Why you should get 255/40-17 tires for your OEM rims !!!
02-25-2011, 10:43 PM
#681
Burning Brakes
What About putting a lower profile tires on stock rim? Such are 255/35 17, don't know about about tires/ rims but I think I got the basics down. Thanks
02-25-2011, 11:22 PM
#682
Team Owner
I guess the question is why would you want a lower profile on a stock rim? The 255-40 is slightly lower profile. 255 in a 35 series would look funny and throw the speeds off.
02-26-2011, 03:46 PM
#684
assuming no drop, it would increase the wheel gap.
really, it would only look funny to those of us with TL's because we recognize how tall the sidewalls should be. the general public isn't going to notice.
really, it would only look funny to those of us with TL's because we recognize how tall the sidewalls should be. the general public isn't going to notice.
02-26-2011, 05:37 PM
#685
Instructor
So I had these 255/40/17 Conti's thrown on the other day and so far I love them. I was gonna go the "I hate cars" route and rock the Nitto NT05's or NT555 but these are all I need. It stays dry mostly down here but when it rains, it pours by the gulf. The tires are quieter then OEM and surpassed my expectaions on grip in the tight corners. I bought Tein S.tech for the gap but ultimately decided that was to low for my needs. So I bought and Eibach pro-kit and will throw those springs on next week to close some of the gap. Took pics with an Evo 4g
02-26-2011, 06:09 PM
#686
Team Owner
A shorter sidewall does not mean better handling. Going from a 70 series to a 50 series, sure. But at some point it's a game of diminishing returns and the tire will lose it's ability to absorb some of the smaller irregularities and you get a skipping effect. Plus, go too small in diameter and acceleration and braking traction will suffer.
If you want a stiffer sidewall, you can accomplish that with the brand and type of tire instead of going with a lower profile.
If you want a stiffer sidewall, you can accomplish that with the brand and type of tire instead of going with a lower profile.
03-06-2011, 11:44 PM
#689
Advanced
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On Earth...
Age: 34
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just mounted 255/40 17 Goodyear Eagle GT's on Friday... Im just amazed on how much of a differnce the ride is... More control, the car feels more grounded, well balanced and you'll feel more centered... FOR EXAMPLE!... Just a few hours ago I was on the highway (Dry road) goin 75ish, I had to make a move to avoid traffic (slow drivers in the fast lane), I dropped it into 3rd then quickly changed lanes and pushed it (To then I noticed I was goin 110 in no time...lol) I almost jizzed in my pants from the difference from the 235/45's...lol BTW-IMO, The Eagle GT is a highly under-rated tire...lol
04-03-2011, 06:46 PM
#690
Intermediate
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so after ready most of all 17 pages of this topic I am still not sure what size I will go with on my 2008 Tl type S stock 17" rims.
I would say I am leaning towards the 255/40/17 but I am wanting to here more about what people are saying about 245/45/17. Any pics of this setup or feed back on this size. The 245/45/17 will give a slight wider stance then the 235 that come stock and if I say 45 and not 40 then this will not open the gap in the wheel wells. I have not lowered my car so not really wanting to increase gap by going down to a 40/17.
Any thoughts as well as pics of the 245/45/17
Thanks Nighthawk type S
I would say I am leaning towards the 255/40/17 but I am wanting to here more about what people are saying about 245/45/17. Any pics of this setup or feed back on this size. The 245/45/17 will give a slight wider stance then the 235 that come stock and if I say 45 and not 40 then this will not open the gap in the wheel wells. I have not lowered my car so not really wanting to increase gap by going down to a 40/17.
Any thoughts as well as pics of the 245/45/17
Thanks Nighthawk type S
04-03-2011, 08:15 PM
#691
I would say I am leaning towards the 255/40/17 but I am wanting to here more about what people are saying about 245/45/17. Any pics of this setup or feed back on this size. The 245/45/17 will give a slight wider stance then the 235 that come stock and if I say 45 and not 40 then this will not open the gap in the wheel wells. I have not lowered my car so not really wanting to increase gap by going down to a 40/17. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]
Any thoughts as well as pics of the 245/45/17
Thanks Nighthawk type S
Any thoughts as well as pics of the 245/45/17
Thanks Nighthawk type S
04-06-2011, 01:35 PM
#692
Burning Brakes
I am also debating if I should replace my stock size tires Yokohama Advant S4 with 245/45/17 or 255/40/17. I am determined to get Continental ExtremeContact DWS, as I already have them on my girlfriends 07 TSX and I would love to have them on my 06 TL.
Can someone please comment on which replacement setup is better for the stock suspension? Since I would be using these tires in winter, should I be concerned with going as wide as 255, or should I limit my tire option to 245 or even stock size 235? Please advise. Thank you
Can someone please comment on which replacement setup is better for the stock suspension? Since I would be using these tires in winter, should I be concerned with going as wide as 255, or should I limit my tire option to 245 or even stock size 235? Please advise. Thank you
04-06-2011, 04:29 PM
#693
Read all the comments and make a decision as everyone has their own opinion on the tire and/or tire size that they feel is best.
04-06-2011, 05:40 PM
#694
Team Owner
If you do enough reading and research you'll find that depending on the manufacturer, the read width on a 235 tire is the same or wider than some 245 tires and a 245 tire is the same or wider than a 255 tire. Size is confusing as they are all different, but diameter stays relatively uniform throughout each size. A short time ago when Yokohama had the Avid W4s, a 235 had the same tread width as a 255, and the 245 wider than most 255's. In fact, I have a complete set of W4s 245 in the garage, new never mounted, so when the S.4's ever decide to wear out, they will go on.
Read all the comments and make a decision as everyone has their own opinion on the tire and/or tire size that they feel is best.
Read all the comments and make a decision as everyone has their own opinion on the tire and/or tire size that they feel is best.
If it really matters to someone, the tread to void ratio should be factored into tread width to see how much rubber you're putting on the road. My Nitto NT05s run a little narrow but they have the highest tread to void ratio out there meaning they put a lot of rubber down.
04-06-2011, 07:32 PM
#695
True but that's more the exception, not the rule.
If it really matters to someone, the tread to void ratio should be factored into tread width to see how much rubber you're putting on the road. My Nitto NT05s run a little narrow but they have the highest tread to void ratio out there meaning they put a lot of rubber down.
If it really matters to someone, the tread to void ratio should be factored into tread width to see how much rubber you're putting on the road. My Nitto NT05s run a little narrow but they have the highest tread to void ratio out there meaning they put a lot of rubber down.
04-07-2011, 07:17 PM
#697
If you consider 01" larger in diameter than the factory Michelin, then you are correct, but a 265/40-17 is smaller in diameter than the stock Michelin's. A 255/40 requires a 8.5" wheel width and that requirement is wider than a factory wheel that many ignore, but the 265 requires a 9" minimum wheel width, maybe that's why nobody has tried them.
04-07-2011, 11:37 PM
#698
Team Owner
If you consider 01" larger in diameter than the factory Michelin, then you are correct, but a 265/40-17 is smaller in diameter than the stock Michelin's. A 255/40 requires a 8.5" wheel width and that requirement is wider than a factory wheel that many ignore, but the 265 requires a 9" minimum wheel width, maybe that's why nobody has tried them.
I've run the 255 size tires on stock 8" rims for 60,000 miles now including several track days and some 160mph runs. 255/40 tires are perfect for stock rims.
Why mention the 265/40 being smaller in diameter when it's .08% or .02" larger on average? Is that even worth bringing up? The 245/45 is 1.41% or .35" larger and the 255/40 is 1.15% or .29" smaller diameter. I'm not understanding why you always point out how the 255/40 is so much smaller than stock and should be avoided when the 245/45 that you always recommend has a larger size difference.
Of course I'm sure you can find some odd ball tires somewhere on the internet that are on the large side of a 235/45 and the small side of a 245/45 but that's not the norm.
Of these sizes I would do the 255/40 unless it sees snow or LOTS of rain with deep standing water.
Here's the 255/40 on stock rims. IMO it looks closer to stock height.
04-08-2011, 06:48 AM
#699
Good morning.
If you read my previous posts, I've NEVER said it couldn’t be done as you can put virtually any size on a rim, wide or small, well outside the recommended width designated by the manufacturer.
Yes, you are correct in that in my opinion a 245/45-17 is the best replacement size on the TL. That certainly is not a mandate, just an opinion, so do people stretch tires yes, do people put use larger than recommended tires, yes as that is their personal choice.
Feel like you at times with the ATF theads, but to correct your specifications listed, it's simple arithmetic.
To reiterate in descending order:
245/45-17 25.7”
OE Michelin 25.6”
265/40-17 25.4"
235/45-17 25.4" (aftermarket)
255/40-17 25.0”
No, the OE is 25.6” as stated above, and most all 245/45-17’are 25.7”, very close to the OE diameter, but replacement 235/45-17’s are only 25.4” for the most, same as 265’s, and the 255's even smaller.
Once again, as I have said numerous times, it boils down to personal choice. I state my opinion given data closely representing the OE diameter so the wheel to fender gap doesn’t widen, then the readers can take it or leave it and make their own choice.
Like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. [/QUOTE]
Guess where I'm going now, yup, to breakfast.
265 has been successfully used on a TL on an 8" rim. It's pushing the limits and I wouldn't do it but look at how many people stretch tires.
I've run the 255 size tires on stock 8" rims for 60,000 miles now including several track days and some 160mph runs. 255/40 tires are perfect for stock rims.
I've run the 255 size tires on stock 8" rims for 60,000 miles now including several track days and some 160mph runs. 255/40 tires are perfect for stock rims.
If you read my previous posts, I've NEVER said it couldn’t be done as you can put virtually any size on a rim, wide or small, well outside the recommended width designated by the manufacturer.
Why mention the 265/40 being smaller in diameter when it's .08% or .02" larger on average? Is that even worth bringing up? The 245/45 is 1.41% or .35" larger and the 255/40 is 1.15% or .29" smaller diameter. I'm not understanding why you always point out how the 255/40 is so much smaller than stock and should be avoided when the 245/45 that you always recommend has a larger size difference.
Yes, you are correct in that in my opinion a 245/45-17 is the best replacement size on the TL. That certainly is not a mandate, just an opinion, so do people stretch tires yes, do people put use larger than recommended tires, yes as that is their personal choice.
Feel like you at times with the ATF theads, but to correct your specifications listed, it's simple arithmetic.
To reiterate in descending order:
245/45-17 25.7”
OE Michelin 25.6”
265/40-17 25.4"
235/45-17 25.4" (aftermarket)
255/40-17 25.0”
No, the OE is 25.6” as stated above, and most all 245/45-17’are 25.7”, very close to the OE diameter, but replacement 235/45-17’s are only 25.4” for the most, same as 265’s, and the 255's even smaller.
Like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. [/QUOTE]
Guess where I'm going now, yup, to breakfast.
04-08-2011, 08:07 AM
#700
Team Owner
Good morning.
If you read my previous posts, I've NEVER said it couldn’t be done as you can put virtually any size on a rim, wide or small, well outside the recommended width designated by the manufacturer.
Yes, you are correct in that in my opinion a 245/45-17 is the best replacement size on the TL. That certainly is not a mandate, just an opinion, so do people stretch tires yes, do people put use larger than recommended tires, yes as that is their personal choice.
Feel like you at times with the ATF theads, but to correct your specifications listed, it's simple arithmetic.
To reiterate in descending order:
245/45-17 25.7”
OE Michelin 25.6”
265/40-17 25.4"
235/45-17 25.4" (aftermarket)
255/40-17 25.0”
No, the OE is 25.6” as stated above, and most all 245/45-17’are 25.7”, very close to the OE diameter, but replacement 235/45-17’s are only 25.4” for the most, same as 265’s, and the 255's even smaller.
Once again, as I have said numerous times, it boils down to personal choice. I state my opinion given data closely representing the OE diameter so the wheel to fender gap doesn’t widen, then the readers can take it or leave it and make their own choice.
Like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
If you read my previous posts, I've NEVER said it couldn’t be done as you can put virtually any size on a rim, wide or small, well outside the recommended width designated by the manufacturer.
Yes, you are correct in that in my opinion a 245/45-17 is the best replacement size on the TL. That certainly is not a mandate, just an opinion, so do people stretch tires yes, do people put use larger than recommended tires, yes as that is their personal choice.
Feel like you at times with the ATF theads, but to correct your specifications listed, it's simple arithmetic.
To reiterate in descending order:
245/45-17 25.7”
OE Michelin 25.6”
265/40-17 25.4"
235/45-17 25.4" (aftermarket)
255/40-17 25.0”
No, the OE is 25.6” as stated above, and most all 245/45-17’are 25.7”, very close to the OE diameter, but replacement 235/45-17’s are only 25.4” for the most, same as 265’s, and the 255's even smaller.
Once again, as I have said numerous times, it boils down to personal choice. I state my opinion given data closely representing the OE diameter so the wheel to fender gap doesn’t widen, then the readers can take it or leave it and make their own choice.
Like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
Lol. I almost said something about breakfast in my last post.
04-14-2011, 10:34 AM
#701
Instructor
Looking at ordering 255/40/17 Hankook Evo V12's sometime this week, and wondering if this size rather than the OEM size will affect handling during a track day negatively, specifically when cornering. The larger sidewall makes me think that it would be less rigid.
And I'm not talking about 1/4 mile track ways, talking about a 2.2 mile road course. Thanks.
And I'm not talking about 1/4 mile track ways, talking about a 2.2 mile road course. Thanks.
04-17-2011, 10:22 PM
#702
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada, Big Smoke, Down by the River
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
To me going low profile 40 might be a bit low for potholes and bad streets. 45 profile is lowest i feel i can go without feeling every bump on the street, which i do anyway.
Most Dodge Chargers have 55 or 60 profile lacks steering response and handling but smoother ride. Tire does absorb shock to your car so low profile tires with the bad streets i drive i would probably buy at least new tire and rim every year. Notice some BMW's drivers come to tire shop from pothole damage which gave them a nice bubble on side wall.
So i compromise with 255/45/17 low profile to get good handling but not rough ride on bad streets. Again 235/45/17 is cheaper tire around $20 less per tire.
Don't really know what size i'm going to get Continental Contact Extreme DW with my Enkei falcon rims.
Most Dodge Chargers have 55 or 60 profile lacks steering response and handling but smoother ride. Tire does absorb shock to your car so low profile tires with the bad streets i drive i would probably buy at least new tire and rim every year. Notice some BMW's drivers come to tire shop from pothole damage which gave them a nice bubble on side wall.
So i compromise with 255/45/17 low profile to get good handling but not rough ride on bad streets. Again 235/45/17 is cheaper tire around $20 less per tire.
Don't really know what size i'm going to get Continental Contact Extreme DW with my Enkei falcon rims.
04-17-2011, 10:36 PM
#703
Team Owner
Looking at ordering 255/40/17 Hankook Evo V12's sometime this week, and wondering if this size rather than the OEM size will affect handling during a track day negatively, specifically when cornering. The larger sidewall makes me think that it would be less rigid.
And I'm not talking about 1/4 mile track ways, talking about a 2.2 mile road course. Thanks.
And I'm not talking about 1/4 mile track ways, talking about a 2.2 mile road course. Thanks.
To me going low profile 40 might be a bit low for potholes and bad streets. 45 profile is lowest i feel i can go without feeling every bump on the street, which i do anyway.
Most Dodge Chargers have 55 or 60 profile lacks steering response and handling but smoother ride. Tire does absorb shock to your car so low profile tires with the bad streets i drive i would probably buy at least new tire and rim every year. Notice some BMW's drivers come to tire shop from pothole damage which gave them a nice bubble on side wall.
So i compromise with 255/45/17 low profile to get good handling but not rough ride on bad streets. Again 235/45/17 is cheaper tire around $20 less per tire.
Don't really know what size i'm going to get Continental Contact Extreme DW with my Enkei falcon rims.
Most Dodge Chargers have 55 or 60 profile lacks steering response and handling but smoother ride. Tire does absorb shock to your car so low profile tires with the bad streets i drive i would probably buy at least new tire and rim every year. Notice some BMW's drivers come to tire shop from pothole damage which gave them a nice bubble on side wall.
So i compromise with 255/45/17 low profile to get good handling but not rough ride on bad streets. Again 235/45/17 is cheaper tire around $20 less per tire.
Don't really know what size i'm going to get Continental Contact Extreme DW with my Enkei falcon rims.
A 255/45 is way taller than stock. The 45 is a percent. The sidewall is 45% as tall as the tire is wide (255mm). A 255/40 is barely shorter than stock because you added 20mm in width. You're talking 1/8" shorter from rim to tread.
04-17-2011, 10:55 PM
#704
05 NBP 6 MT
Well, I'm running 265/35-18s on the 8.5 ins aspec wheel (and susp) in Nova Scotia Canada...we have some real crap roads here and I haven't had any problems with 12,000 miles so far. I like the 255/40-17 idea..and IHC..your Tl LOOKS GOOD WITH THEM!
04-18-2011, 12:21 AM
#705
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada, Big Smoke, Down by the River
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
So your telling me 1/8" shorter with 255/40 profile ain't going to help with road bump absorption then 255/45?
My CL at 205/55 getting lots of feel from train track pot holes street bumps feels as is my fillings are going to pop out.
With the TL 235/45 feels little slick with cornering and brakin compared to my CL.
So to protect my new summer rims with larger sidewall profile ain't helping from 255/40 vs 255/45.
Better to go with 245/40/17 and not much different then 235/45 so better overall? Won't effect gas consumption that much or ABS or tire spin from sudden acceleration?
My CL at 205/55 getting lots of feel from train track pot holes street bumps feels as is my fillings are going to pop out.
With the TL 235/45 feels little slick with cornering and brakin compared to my CL.
So to protect my new summer rims with larger sidewall profile ain't helping from 255/40 vs 255/45.
Better to go with 245/40/17 and not much different then 235/45 so better overall? Won't effect gas consumption that much or ABS or tire spin from sudden acceleration?
04-18-2011, 12:21 PM
#706
How do these look for a 255/40/17 Continental Extreme DW
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....omCompare1=yes
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....omCompare1=yes
04-18-2011, 01:25 PM
#708
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
There's also a Conti vs Pilot Sport discussion thread here: https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-tires-wheels-suspension-97/new-continental-extreme-contact-dws-mich-pilot-s-plus-745576/
Between the info and opinions in these two threads, you should be able to make an informed decision about what is best for you.
04-18-2011, 02:45 PM
#709
Ended up going with the 245/45/17 after reading all of both threads. I did see that thread with the DWS vs the Pilot A/S and read it also for the information but I Did go with the "DW" summer performance tire since I hopefully dont forsee any snow in the near future at this point in time :P
Thanks
Thanks
04-18-2011, 02:47 PM
#710
Team Owner
So your telling me 1/8" shorter with 255/40 profile ain't going to help with road bump absorption then 255/45?
My CL at 205/55 getting lots of feel from train track pot holes street bumps feels as is my fillings are going to pop out.
With the TL 235/45 feels little slick with cornering and brakin compared to my CL.
So to protect my new summer rims with larger sidewall profile ain't helping from 255/40 vs 255/45.
Better to go with 245/40/17 and not much different then 235/45 so better overall? Won't effect gas consumption that much or ABS or tire spin from sudden acceleration?
My CL at 205/55 getting lots of feel from train track pot holes street bumps feels as is my fillings are going to pop out.
With the TL 235/45 feels little slick with cornering and brakin compared to my CL.
So to protect my new summer rims with larger sidewall profile ain't helping from 255/40 vs 255/45.
Better to go with 245/40/17 and not much different then 235/45 so better overall? Won't effect gas consumption that much or ABS or tire spin from sudden acceleration?
235/45/17 25.32"
245/40/17 24.71"
255/40/17 25.03"
255/45/17 26.03"
205/55/17 25.87"
04-18-2011, 02:54 PM
#711
Instructor
I don't think I've ever been more torn than I am right now between 245/45 or 255/40 Conti's on my brand new Type S wheels.
edit: and now I read people are considering 255/45s? Those wouldn't rub?
edit: and now I read people are considering 255/45s? Those wouldn't rub?
Last edited by DUHockey9; 04-18-2011 at 02:58 PM.
04-18-2011, 03:06 PM
#712
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
255/45 is too tall, imho.
Any "extra" tallness is in the sidewall; IOW - if they're all 17" tires, the only thing that changed, diameter-wise, is the sidwall height.
Stock Michelin MXM4 235/45-17 are 25.6" in diameter.
Any "extra" tallness is in the sidewall; IOW - if they're all 17" tires, the only thing that changed, diameter-wise, is the sidwall height.
Stock Michelin MXM4 235/45-17 are 25.6" in diameter.
04-27-2011, 03:26 PM
#713
Instructor
Fun fact:
Ordered 255/40/17 Hankook Ventus V12 Evo's from TireRack and went to there North America Headquarters in South Bend, Indiana (about 30min away from me) to have them installed.
Upon arriving and looking at my vehicle, they informed me that they are not allowed to install these tires on my wheels because my wheel width was not the Hankook minimum of 8.5". Even though I assured them they would fit, and that TL owners had been doing it forever... guess it was against their rules since they are a distributor for Hankook or something.
Had them bag the tires, and drove back home to the local Honda dealership, who said they will do it.
After sitting in the waiting room for 5min, they come and tell me they are scared to do it because their machine doesnt have some plastic part that prevents the wheels from being scratched (I have Type-S wheels)....
Now I have an appointment at a GM dealership that a buddy of mine works at, for them to mount and balance them on Friday.
Sigh.
Ordered 255/40/17 Hankook Ventus V12 Evo's from TireRack and went to there North America Headquarters in South Bend, Indiana (about 30min away from me) to have them installed.
Upon arriving and looking at my vehicle, they informed me that they are not allowed to install these tires on my wheels because my wheel width was not the Hankook minimum of 8.5". Even though I assured them they would fit, and that TL owners had been doing it forever... guess it was against their rules since they are a distributor for Hankook or something.
Had them bag the tires, and drove back home to the local Honda dealership, who said they will do it.
After sitting in the waiting room for 5min, they come and tell me they are scared to do it because their machine doesnt have some plastic part that prevents the wheels from being scratched (I have Type-S wheels)....
Now I have an appointment at a GM dealership that a buddy of mine works at, for them to mount and balance them on Friday.
Sigh.
04-28-2011, 01:17 PM
#714
265 has been successfully used on a TL on an 8" rim. It's pushing the limits and I wouldn't do it but look at how many people stretch tires.
I've run the 255 size tires on stock 8" rims for 60,000 miles now including several track days and some 160mph runs. 255/40 tires are perfect for stock rims.
Why mention the 265/40 being smaller in diameter when it's .08% or .02" larger on average? Is that even worth bringing up? The 245/45 is 1.41% or .35" larger and the 255/40 is 1.15% or .29" smaller diameter. I'm not understanding why you always point out how the 255/40 is so much smaller than stock and should be avoided when the 245/45 that you always recommend has a larger size difference.
Of course I'm sure you can find some odd ball tires somewhere on the internet that are on the large side of a 235/45 and the small side of a 245/45 but that's not the norm.
Of these sizes I would do the 255/40 unless it sees snow or LOTS of rain with deep standing water.
Here's the 255/40 on stock rims. IMO it looks closer to stock height.
I've run the 255 size tires on stock 8" rims for 60,000 miles now including several track days and some 160mph runs. 255/40 tires are perfect for stock rims.
Why mention the 265/40 being smaller in diameter when it's .08% or .02" larger on average? Is that even worth bringing up? The 245/45 is 1.41% or .35" larger and the 255/40 is 1.15% or .29" smaller diameter. I'm not understanding why you always point out how the 255/40 is so much smaller than stock and should be avoided when the 245/45 that you always recommend has a larger size difference.
Of course I'm sure you can find some odd ball tires somewhere on the internet that are on the large side of a 235/45 and the small side of a 245/45 but that's not the norm.
Of these sizes I would do the 255/40 unless it sees snow or LOTS of rain with deep standing water.
Here's the 255/40 on stock rims. IMO it looks closer to stock height.
04-28-2011, 02:52 PM
#716
FWIW, the stock tire is 820 RPM (rounds per mile), 245/45/17 michelin pilot A/S is 810 RPM, and the 255/40/18 is 831 RPM. Basically one is 1.2% larger and other is 1.3% smaller. Quoted from the Michelin website.
04-30-2011, 02:12 PM
#720
Cruisin'
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading this thread I was set on getting the 255/40/17, but then Michelin had to go and release the Pilot super sport. 30K warrant, (y) speed rating, better wet handling than PS2 and only made it in 235/45/17 or 245/40/17. I'm ok with the harsher ride, but curious if anyone has a picture of a 245/40/17 on the 2007-2008 TL-S. I would prefer a shorter sidewall and larger footprint, but don't want it to look dumb. Is the gap enough that the average person would notice, or just TL owners?