Anyone running 245/45R17's on their stock rims?
 

I want to know if going up that tiny bit in size is noticeable in terms of appearance. I don't want the wheel to look too much smaller, but I want the wheel well to be filled more.

Is there anyone that regretted moving to 245 from 235?

What possibly could be the downside? Best upgrade you could do, but then of course, this will open the door for the other sizes that some might think are applicable.
I have the Yoko Advan S.4 245/45-17 with a 8.7" tread width at 25.7" diameter, IMHO it looks much better than the OEM size.

Appearance
 

A possible downside of increasing section width without increasing rim width is the Tire looking more bubbly (sidewalls look more rounded).

What I'm wondering is if the difference is even noticeable.

I like the stretched look (not that I would do a real stretched setup), but going wider is going in the opposite direction. I don't want the sidewall to bulge past the wheel too much.

Other concerns I have are:

1. Wheel looking smaller
2. Less of that low profile look

I saw the thread about the 255's. I usually try to avoid going out of the manufacturer's specs and a tire in that size isn't available with a 50k mile warranty.

Anyway, when you got your car back with the 245's, what was the biggest difference you noticed? And was it because of going up just 10mm?

I had 245s on my stockies. Less curb rash and a slightly more aggressive look.

Do you have pics? I've been debating going wider on my OEMs but the tire guy is talking me out of it saying the tire wont perform as designed. I do also like a wider tire but NOT the bubbled over look & small rim look on the OEM 17s.

i just slapped a set of Goodyear Eagle GT's 245/45's on my stockers 2 weeks ago. Don't have too many miles on them so i can't speak to much on performance, but so far so good. I came from a set of Yoko W4S's and seem to be comparable

As far as looks, 245/45 definitely do fill the wheel well more and has a meatier appearance and a slight buldge on the sidewalls. I kinda miss the low profile look but thats just me.

Have you considered 245/40? Don't know too many people on here running that setup...

pics would be awesome! i wanna see the sidewall buldge & how it makes the rim look.

no bulge

https://acurazine.com/forums/picture...pictureid=7254


there is another pic in my garage. I now have winters on my stockies, but there was really no difference between the 235s and 245s feel-wise.

Nice, thanks for posting. I'll definitely go with this size on the stocks.

Here's a couple, Yokohama S.4 245/45-17:

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/g...4/SUNP0048.jpg

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/g...4/SUNP0047.jpg

245/45-17 Michelin Pilot Sport A/S on TL-S stock rims. Looks fine.

The overall size is about 1/8"th taller, iirc. It's a few mm on the radius. It is noticable, escpecially at first, but it is NOT unattractive. Just takes a little time to get used to it.

looks too beefy imo

yeah
 

I agree. The wheel looks like it sinks into the tire. I'm surprised that such a small difference is significant.

Thanks so much for posting the pics. They helped me make my decision.

I now know why the stock size is what it is.

I guess the only way to reduce the wheel well gap is to lower the car...something I cannot afford to do at this time. Oh well.

Of course no 245 thread is complete without a 255/40 on stock rims.


http://inlinethumb24.webshots.com/42...600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb05.webshots.com/36...600x600Q85.jpg


http://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/42...600x600Q85.jpg

I hate cars! ...YES that looks much better, I was about to ask if we could go smaller shoulder & wider on stock rims. The guy at Discount said this size would create shoulder buldge then cuping at the base of the tire...he said the tires "would hold in snow, instead of pushing it out & away since the base wouldnt be 100% on the road" ....dont know if I buy that. I wanted the Conti Extreme Contact DWSs for my stocks...the 255/40 looks perfect.

Wider is always worse in the snow but not for the reasons he mentioned.

No cupping. I had one set cup but the alignment was way off, tons of toe in the rear caused it. These are soft and at 7,500 miles on them, it would've shown up by now.

They're about 1/4" shorter than stock, not really noticable. The bulge is almost non existant and the tread makes a completely flat contact with the road. These soft wide tires will spoil you in the summer but you may be better off with a stock width if you deal with snow.

Thanks! Yeah these would be primarily for my stocks in the winter Chicago months so I'll probably stick to stock size then. I mean is the difference really noticeable? It snows but it only snows like 3 to 5 good storms, usually at night & usually cleaned up by late morning. A morning where work gets called off anyway...just dont like making decisions based on an event that happens 4 times / year you know? Like people up here saying they're buying an SUV because of the storms...not frequent enough for me.

If you believe the factory Michelins look better:
Just keep one thing in mind, the 245/45-17 tires, e.g. Yokohama S.4 and Bridgestone 960’s just to use as an example, are actually smaller in width then the factory Michelin HXMXM4 W rated 235/45-17 tire, so I guess your eyes are deceiving you.

Michelin 235/45-17 Section width 9.6 with a diameter of 25.6
S.4- 9.5/25.7
960-9.4/25.7

I don't mind the taller sidewall. I'm sort of that in between generation but grew up drag racing with muscle cars so the taller sidewall look will always have a spot for me.

You DO NOT want as wider tire in snow. You want a narrow tire that will dig through the fluffy stuff and gain traction on the hardpack. A wide tire will act as a snowshoe and you will lose traction.