.

And if you live in a colder climate where it snows all the time, please consider seperate winter and summer tires.

Cheers

 

your car looks pretty low. I would go with 195/50/15. Unfortunately I have 195/55/15 on my 99 si and they look big and fat as hell compared to some 195/50/15's I used to have. I put a 55 up next to a 50 and the difference was pretty noticeable in sidewall height. For extremely lowered cars, I'd go with 195/50/15 and moderately lowered cars 205/50/15. I'd never go back to 195/55/15. Too tall and skinny for me.

 

<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">I always thought that the smaller the side wall the more expensive (for a given width and whell diameter)...........oh well,</TD></TR></TABLE>

It also depends on popularity. The more common sizes tend to be less expensive. 195/50-15 is pretty common because it's the right size for the older Civics and CRXs, more so than the 195/55-15, which was only stock on the Civic for four years (I think) and certain Integra models.

Get the right size for your car, not a smaller size that's going to look funny because it's too small and doesn't fill up the wheel wells. Unless you're really into that "low rider" look...

 

just b/c someone brought it up...anyone have pics of 195/55/15 vs 195/50/15?....

Comparisons..? Thanks!

 

Very true. I would say go with 55 for you purpose of daily driving. You get better gas milage from having more surface per rotation. That means your car will travel a larger distance from one complete revolution than your car would with 50s. I know this after coming from the previous 16" 45 wheel/tire to the current 15" 50 wheel/tire. Gas milage went down a bit, BUT, acceleration is a LOT better... which brings me to my second point...

The reason they make different sized tires is because they are made for different purposes. A 50 sized tire may mean less gas milage, but it also means less weight than a 55, so rotation accel/decel time is effected. If you've never rode on sw388's with t1r's, you don't know what you're missing. Weight is a huge factor. I now stop and accelorate (stopping is more noticible) so much better.

Of course weight difference depends on the tire, so I'm not claiming huge pound differences between sizes, but it does effect it respectively. T1r's just happend to be light tires as well.

If you factor in that, my understanding is that though 50's kill gas mileage a little more and may be a little more harsh, they have performance gains over 55's. It's just like adding a turbo to a car kills gas milage and places the engine under strain, but the performance gains must be considered as well. I'm an NA freak so this was used just as an analogy. I don't claim that drastic of a difference of course Just saying that it all comes down to preference. There is no right and wrong tire. Just what you're looking for.

I'm skimming these answers without going too much into detail. I don't think too much fault can be found, but I'm willing to view other ideas.

Now, the last thing is not really asked here, but 205's for handling purpose are far better than 195's. If you could go wider and still fit them in the well, I would say that would be better than 205's, but let's stick with that since they fit pretty well.

Wider tires creates a larger cornering contact patch under light G's or a strong cornering contact patch under strong G's. It also creates a wider contact surface under front to back stress. I will end it there but will intertain any different ideas.

From tire rack: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...id=10

The shape of a tire's contact patch or "footprint" greatly influences its performance and is dependent on its profile or "aspect ratio". Low profile tires (most performance tires) have a short and wide contact patch that is effective in converting the driver's input into very responsive handling, cornering stability and traction...especially on dry roads.

Further arguments between wider or narrow: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewth...age=1

On one side of the arguement, the insistence is that as the area of the contact patch increases (you go to a wider tire), that increase in area is what gives you more grip/traction.

On the other side, grip/traction is controlled by the coeff. of friction x the normal force, and width really doesn't matter.

Static tire print:


Turning tire print: (advantage to wider tires) (left side tire print would be wider)


Acceleration (exact reverse of the tire prints for stopping): (Rear would be wider with wider tires)


That's it for now. In the end, I don't claim this to be a wright/wrong tire choice argument. I claim it to be reasoning between why tire sizes strictly depends on what you're going for. I'm sure you can say that slicks as a daily driving tire would be hell. You'd die in the rain. But, at the same time, that does not mean slicks are not a better tire. It's just being used out of the context that it was created for. Same with wider/smaller tires and shorter/taller tires. If there was just one right tire... companies wouldn't waiste time and money with research, and they would all make one size for each rim size. That way they wouldn't waiste money on the (Lesser) tire choices.

 

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


Further arguments between wider or narrow: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewth...age=1

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

I love http://www.eng-tips.com Such a nice forum filled with nice people.


Modified by old man neri at 8:18 AM 1/11/2006

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kay_animation &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Wider tires creates a larger cornering contact patch under light G's or a strong cornering contact patch under strong G's.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not true. See below.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kay_animation &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">From tire rack: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...id=10

The shape of a tire's contact patch or "footprint" greatly influences its performance and is dependent on its profile or "aspect ratio".</TD></TR></TABLE>

Correct.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kay_animation &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">On one side of the arguement, the insistence is that as the area of the contact patch increases (you go to a wider tire), that increase in area is what gives you more grip/traction.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not true.

With wider tires, the shape of the contact patch changes (wider side to side, narrower front to back), but the size (area) of the contact patch remains the same. As long as the inflation in the tires is 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, if a 2640-pound Integra Type R has 33 pounds per square inch of air pressure in the tires, the size of the four contact patches will total 80 square inches, regardless of whether they are skinny 175 mm treadwidth tires or 245 mm steamrollers. (Reference: Autospeed)

The folks at the Tire Rack even tried measuring the total size of the contact patches for narrow and wide tires on the same car with the same tire pressures, and found that the difference between the two figures was less than their 2 percent measuring accuracy.

Again, if you're looking for better performance, concentrate on getting better (stickier, higher performance) tires, not wider tires. In most cases - pretty much anything short of all-out R compound track tires - you can improve your performance a whole lot more by getting a different model tire with more grip, than by getting the same tire in a wider size.

 

fair enough... good info to know in the long run