Michelin Pilot Sport AS3+ or Continental DWS06 ?

[d00df00d]

"Handling" and "performance" aren't simple things that go up or down with tire width. Each of those terms describes a collection of attributes. Some of those attributes (e.g. lateral grip) get better with more width. Others (e.g. longitudinal grip, limit behavior) get better with less width.

In other words, if you're avoiding a narrower tire because you want to "retain performance" or "maintain handling," you're not getting the whole picture.

ICYMI -- pasting because I don't feel like reformulating something I've already posted:
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
There is exactly one performance attribute that is better for a wider tire: peak lateral grip when driving on a smooth, clean, solid surface (i.e. cornering on a dry road or bare sheet ice).

Longitudinal grip (for acceleration and braking) may or may not be better. Going wider while keeping the same overall diameter yields a contact patch that is wider but not as long front-to-back.

Mass, hydroplaning resistance, rolling resistance, limit behavior, tramlining, feel, NVH -- in other words, pretty much all other attributes that matter -- are all worse for a wider tire.

Tire width is a lot like oil viscosity, honestly. You want as much as necessary, and no more. There's a reason cars built from the ground up for handling -- Miata, BRZ/FRS, RX-8, etc. -- don't come with steamroller tires. There's a reason performance cars rarely have the widest tires that'd fit, especially in front. There's a reason the Mercedes S65 AMG "only" has 285-section rear tires with 738 lb-ft torque while sports cars with half as much engine have 305s or more. The engineers who make those cars generally know what they're doing.

Regarding your particular case:

1. What the set of OE tire sizes shows you is that 195 is the baseline for the Corolla, and 215 is two sizes up from that. From that perspective, 185 isn't 30 down from what the car was designed for; it's 10 down.

2. Never forget that you'll be running a tire that's more suitable to winter temps than the stock all-seasons are. The OE tire on your car is... decent, I'm sure, but ultimately a totally unremarkable all-season tire. In winter temps, even on bone dry roads, it'll get crushed by a winter tire -- even if the winter tire is significantly narrower. I'd bet you probably wouldn't lose much lateral grip in winter temps by going to a 185-section winter tire, and there's a chance you might actually GAIN longitudinal grip. So, if maintenance is what you're worried about, there's no need to stick so close to the OE width. In fact, on cold dry roads, a 205-section winter tire would likely be an UPGRADE over OE. Nice, sure -- but unless you hate how your OE tires grip on dry roads, why not shift the balance more toward rain/snow/slush?

3. Don't worry about your rear disc brakes. The limiting factor for wheel diameter is always the front brakes, not the rear.

4. The comparison between the X-Ice Xi3 and Blizzak WS80 has been pretty substantive. It's one of the areas in which I don't think edyvw is wrong. :] If you want to prioritize traction in slush or very deep snow, you might want the WS80. Otherwise, you want the Xi3.

5. Here's another thing everyone seems to agree on, regardless of anything else: if you throw legit winter tires on your car, you'll be making a big improvement no matter what size or model you settle on. That doesn't mean all options are equally good, but it does mean you don't need to lose sleep over this. Pick something, give it a shot, and get back to us with a review.

 

[NissanMaxima]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
In fact, on cold dry roads, a 205-section winter tire would likely be an UPGRADE over OE. Nice, sure -- but unless you hate how your OE tires grip on dry roads, why not shift the balance more toward rain/snow/slush?


Thanks dOOdfOOd. I'll be the first to admit I might be missing the whole picture but was trying to distill everything folks had advised. I was under the impression the general consensus was that dry performance will suffer with narrower tires. So I thought a good compromise would the the midpoint tire width, the 205, which is between the 195 and 215 extremes the Corollas could be equipped with (although as mentioned the S model was only equipped with 205 or 215 which was another reason I gravitated towards the 205). When you said a 205 would be an upgrade, does that mean you think that would be a good compromise or do you still propose going narrower?

I agree any width will probably be an huge improvement over all-season tires and don't to burden the forum too much longer on this topic. You all have taught me so much and am very grateful. I can't wait to get the tires/wheels and celebrate with a snowmobiling or tubing trip requiring traversing some snow-covered roads!

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
When you said a 205 would be an upgrade, does that mean you think that would be a good compromise or do you still propose going narrower?

I often qualify what I say pretty narrowly, and I guess the qualifications can be easy to miss.

On dry roads, in winter temps, a 205 winter tire would be a comprehensive upgrade over the OE 215 tire. Any disadvantage the 205 tread width might have had would be overwhelmed by the fact that it's a winter tire, which is more suitable to winter temps than the OE "high performance" all-season tire.

I would still propose going narrower for the reasons I laid out in my previous posts. If it were my Corolla, I'd go for the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 in 185/65/15.


Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
I agree any width will probably be an huge improvement over all-season tires and don't to burden the forum too much longer on this topic. You all have taught me so much and am very grateful. I can't wait to get the tires/wheels and celebrate with a snowmobiling or tubing trip requiring traversing some snow-covered roads!

 

[edyvw]

Hey guys just to be clear. I was under impression that he is choosing tires for Nissan Maxima.
I agree with d00df00d, go with 185 or 195 in this case. If you want to stick to OEM, go with 195, but you will not "suffer" too much with 185.
d00df00d sorry for confusion.

 

[NissanMaxima]

Thanks fellows. edyvw... if I opt for the 205's on 16", that should still be much better than the stock 215 on 17", right? It is hard to imagine that 10mm (just a little more than 3/8") makes a difference going from 215 to 205 or from 205 to 195, but maybe it really does.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Hey guys just to be clear. I was under impression that he is choosing tires for Nissan Maxima.
I agree with d00df00d, go with 185 or 195 in this case. If you want to stick to OEM, go with 195, but you will not "suffer" too much with 185.
d00df00d sorry for confusion.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
Thanks fellows. edyvw... if I opt for the 205's on 16", that should still be much better than the stock 215 on 17", right? It is hard to imagine that 10mm (just a little more than 3/8") makes a difference going from 215 to 205 or from 205 to 195, but maybe it really does.

I personally think 215 are overkill on Corolla in the summer too.
205 will be fine, but if that was my car I would go with 195 or 185. Take into consideration that with smaller wheel you get more tire, and in winter that is good since roads are bad, more potholes, you can slide hit the curb etc. Corolla is a small car, downsizing to 195 will not affect lateral performance that much. I had 195/65 R15 on Opel Vectr B which was heavier car, and never had issues.
As for which tire, again, WS80 for more adverse weather, Xi3 for dry, wet, ice. Take into consideration that Xi3 will last at least 10K more.

 

[Injured_Again]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Tire width is a lot like oil viscosity, honestly. You want as much as necessary, and no more. There's a reason cars built from the ground up for handling -- Miata, BRZ/FRS, RX-8, etc. -- don't come with steamroller tires. There's a reason performance cars rarely have the widest tires that'd fit, especially in front. There's a reason the Mercedes S65 AMG "only" has 285-section rear tires with 738 lb-ft torque while sports cars with half as much engine have 305s or more. The engineers who make those cars generally know what they're doing.


Those are not cars built for handling. They are built to provide good handling feel, which is best accomplished with lightweight wheels that can be used on a lightweight chassis with low power.

The very best performing cars have very wide tires. The Corvette Z06 and Gran Sport both pull over 1.16G on a skidpad, and run 285's up front and 325's in back. The Dodge Viper ACR that set the production car lap record at Laguna Seca runs 295s up front and 355's in back.

The S65 has 285 section rear tires for several reasons, the most important of which are that the sheer weight of the vehicle allows better traction with any size tire than a lighter car with that identical tire. F1 cars, for instance, can produce tons of downforce when going fast and thus can corner at up to 5G at high speeds and only about 2G at slower speeds when the aerodynamics are not as effective. Also, the S65 has a twin turbo motor and a transmission that doesn't allow the equivalent of a clutch drop at a few thousand RPMs when the turbos are already spooled up. Thus the available amount of torque at launch is going to be a small percentage of that engine's maximum torque capability and minimizes the need for a huge tire.

Any car that wants to have ultimate cornering performance will run the largest practical tire that fits in the wheelwell.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Tire width is a lot like oil viscosity, honestly. You want as much as necessary, and no more. There's a reason cars built from the ground up for handling -- Miata, BRZ/FRS, RX-8, etc. -- don't come with steamroller tires. There's a reason performance cars rarely have the widest tires that'd fit, especially in front. There's a reason the Mercedes S65 AMG "only" has 285-section rear tires with 738 lb-ft torque while sports cars with half as much engine have 305s or more. The engineers who make those cars generally know what they're doing.


Those are not cars built for handling. They are built to provide good handling feel, which is best accomplished with lightweight wheels that can be used on a lightweight chassis with low power.

The very best performing cars have very wide tires. The Corvette Z06 and Gran Sport both pull over 1.16G on a skidpad, and run 285's up front and 325's in back. The Dodge Viper ACR that set the production car lap record at Laguna Seca runs 295s up front and 355's in back.

...

Any car that wants to have ultimate cornering performance will run the largest practical tire that fits in the wheelwell.

Yes, but lap times and ultimate cornering performance are not "handling."

Handling includes those things, plus limit behavior, plus handling balance, plus transitional response, plus load transfer behavior, plus driver feedback, etc. etc. etc. The cars you say are "not built for handling" do all of that brilliantly, with the exception of peak lateral grip -- which they tend to do poorly in stock form precisely because maxing that out would sacrifice other aspects. It's very hard to make a car friendly and well-behaved at the limit when it's riding on steamroller tires. Case in point: the "very best performing cars" you mentioned.

Yes, any car that wants to have ultimate cornering performance will run the largest practical tire that fits. That's exactly in line with my point, which is that the majority of performance cars are intentionally NOT engineered to have ultimate cornering performance. They're made to balance that with other handling attributes, which is a major reason why they DON'T run the largest practical tire that fits.


Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
The S65 has 285 section rear tires for several reasons, the most important of which are that the sheer weight of the vehicle allows better traction with any size tire than a lighter car with that identical tire. F1 cars, for instance, can produce tons of downforce when going fast and thus can corner at up to 5G at high speeds and only about 2G at slower speeds when the aerodynamics are not as effective. Also, the S65 has a twin turbo motor and a transmission that doesn't allow the equivalent of a clutch drop at a few thousand RPMs when the turbos are already spooled up. Thus the available amount of torque at launch is going to be a small percentage of that engine's maximum torque capability and minimizes the need for a huge tire.

AFAIK the main reason is that anything wider would improve lateral grip, but not -- and perhaps at the expense of -- longitudinal grip. Given that the latter is much more necessary, that's what they optimized for, and they only went as wide as necessary to bring oversteer within limits that can be controlled by the car's electronics. If they had gone wider, the car would have had less forgiving limits, hydroplaned more easily, rode worse, tramlined more, and been more of a PITA to re-shoe -- all for no good reason.

Yes, ground pressure is a major factor as well, as it always is.

The point is, more width isn't always better, even when cost is no object. You want as much width as necessary to meet your goals for lateral grip -- which is "as much as possible" for some cars, but only a very few. Otherwise, lateral grip must be traded off against other attributes, even when handling is your main concern.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
I personally think 215 are overkill on Corolla in the summer too.

Agreed.

As an aside, using one of those online calculators, it looks like the 205/55/16 size has a slightly larger OD than 215/45/17. If so, I'd take that size over in a heartbeat. Better braking, better hydroplaning resistance, etc. etc.

The Pilot Sport A/S 3+ is available in 205/55/1, in 3 different speed ratings including Y. There are some solid 16" wheel options, too -- decent weight-wise, and not too expensive (example). Looks like an excellent choice!

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I personally think 215 are overkill on Corolla in the summer too.

Agreed.

As an aside, using one of those online calculators, it looks like the 205/55/16 size has a slightly larger OD than 215/45/17. If so, I'd take that size over in a heartbeat. Better braking, better hydroplaning resistance, etc. etc.

The Pilot Sport A/S 3+ is available in 205/55/1, in 3 different speed ratings including Y. There are some solid 16" wheel options, too -- decent weight-wise, and not too expensive (example). Looks like an excellent choice!

Pilot? Yes for summer, hands down for Corolla.

 

[d00df00d]

Yeah, I was picking up on your summer comment there.

 

[NissanMaxima]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
...As an aside, using one of those online calculators, it looks like the 205/55/16 size has a slightly larger OD than 215/45/17. If so, I'd take that size over in a heartbeat. Better braking, better hydroplaning resistance, etc. etc.


edyvw... I'm not sure what you are saying here...according to tirerack the 205 55 16 has a diameter of 24.9 inches. The OEM size of 215 45 17 is 24.7 inches.

sooo... if I rule out the 185 if I'm not comfortable they were ever a OEM width, the closest diameters to my 215 45 17 at 24.7 inches are:
1. 205 55 16 at 24.9" (a listed Corolla size)
2. 195 55 16 at 24.4" (close to a listed Corolla 195 65 15 size)
3. 195 65 15 at 25" (a listed Corolla size)

So I guess my choices are between (1) and (3) now.

Also, I wanted to clarify that I will keep my OEM 17" wheels and use them for my Michelin Pilot AS3 and buy appropriate alloy wheels from tirerack with the new tires. By the way, everyone probably knows, but it was a nice surprise for me, but tirerack sells the tires already mounted and balanced on the new wheels which does save me that expense.

Finally, on a note of curiosity, why does a manufacturer equip what appears to be the same car with all these different tire/wheel sizes? I looked at the brochure again and they all have the exact same suspension, they all weight the same within about 50 pounds, all fwd, same steering and turning circle, same wheelbase, same front/rear track within tenth's of an inch. The only major thing I spotted was that the Corolla Eco model has "valvematic technology" on the standard 1.8 4 cylinder engine. Is it just a matter of how they want to sell "appearance" perhaps of larger wheels?

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
Originally Posted By: edyvw
...As an aside, using one of those online calculators, it looks like the 205/55/16 size has a slightly larger OD than 215/45/17. If so, I'd take that size over in a heartbeat. Better braking, better hydroplaning resistance, etc. etc.


edyvw... I'm not sure what you are saying here...according to tirerack the 205 55 16 has a diameter of 24.9 inches. The OEM size of 215 45 17 is 24.7 inches.

sooo... if I rule out the 185 if I'm not comfortable they were ever a OEM width, the closest diameters to my 215 45 17 at 24.7 inches are:
1. 205 55 16 at 24.9" (a listed Corolla size)
2. 195 55 16 at 24.4" (close to a listed Corolla 195 65 15 size)
3. 195 65 15 at 25" (a listed Corolla size)

So I guess my choices are between (1) and (3) now.

Also, I wanted to clarify that I will keep my OEM 17" wheels and use them for my Michelin Pilot AS3 and buy appropriate alloy wheels from tirerack with the new tires. By the way, everyone probably knows, but it was a nice surprise for me, but tirerack sells the tires already mounted and balanced on the new wheels which does save me that expense.

Finally, on a note of curiosity, why does a manufacturer equip what appears to be the same car with all these different tire/wheel sizes? I looked at the brochure again and they all have the exact same suspension, they all weight the same within about 50 pounds, all fwd, same steering and turning circle, same wheelbase, same front/rear track within tenth's of an inch. The only major thing I spotted was that the Corolla Eco model has "valvematic technology" on the standard 1.8 4 cylinder engine. Is it just a matter of how they want to sell "appearance" perhaps of larger wheels?

OD was posted by d00df00d not me.
But, to that point, I would go hands down with 195/65 R15. It will not only provide good snow/slush traction, but good hydroplaning resistance and very comfortable ride. You will be fine when it comes to handling, do not worry. Take into consideration that 195/65 is VERY, VERY common size, especially on Euro cars, so tires should be super cheap compare to other sizes. Also, that tire will provide you thick tire walls, so if you make a contact with curb, there is less possibility to damage suspension or wheel.
As for why all those sizes. Looks before function! Looks is what sells cars too, mostly.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
sooo... if I rule out the 185 if I'm not comfortable they were ever a OEM width

Why do you want an OE width for winter tires? The OE widths were specced for all-season tires. For winter tires, you want to go narrower.


Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
the closest diameters to my 215 45 17 at 24.7 inches are:
1. 205 55 16 at 24.9" (a listed Corolla size)
2. 195 55 16 at 24.4" (close to a listed Corolla 195 65 15 size)
3. 195 65 15 at 25" (a listed Corolla size)

So I guess my choices are between (1) and (3) now.

Among those choices, I agree with edyvw -- 195/65/15, hands down.


Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
Also, I wanted to clarify that I will keep my OEM 17" wheels and use them for my Michelin Pilot AS3 and buy appropriate alloy wheels from tirerack with the new tires.

Yep. edyvw and I were just musing about alternate options.


Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
Finally, on a note of curiosity, why does a manufacturer equip what appears to be the same car with all these different tire/wheel sizes? I looked at the brochure again and they all have the exact same suspension, they all weight the same within about 50 pounds, all fwd, same steering and turning circle, same wheelbase, same front/rear track within tenth's of an inch. The only major thing I spotted was that the Corolla Eco model has "valvematic technology" on the standard 1.8 4 cylinder engine. Is it just a matter of how they want to sell "appearance" perhaps of larger wheels?

Different wheel sizes are for looks and/or to accommodate bigger brakes (if applicable).

Different tire sizes are for more cornering grip, and/or trying to stick close to a certain OD with different wheel sizes, and/or using a tire size that's shared by another model.

 

[Injured_Again]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Tire width is a lot like oil viscosity, honestly. You want as much as necessary, and no more. There's a reason cars built from the ground up for handling -- Miata, BRZ/FRS, RX-8, etc. -- don't come with steamroller tires. There's a reason performance cars rarely have the widest tires that'd fit, especially in front. There's a reason the Mercedes S65 AMG "only" has 285-section rear tires with 738 lb-ft torque while sports cars with half as much engine have 305s or more. The engineers who make those cars generally know what they're doing.


Those are not cars built for handling. They are built to provide good handling feel, which is best accomplished with lightweight wheels that can be used on a lightweight chassis with low power.

The very best performing cars have very wide tires. The Corvette Z06 and Gran Sport both pull over 1.16G on a skidpad, and run 285's up front and 325's in back. The Dodge Viper ACR that set the production car lap record at Laguna Seca runs 295s up front and 355's in back.

...

Any car that wants to have ultimate cornering performance will run the largest practical tire that fits in the wheelwell.

Yes, but lap times and ultimate cornering performance are not "handling."

Handling includes those things, plus limit behavior, plus handling balance, plus transitional response, plus load transfer behavior, plus driver feedback, etc. etc. etc. The cars you say are "not built for handling" do all of that brilliantly, with the exception of peak lateral grip -- which they tend to do poorly in stock form precisely because maxing that out would sacrifice other aspects. It's very hard to make a car friendly and well-behaved at the limit when it's riding on steamroller tires. Case in point: the "very best performing cars" you mentioned.


I agree with you that handling is more than just cornering performance, but I **strongly disagree** that wide tires hinder handling as you have defined it. I don't know who you are but unless you were someone like Lewis Hamilton in disguise, I would assume that Randy Pobst and the editors of Motor Trend magazine probably have more seat time than you do, and probably have access to more different vehicles as well. If you take a look at their "Best Driver's Cars" from the last three years, you will see that they are the Chevy Camaro Z28 in 2014, the AMG GTS in 2015, and the McLaren 570S in 2016. Of those three, only the McLaren wears tires that would be not be considered "steamrollers", but the second place vehicle that year was the Mustang GT350R, which had the widest front tires of every vehicle there.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-motor-trends-best-drivers-car/

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/amg-gt/2016/2015-motor-trend-best-drivers-car/

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclaren/570/2016/2016-motor-trend-best-drivers-car/

 

[krzyss]

Wider tires require wider rims. That increases unsprung weight. One will hit law of diminishing returns and past certain point it will become negative return.
Heavy wheel assembly is harder to keep in contact with surface than light one. No contact - no traction.

IMHO

Krzys

PS C&D did test of VW Golf with 15,16,17 and 18" setups - if I remember correctly. Sweet spot was 17".

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
I agree with you that handling is more than just cornering performance, but I **strongly disagree** that wide tires hinder handling as you have defined it. I don't know who you are but unless you were someone like Lewis Hamilton in disguise, I would assume that Randy Pobst and the editors of Motor Trend magazine probably have more seat time than you do, and probably have access to more different vehicles as well. If you take a look at their "Best Driver's Cars" from the last three years, you will see that they are the Chevy Camaro Z28 in 2014, the AMG GTS in 2015, and the McLaren 570S in 2016. Of those three, only the McLaren wears tires that would be not be considered "steamrollers", but the second place vehicle that year was the Mustang GT350R, which had the widest front tires of every vehicle there.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-motor-trends-best-drivers-car/

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/amg-gt/2016/2015-motor-trend-best-drivers-car/

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclaren/570/2016/2016-motor-trend-best-drivers-car/


I'm definitely not a professional in the relevant sense. Just an amateur with interests in vehicle dynamics and terminological precision.

Obvious response here: "Best driver's car" is not "best handling car."

Here's an example of "best handling car": http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/the-best-handling-car-in-america-for-less-than-100k-feature

1. Boxster Spyder
2. Elise SC
3. RX-8 R3
4. M3
5. GT-R
6. Z06
7. GTI


Here's another: http://www.m3forum.com/articles/Car_and_Driver_Sept_1997.pdf

1. M3
2. F355
3. NSX-T
4. Supra Turbo
5. Viper GTS
6. Corvette
7. 911 Carrera S
8. Boxster

In both cases, there's no correlation between tire width and finishing order. The lists are topped by cars with unremarkable tire sizes. The cars with the biggest tires end up mid-pack at best.

Then there's this -- Chris Harris takes a C63 AMG, swaps out all four wheels for space saver spares, and waxes poetic about the excellence of its chassis and how modern cars feel unexciting because they have too much grip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPh90yNX-mY

Yes, the GT350R and Z/28 have the biggest possible tires. I don't think there's any way to argue that either of those cars is more handling-focused than, say, a Cayman GT4 or 911 GT3, neither of which runs the biggest possible tires (at least in front).

The extra-focused versions of the Ferrari 360, 430, and 458 all run relatively narrow fronts -- 225 for the Challenge Stradale, 235 for the Scuderia, and 245 for the Speciale. Surely you're not proposing Ford and Chevy care more about how their hot pony cars handle than Ferrari cares about how their trackday specials handle.

With wider tires, a car gains lateral grip, which has obvious benefits. It'll have higher lateral G limits, better tire heat management (given good alignment specs), and more positive steering response (as long as the fronts are wide enough relative to the rears). In exchange, the car will have less forgiving limit behavior, less useful steering feedback, more useless NVH, more of a tendency to tramline, and worse behavior on a wet road. And then there's the tradeoff between lateral and longitudinal grip that comes with choosing a wider vs. longer contact patch. There's always a balance to be struck.

 

[danthaman1980]

Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
Originally Posted By: edyvw
...As an aside, using one of those online calculators, it looks like the 205/55/16 size has a slightly larger OD than 215/45/17. If so, I'd take that size over in a heartbeat. Better braking, better hydroplaning resistance, etc. etc.


edyvw... I'm not sure what you are saying here...according to tirerack the 205 55 16 has a diameter of 24.9 inches. The OEM size of 215 45 17 is 24.7 inches.

sooo... if I rule out the 185 if I'm not comfortable they were ever a OEM width, the closest diameters to my 215 45 17 at 24.7 inches are:
1. 205 55 16 at 24.9" (a listed Corolla size)
2. 195 55 16 at 24.4" (close to a listed Corolla 195 65 15 size)
3. 195 65 15 at 25" (a listed Corolla size)

So I guess my choices are between (1) and (3) now.

Also, I wanted to clarify that I will keep my OEM 17" wheels and use them for my Michelin Pilot AS3 and buy appropriate alloy wheels from tirerack with the new tires. By the way, everyone probably knows, but it was a nice surprise for me, but tirerack sells the tires already mounted and balanced on the new wheels which does save me that expense.

Finally, on a note of curiosity, why does a manufacturer equip what appears to be the same car with all these different tire/wheel sizes? I looked at the brochure again and they all have the exact same suspension, they all weight the same within about 50 pounds, all fwd, same steering and turning circle, same wheelbase, same front/rear track within tenth's of an inch. The only major thing I spotted was that the Corolla Eco model has "valvematic technology" on the standard 1.8 4 cylinder engine. Is it just a matter of how they want to sell "appearance" perhaps of larger wheels?


OP, did you already decide on a tire? I put a set of X-Ice Xi3s on my Mazda in November, and I've been very, very happy with them so far.

Between the 205 55 16 and the 195 65 15 winter tires; for your application, neither is a bad choice. At this point, you might be splitting hairs. If you can't decide on price alone, also consider rim style/availability, aesthetics, etc... My $0.02, I would go with the 16 inchers on alloys, purely for aesthetic reasons. If you're going with steelies, go with the cheaper of the two options.

 

[Injured_Again]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
I agree with you that handling is more than just cornering performance, but I **strongly disagree** that wide tires hinder handling as you have defined it. I don't know who you are but unless you were someone like Lewis Hamilton in disguise, I would assume that Randy Pobst and the editors of Motor Trend magazine probably have more seat time than you do, and probably have access to more different vehicles as well. If you take a look at their "Best Driver's Cars" from the last three years, you will see that they are the Chevy Camaro Z28 in 2014, the AMG GTS in 2015, and the McLaren 570S in 2016. Of those three, only the McLaren wears tires that would be not be considered "steamrollers", but the second place vehicle that year was the Mustang GT350R, which had the widest front tires of every vehicle there.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-motor-trends-best-drivers-car/

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/amg-gt/2016/2015-motor-trend-best-drivers-car/

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclaren/570/2016/2016-motor-trend-best-drivers-car/


I'm definitely not a professional in the relevant sense. Just an amateur with interests in vehicle dynamics and terminological precision.

Obvious response here: "Best driver's car" is not "best handling car."

Here's an example of "best handling car": http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/the-best-handling-car-in-america-for-less-than-100k-feature

1. Boxster Spyder
2. Elise SC
3. RX-8 R3
4. M3
5. GT-R
6. Z06
7. GTI


Here's another: http://www.m3forum.com/articles/Car_and_Driver_Sept_1997.pdf

1. M3
2. F355
3. NSX-T
4. Supra Turbo
5. Viper GTS
6. Corvette
7. 911 Carrera S
8. Boxster

In both cases, there's no correlation between tire width and finishing order. The lists are topped by cars with unremarkable tire sizes. The cars with the biggest tires end up mid-pack at best.

Then there's this -- Chris Harris takes a C63 AMG, swaps out all four wheels for space saver spares, and waxes poetic about the excellence of its chassis and how modern cars feel unexciting because they have too much grip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPh90yNX-mY

Yes, the GT350R and Z/28 have the biggest possible tires. I don't think there's any way to argue that either of those cars is more handling-focused than, say, a Cayman GT4 or 911 GT3, neither of which runs the biggest possible tires (at least in front).

The extra-focused versions of the Ferrari 360, 430, and 458 all run relatively narrow fronts -- 225 for the Challenge Stradale, 235 for the Scuderia, and 245 for the Speciale. Surely you're not proposing Ford and Chevy care more about how their hot pony cars handle than Ferrari cares about how their trackday specials handle.

With wider tires, a car gains lateral grip, which has obvious benefits. It'll have higher lateral G limits, better tire heat management (given good alignment specs), and more positive steering response (as long as the fronts are wide enough relative to the rears). In exchange, the car will have less forgiving limit behavior, less useful steering feedback, more useless NVH, more of a tendency to tramline, and worse behavior on a wet road. And then there's the tradeoff between lateral and longitudinal grip that comes with choosing a wider vs. longer contact patch. There's always a balance to be struck.


The tests you quoted are **SIX AND SEVEN YEARS OLD**. None of those cars exist today in the models that were tested back then, except for the GT-R. Technology has moved on, and has allowed great handling and driving vehicles while using "steamroller" tires.

The Motor Trend tests I quoted are the three most recent of their continuing annual tests. You'll notice that the fastest cars do not win. Instead, it is the vehicle that provides the combination of best handling and best driving enjoyment/involvement, to a professional race car driver and to editors of a major motorsports magazine. I think that holds much greater relevance to what is possible today with modern technology, rather than tests that are now six and seven years old.