I noticed the latest Sienna uses 235/60/17 tires as compared to 215/65/16 in the previous generation. Why? We are talking about a minivan here so carving corners through mountain roads is not exactly a priority. Plus you give up ride comfort, better winter traction, better MPG, and cheaper tire replacements. Somebody explain the logic to me.
Why are minivans going to lower profile tires?
- Thread starter VeeDubb
- Start date
- Status
It's only a ~2mm difference in sidewall between the two.
But larger wheels and less tire is the style now.
But larger wheels and less tire is the style now.
I noticed the MPG is worse now (they didn't change the engine). Old one pulled 26-28 on highway. New one barely gets 25. Ride comfort about the same. Tire replacements will be way more expensive. And I bet winter traction will be worse.
Last edited:
Even worse on trucks! I always like the option of driving over curbs/sidewalks for work purposes but the tires are getting a bit thin on anything other than a stripped base model. All in the name of looks...
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I noticed the latest Sienna uses 235/60/17 tires as compared to 215/65/16 in the previous generation. Why? We are talking about a minivan here so carving corners through mountain roads is not exactly a priority. Plus you give up ride comfort, better winter traction, better MPG, and cheaper tire replacements. Somebody explain the logic to me.
As was already noted earlier, the two tire sizes you mentioned have the same sidewall height, so comfort should not be affected much.
Is the new Sienna heavier or does it have a higher load carrying capacity compared to the old one? Maybe that necessitated tires with higher load index. Also, it looks like 16" rims are no longer an option on the new Sienna, so possibly it has bigger brakes.
In general, 235/60 is still a decent balloon with plenty of rubber between the rim and the pavement.
I noticed the latest Sienna uses 235/60/17 tires as compared to 215/65/16 in the previous generation. Why? We are talking about a minivan here so carving corners through mountain roads is not exactly a priority. Plus you give up ride comfort, better winter traction, better MPG, and cheaper tire replacements. Somebody explain the logic to me.
As was already noted earlier, the two tire sizes you mentioned have the same sidewall height, so comfort should not be affected much.
Is the new Sienna heavier or does it have a higher load carrying capacity compared to the old one? Maybe that necessitated tires with higher load index. Also, it looks like 16" rims are no longer an option on the new Sienna, so possibly it has bigger brakes.
In general, 235/60 is still a decent balloon with plenty of rubber between the rim and the pavement.
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I noticed the MPG is worse now (they didn't change the engine). Old one pulled 26-28 on highway. New one barely gets 25.
Looking at fueleconomy.gov, EPA figures for 2016 Sienna FWD are 18 city / 25 hwy. EPA figures for 2010 Sienna FWD are 17 city / 23 hwy.
I noticed the MPG is worse now (they didn't change the engine). Old one pulled 26-28 on highway. New one barely gets 25.
Looking at fueleconomy.gov, EPA figures for 2016 Sienna FWD are 18 city / 25 hwy. EPA figures for 2010 Sienna FWD are 17 city / 23 hwy.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I noticed the latest Sienna uses 235/60/17 tires as compared to 215/65/16 in the previous generation. Why? We are talking about a minivan here so carving corners through mountain roads is not exactly a priority. Plus you give up ride comfort, better winter traction, better MPG, and cheaper tire replacements. Somebody explain the logic to me.
As was already noted earlier, the two tire sizes you mentioned have the same sidewall height, so comfort should not be affected much.
Is the new Sienna heavier or does it have a higher load carrying capacity compared to the old one? Maybe that necessitated tires with higher load index. Also, it looks like 16" rims are no longer an option on the new Sienna, so possibly it has bigger brakes.
In general, 235/60 is still a decent balloon with plenty of rubber between the rim and the pavement.
Pete you are right that 60 is a decent balloon size. I guess I should have asked why the trend is toward a lower profile bigger wheel even on vehicles that should prioritize the opposite of what bigger wheels are delivering.
The new Sienna is about 100lb heavier curb weight. The ability to accommodate bigger brakes is a good argument that I hadn't considered since one of the complaints of the old Sienna was that brakes were small for the vehicle.
Still, it's crazy to me that Toyota gives you the option of 18 and even 19 inch rims on
Siennas.
Edit: The Sienna SE comes with 235/50/19's
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I noticed the latest Sienna uses 235/60/17 tires as compared to 215/65/16 in the previous generation. Why? We are talking about a minivan here so carving corners through mountain roads is not exactly a priority. Plus you give up ride comfort, better winter traction, better MPG, and cheaper tire replacements. Somebody explain the logic to me.
As was already noted earlier, the two tire sizes you mentioned have the same sidewall height, so comfort should not be affected much.
Is the new Sienna heavier or does it have a higher load carrying capacity compared to the old one? Maybe that necessitated tires with higher load index. Also, it looks like 16" rims are no longer an option on the new Sienna, so possibly it has bigger brakes.
In general, 235/60 is still a decent balloon with plenty of rubber between the rim and the pavement.
Pete you are right that 60 is a decent balloon size. I guess I should have asked why the trend is toward a lower profile bigger wheel even on vehicles that should prioritize the opposite of what bigger wheels are delivering.
The new Sienna is about 100lb heavier curb weight. The ability to accommodate bigger brakes is a good argument that I hadn't considered since one of the complaints of the old Sienna was that brakes were small for the vehicle.
Still, it's crazy to me that Toyota gives you the option of 18 and even 19 inch rims on
Siennas.
Edit: The Sienna SE comes with 235/50/19's
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I noticed the MPG is worse now (they didn't change the engine). Old one pulled 26-28 on highway. New one barely gets 25.
Looking at fueleconomy.gov, EPA figures for 2016 Sienna FWD are 18 city / 25 hwy. EPA figures for 2010 Sienna FWD are 17 city / 23 hwy.
That may be true, but I can tell in real world conditions, you are lucky to get 25hwy on the new one. On the old one, you drop below 26 only on a bad day.
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I noticed the MPG is worse now (they didn't change the engine). Old one pulled 26-28 on highway. New one barely gets 25.
Looking at fueleconomy.gov, EPA figures for 2016 Sienna FWD are 18 city / 25 hwy. EPA figures for 2010 Sienna FWD are 17 city / 23 hwy.
That may be true, but I can tell in real world conditions, you are lucky to get 25hwy on the new one. On the old one, you drop below 26 only on a bad day.
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I guess I should have asked why the trend is toward a lower profile bigger wheel even on vehicles that should prioritize the opposite of what bigger wheels are delivering.
I agree with you, in general. But again, in your specific example, the actual sidewall height did not decrease. 235/60 also has higher load rating index. Ever since the Explorer/Firestone fiasco, there has been a tendency toward building out an extra buffer / safety margin when it comes to load ratings, speed ratings, etc. of passenger tires.
Quote:
Still, it's crazy to me that Toyota gives you the option of 18 and even 19 inch rims on Siennas.
Hey, even minivan drivers want their rides to look cool/pimp while pulling up to school/daycare/baseball game.
It's only when it's time to replace tires that the wallet breaks.
BTW, the Q5 that my wife drives was available with 21" rims from the factory. And for a few extra grand, you could also buy wheel road hazard insurance for when you hit a pothole.
I guess I should have asked why the trend is toward a lower profile bigger wheel even on vehicles that should prioritize the opposite of what bigger wheels are delivering.
I agree with you, in general. But again, in your specific example, the actual sidewall height did not decrease. 235/60 also has higher load rating index. Ever since the Explorer/Firestone fiasco, there has been a tendency toward building out an extra buffer / safety margin when it comes to load ratings, speed ratings, etc. of passenger tires.
Quote:
Still, it's crazy to me that Toyota gives you the option of 18 and even 19 inch rims on Siennas.
Hey, even minivan drivers want their rides to look cool/pimp while pulling up to school/daycare/baseball game.
BTW, the Q5 that my wife drives was available with 21" rims from the factory. And for a few extra grand, you could also buy wheel road hazard insurance for when you hit a pothole.
"cooler." It's a minivan, not a corvette. They are trying to make something that generally isn't stylish or fun into something that will be more appealing. Especially with the migration towards SUVs versus minivans, car companies are trying to make them look as cool as they can.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I guess I should have asked why the trend is toward a lower profile bigger wheel even on vehicles that should prioritize the opposite of what bigger wheels are delivering.
I agree with you, in general. But again, in your specific example, the actual sidewall height did not decrease. 235/60 also has higher load rating index. Ever since the Explorer/Firestone fiasco, there has been a tendency toward building out an extra buffer / safety margin when it comes to load ratings, speed ratings, etc. of passenger tires.
Ok, you have convinced me that the 60/17s with the higher load rating that accommodates bigger brakes is reasonable. The bigger 50/19s though leave me scratching my head.
BTW, I can understand the non-practical reasons for a vehicle too. I own a VW with the FSI engine if that tells you anything. I just consider a minivan to be a lost cause in the pimpin it department. That is a steep mountain to climb.
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I guess I should have asked why the trend is toward a lower profile bigger wheel even on vehicles that should prioritize the opposite of what bigger wheels are delivering.
I agree with you, in general. But again, in your specific example, the actual sidewall height did not decrease. 235/60 also has higher load rating index. Ever since the Explorer/Firestone fiasco, there has been a tendency toward building out an extra buffer / safety margin when it comes to load ratings, speed ratings, etc. of passenger tires.
Ok, you have convinced me that the 60/17s with the higher load rating that accommodates bigger brakes is reasonable. The bigger 50/19s though leave me scratching my head.
BTW, I can understand the non-practical reasons for a vehicle too. I own a VW with the FSI engine if that tells you anything. I just consider a minivan to be a lost cause in the pimpin it department. That is a steep mountain to climb.
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
Soon, those of us who are cheapskates and bought minivans for practicality reasons will have no more options
I'm sure when 14" or 15" wheels stopped being available on minivans, people were complaining, too. Time marches on. Eventually, those newer larger tire sizes become more common and more reasonably priced. I remember years ago when 205/55/16 tires used to be thought of as very exclusive, high performance, expensive option. Today, they are one of the most common and reasonably priced sizes.
Soon, those of us who are cheapskates and bought minivans for practicality reasons will have no more options
I'm sure when 14" or 15" wheels stopped being available on minivans, people were complaining, too. Time marches on. Eventually, those newer larger tire sizes become more common and more reasonably priced. I remember years ago when 205/55/16 tires used to be thought of as very exclusive, high performance, expensive option. Today, they are one of the most common and reasonably priced sizes.
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
I just consider a minivan to be a lost cause in the pimpin it department. That is a steep mountain to climb.
Hey, vanity has no boundaries.
If you can only have one vehicle, and it has to be a minivan to accommodate a bunch of child seats and/or family, then you may want to spice it up, too.
I suppose Toyota has done some market research and those upgraded wheel size options are of interest to some people.
I just consider a minivan to be a lost cause in the pimpin it department. That is a steep mountain to climb.
Hey, vanity has no boundaries.
If you can only have one vehicle, and it has to be a minivan to accommodate a bunch of child seats and/or family, then you may want to spice it up, too.
I suppose Toyota has done some market research and those upgraded wheel size options are of interest to some people.
They make base Dodge minivans with normal tires etc for complainers.
The majority of minivans that sell are at great profit for Toyota and Honda are the upscale models approaching $40k
My guess also is brake rotors potentially got sized larger requiring a wheel size that clears the rotor.
The majority of minivans that sell are at great profit for Toyota and Honda are the upscale models approaching $40k
My guess also is brake rotors potentially got sized larger requiring a wheel size that clears the rotor.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Several reasons:
1. Weight. Cars are getting seriously overweight. Airbags, entertainment systems, all that electronics, safety requirements, seats with more options to adjust, more comfort, meaning more weight. All that needs to stop and be safe in the corners. Look new Toyota Sienna and old one? It is like different class of cars when it comes to size. So you need to fit larger brakes and calipers, control car in the curves etc.
2. Looks! People go for looks and they do not ask how much are tires. After 30K they are: What? That is unbelievable, I will never buy this car again. On top of that 99% of drivers cannot make connection between low profile tires and potholes = destroyed suspension.
1. Weight. Cars are getting seriously overweight. Airbags, entertainment systems, all that electronics, safety requirements, seats with more options to adjust, more comfort, meaning more weight. All that needs to stop and be safe in the corners. Look new Toyota Sienna and old one? It is like different class of cars when it comes to size. So you need to fit larger brakes and calipers, control car in the curves etc.
2. Looks! People go for looks and they do not ask how much are tires. After 30K they are: What? That is unbelievable, I will never buy this car again. On top of that 99% of drivers cannot make connection between low profile tires and potholes = destroyed suspension.
Totally agree with you. This whole issue has been driving me nuts for years. I totally don't get why so many top trim levels of so many different cars are going to such huge wheels and low profile tires. Totally ruins the comfort, increases the noise and increases the danger of tire/wheel damage if you hit a pothole. My 2014 Kia Forte5 owner's manual even says to slow down on rough roads if you have low profile tires. FYI, on the new Kia Sedona minivan, the top trim level has gone to 19" wheels--on a minivan! Totally insane in my view. And that is the only trim level where you can get navigation if you want it.
This entire thread should have been lifter from the mid nineties, when the 70 and 80 series tires started to disappear. The fact is that lower profile tires do a better all-round job. Fuel economy impact is not significant and know that some Prii come with 50 series tires. The difference in sidewall between a 60 and a 65 is a small fraction of an inch. None of the downsides you mention have any validity, and 60 series tires are table stakes in this era.
Lastly, please get the great Mike Tyson's quote correct:
"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth..."
Lastly, please get the great Mike Tyson's quote correct:
"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth..."
- Status
