Too Many Tire Sizes?

Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
3,467
Location
Idaho
http://www.moderntiredealer.com/article/story/2013/02/taming-wild-sku-proliferation.aspx "………...Over the last three decades, the number of unique sizes fitted to U.S. vehicles in a model year has nearly quadrupled. In 1983 there were 157 unique sizes, in 1993 there were 237, in 2003 there were 340 and in the 2012 model year — a whopping 588 unique sizes……………." Plus there are some new and odd tire sizes available this year and 2015: New passenger tire sizes: 275/35R15 (standard load) (what the heck does this fit?) 305/55R20 (extra load); P245/40R18 (extra load). New LT sizes: LT205/70R15 (Load Range C); LT215/65R16 (Load Range D); LT375/40R24 (Load Range F). http://www.moderntiredealer.com/news/story/2014/12/get-ready-new-tire-sizes-are-on-the-way.aspx
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
3,897
Location
Canada
i dont' like this. Just goes to prove how it's getting more and more difficult to find quality tires in "regular" tire sizes. For example, on Tirerack, if I look up a set of stock sized tires for my 88 325is (195/65/14), I end up with a measly TWO results. Neither of which are worth my money IMHO. call me old fashioned, but I actually prefer taller sidewalls with a narrower footprint for a smoother ride, less road noise and more fuel economy. Especially for my daily driver! I mean, who really needs wire tires with small sidewalls when they are simply commuting back and forth to work, especially on something like a Ford Fiesta!?!
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
36,947
Location
ME
What gets me are the dopey small tires on big rims like 175/55/16 or so. Half of me is psyched they're making bantamweight commuter cars again, but the other half is annoyed. Plus these new car drivers won't be feeding my used tire supply with reasonable sizes like 195/60/15 etc.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
836
Location
Twin Cities MN USA
Agree with Lolvoguy- more sidewall equals better ride, but also better pothole protection for rims. After a hard winter here, potholes are around til July.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
19,528
Location
Lake Forest, CA
A family sedan doesn't need 18-19" tire with 35-40 aspect ratio, but newer cars came with it and replacement cost for those tires are not cheap. But it looks good on the car in showroom.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
2,647
Location
IL
I took a set of bias ply tires into a tire shop two years ago. The rims were good, but the tires were shot. Surprised they were still able to convert the size over to metric.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
709
Location
Northeast
Originally Posted By: Eddie
In addition a slightly narrower tire does better in water because of less tendency to hydroplane. ed
... And snow. Cuts thru instead of riding on top
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
16,687
Location
NE,Ohio
Originally Posted By: Finz
Originally Posted By: Eddie
In addition a slightly narrower tire does better in water because of less tendency to hydroplane. ed
... And snow. Cuts thru instead of riding on top
That's very general, I could also say a wider tire does better in the rain.. more traction. Or A wider tire is better on packed snow. usually the differences are minimal and amount to personal preference. Neither choice is right or wrong.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
47,019
Location
New Jersey
I agree too many sizes, it's an issue. Consumers are dumb. I personally think somewhere around the 215/55r-16 size is optimal for most everything besides trucks and high end sporty cars.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
17,501
Location
Clovis, CA
My car came standard with 215/70/15 .... but 225/60/16 was optional. I'm just guessin' but I'm thinkin' the outside diameters are probably the same. smile
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
19,528
Location
Lake Forest, CA
If I have 215/xx-16 on 4 corners of my S2000 it will not go anywhere fast. But I agree with you that 215/55-16 on family sedan is more than adequate in term of performance/handling and ride.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2,264
Location
Texas
since when was more options a bad thing? ...but i agree there are some whacky sizes out there
 
Last edited:

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
47,019
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If I have 215/xx-16 on 4 corners of my S2000 it will not go anywhere fast. But I agree with you that 215/55-16 on family sedan is more than adequate in term of performance/handling and ride.
I kind of doubt 0-60 or quarter mile will vary much. Speed around corners may be another story...
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
47,019
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Texan4Life
since when was more options a bad thing? ...but i agree there are some whacky sizes out there
When it disperses products enough that there is less economy of scale, higher prices, and the potential for less fresh stock on an item that has an expiration date.
 
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
6,400
Location
Baltimore, Maryland, USA
I am sure that this proliferation of sizes also has caused part of the price increases of tires as well.
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
call me old fashioned, but I actually prefer taller sidewalls with a narrower footprint for a smoother ride, less road noise and more fuel economy. Especially for my daily driver! I mean, who really needs wire tires with small sidewalls when they are simply commuting back and forth to work, especially on something like a Ford Fiesta!?!
I agree! I also prefer the way more practical high profile tires. It's one of the reasons why I keep my 1995 Escort!
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
Location
Central Maryland
Originally Posted By: Texan4Life
since when was more options a bad thing?
When it's only the manufacturers exercising those options. It's a bad thing when it reduces consumer options. Some vehicle owners have two or even one "choice" in replacement tires. Not good.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2014
Messages
1,410
Location
Western Canada
Friend has a Mazda CX-7 ... came with a 215/70/17 size tire... He was looking for a winter tire, and had one choice .... a Blizzak DMV-1... ! Which was out of stock... of course. I know of no other car using that size... did Mazda really have to use some odd-ball size...? Or do they do this accidentally on purpose...? He went with the ever popular 225/65/17... why couldn't Mazda just use that size... used on CRV's and countless other small suv's... Same as the Honda Fit using the 185/55/16 , or the Scion Xd using the 195/60/16... mainstream inexpensive cars that for whatever reason use goofy sized tires... You can, however, change tire sizes ...if your tire store will do that... more and more won't, for liability reasons...
 
Last edited:
Top