Honda Car Forum |
|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Social Groups | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Honda Parts Search |
|
| ||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
I bought this car from a guy last year and am thinking of buying some
new tires as the wear appears to be uneven and now the car pulls to one side. I noticed (probably should have noted this earlier, but I was having too much fun driving it) that there were standard P205/50R16 on the front, but P215/50/R16 on the back. A tire store guy told me that FWD cars should be same size matched all the way around. Question: Is the tire guy right, should I have the same all the way around? Also, what advantage would 215s give me, just a wider tire/more road contact? Then should I think about 215/45/R16 to keep the same relative aspect ratio? I'm leaning towards P205s all the way around. Any brand/type recommendations while you're at it? Thanks, Rob |
|
|||
|
You should have the same size tires all the way around just for the sake of
having things equal and being able to rotate your tires without screwing up your speedometer. There is no damage that will occur if having mifmatched tires though. And more road contact doesn't mean better performance. You still have the same amount of weight on the tire whether it is a small contact patch or a large contact patch. The pounds per square inch actually decrease as the tire patch gets bigger, but the total force on the road is still the same. "Rob B" <bertbarndoor@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e29ccc85.0504160631.5f2e785c@posting.google.c om... >I bought this car from a guy last year and am thinking of buying some > new tires as the wear appears to be uneven and now the car pulls to > one side. > > I noticed (probably should have noted this earlier, but I was having > too much fun driving it) that there were standard P205/50R16 on the > front, but P215/50/R16 on the back. A tire store guy told me that FWD > cars should be same size matched all the way around. > > Question: Is the tire guy right, should I have the same all the way > around? Also, what advantage would 215s give me, just a wider > tire/more road contact? Then should I think about 215/45/R16 to keep > the same relative aspect ratio? I'm leaning towards P205s all the way > around. Any brand/type recommendations while you're at it? > > Thanks, > > Rob |
|
|||
|
halo2 guy wrote:
> And more road contact doesn't mean better performance. id prolly disagree partially with this. went from 185/65-14 to 195/60-14's on my 98 hatch, and the thing handles *great*. went from squealing and wandering on onramps to tracking like its on rails. theyre different tires, mfr, compound, and profile, but theres also more rubber on the road too. but the OEM firestone FR680s sucked really bad regardless. |
|
|||
|
Hear Hear! my FR680s only lasted 55000kms,
apparently rated for 100000kms. Pretty weak. And were they ever toast when i pulled em off too... lol I also use 195/60R14s on my 98 civic sedan. They are great! I used 195/65R14s for a bit, they rubbed for a while, I liked them too, but the lower profiles work way better. t |
|
|||
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:41:45 -0700, SoCalMike
<mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote: >halo2 guy wrote: >> And more road contact doesn't mean better performance. > >id prolly disagree partially with this. went from 185/65-14 to >195/60-14's on my 98 hatch, and the thing handles *great*. went from >squealing and wandering on onramps to tracking like its on rails. theyre >different tires, mfr, compound, and profile, but theres also more rubber >on the road too. I would HIGHLY disagree with that as well. I went from stock 175/70R13's to 205/50R15's (99 SI Wheels) on my 1994 Civic DX, and the difference was phenomenal!! I could not break the tires loose on dry pavement under braking conditions unless I threw it hard to one side. The brakes would fade before I got them to tear loose. The stocks will break loose FAST, especially with more than one person in the car. Nate |
|
|||
|
That is mainly because you have a shorter sidewall not that you have a tire
that is 30 millimeters wider than the old one. Also I imagine that the 50 series tires was a stronger tire by design and was a better tire overall since it was a performance tire unlike the 70 series tires.. "Me" <nhzero@dontmailme.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:m3v561d99pi27luo1eqairquc94vve8g8f@4ax.com... > On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:41:45 -0700, SoCalMike > <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>halo2 guy wrote: >>> And more road contact doesn't mean better performance. >> >>id prolly disagree partially with this. went from 185/65-14 to >>195/60-14's on my 98 hatch, and the thing handles *great*. went from >>squealing and wandering on onramps to tracking like its on rails. theyre >>different tires, mfr, compound, and profile, but theres also more rubber >>on the road too. > > I would HIGHLY disagree with that as well. I went from stock > 175/70R13's to 205/50R15's (99 SI Wheels) on my 1994 Civic DX, and the > difference was phenomenal!! I could not break the tires loose on dry > pavement under braking conditions unless I threw it hard to one side. > The brakes would fade before I got them to tear loose. The stocks will > break loose FAST, especially with more than one person in the car. > > Nate |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2001 Prelude vs 2001 honda integra | Brain Damidge | Honda 3 | 8 | 20 Jun 2006 07:53 pm |
| 2001 Prelude vs 2001 honda integra | racquelo2003@yahoo.com | Honda 2 | 3 | 16 Jun 2006 07:39 pm |
| tires for 3.2cl 2001 | Thomas Mischler | Acura | 4 | 29 Jun 2004 06:05 am |
| Re: Car & Driver back issues (2001-2002) | sachin | Honda 3 | 0 | 26 Apr 2004 11:17 am |
| FA: Car & Driver back issues (2001-2002) | sachin | Honda 3 | 0 | 19 Apr 2004 03:57 pm |