Why you should get 255/40-17 tires for your OEM rims !!!
04-26-2007, 09:51 PM
#241
Safety Car
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern ILLINOIS
Age: 62
Posts: 4,848
Received 133 Likes
on
129 Posts
Originally Posted by Inaccurate
Inaccurate's "Top Ten List"
As to Why You Should Get 255/40-17 Tires
for your OEM rims.
(please note this is 255/40 not 245/45.)
10) Lower effective gear ratio
9) Increased braking force per given pressure on brake pedal
8) Slightly lower stance (estimating 1/4 inch)
7) Great rim protection without being excessive
6) With the 255 tires, TL now looks even more like a BMW
5) You will be less envious of others having A-Spec
4) Having wider tires than a G35
3) Car feels lighter (accelerates easier, brakes easier, more responsive steering)
2) Don't need to stay 10-feet away from the nearest curb anymore
1) TL now looks plain 'ol "mean" as heck
I got the Goodyear Eagle F1 (D3) tires. Up to this time, I was running the OEM Bridgestone Turanza EL42. I really LOVE the way the TL now looks with these wide tires. And, BTW my age is the middle 40's. I include this to give some insight into my taste. I have always loved the way BMW's looked with their OEM wide tires. So, now I have that BMW'ish look with my TL.
At first, I was aiming to upgrade to just the 245/45 tires. No one here on the forum had ever mentioned using the 255 tires, so I thought the 255 would be too much and "out of the question".
However, when I was searching the forum, I did find one thread in which a single person did install the 255's. He even included pictures. His TL in the photo LOOKED GREAT with the 255's on the OEM rim.
That was it for me. I then planned to get the 255's after seeing this one person's pictures. I was scared to make this $1200 decision without anyone else to "back up" this one person that had installed 255's on the OEM rims. But, on the bright, there was no one on the forum saying that they tried the 255's and had problems.
So, let me be the second person on the forum to say "GET THE 255/40 !!!!". Skip the 245/45. Go with the 255/40.
There is absolutely no rubbing issues. It is NOT even close to rubbing. I turned the wheel and viewed the clearance in the wheelwell --> Huge clearance.
Because the 255/40 is a half inch shorter in diameter than the OEM 235/45, the tire fills-up less of the wheel opening. To me, there is not excessive open space with the 255/40, and I somewhat prefer the slight increase open space. But, actually, this is very minor and (to me at least) not even really noticeable.
But, the increase in tire width is VERY NOTICEABLE !!!!!!! If you like the way BMW's look with their OEM wide tires, you will LOVE this upgrade.
I weighted the OEM wheel (oem rim with oem tire mounted). The OEM wheel is 51.0 lbs (bathroom scale = +/- 0.5 lb.). The oem rim with Eagle F1 255/40-17 tires weigh 53.0. So, the wider tire is 2.0 pounds heavier. This is a 4% increase.
For performance, look at it this way. The mass increase from the wider tires is probably offset by the smaller diameter of the wider tires. In physics, there is a thing called "angular momentum" - I think that is the term for it. This means that if you have two wheels that weigh the same, but with different diameters, the smaller diameter wheel will gain/lose RPM easier than the larger diameter wheel.
Changing topics now to the tire brand selection. A nice feature of the Eagle F1 is what Goodyear calls it's "Rim Protector". This feature just means that the bead area on the tire where the rim seals against the tire is VERY GREATLY recessed more than usual. So, this helps to make the wide 255 tire to fit on the our TL OEM rim because the tire width across the beading area is less than normal for other brands. DISCLAIMER - This is only speculation as I have not actually compared other brands by measuring the width across the beads.
So, you ask me what I think of the 255 upgrade. Just check the ten items listed above. I really do mean those ten items. I really do notice that my brakes seem more powerful during normal everyday usage. I do notice the engine picking-up RPM slightly quicker than before from the lower effective gear ratio.
You ask where are the pics ? I will try to get some pictures posted sometime this weekend.
Did the wider tires make my steering wheel feel heavier ? NO. The steering actually feels a bit lighter. Why ? I don't know why the steering is lighter than it was with the OEM tires. Stiffer sidewalls (from lower sectional profile) perhaps.
How does the car handle ? I can't answer this because I am not the type that corners aggressively. I will say that I feel a slightly improve steering response. Stiffer sidewalls (from lower sectional profile) perhaps.
Is there more road noise ? Not that I can hear or feel. I have driven the 255's on concrete freeway at 70 mph, and I could not hear any difference than with the OEM Bridgestone Turanza EL42. However, in general, the Eagle F1 does have a different sound (not noisier, just different). Driving around town (stop-n-go, 35 mph stuff), the tire has a "ting" sound similar to a ball that has excessive pressure (the tires had 35 psi) when driving over raised irregularities in the road (uneven joints in the road). I like the way the Eagle F1 sounds.
Does the 255/40 stickout too much (in a figurative and literal sense) ? NO. Although the wide tires are a very noticeable difference, a person that never seen a TL before would think that it was a factory design. The 255/40 on the oem rim has a very clean appearance and fits perfectly.
How much is the speedometer affected ? Too soon to say. I have had the 255's for only two days now. But, so far, the speedometer error has not caused me to notice the small difference in mph. But, on the bright side, remember the error will be having a higher indicated mph than the actual mph. So, you are going slower than the speedometer indicates. So, no speeding tickets that you can blame on the error.
Is the mpg affected ? Too soon to say. I have had the 255's for only two days now.
Does the 255 width increase hydroplaning tendencies ? I am unable to make a blanket statement because I am using the Eagle F1, which has PHENOMENAL wet performance according to the research that I did. On my morning commute this morning, there was heavy to medium thunderstorms. I did appox 10 miles at 60 mph thru moderate puddling (long stretch of standing water) while still raining moderately. Also, I went thru average puddling while still raining moderately along city streets at 40 mph. So, I am trying to say that my commute is half city streets (35 mph rated and doing 40 to 50 mph) and half concrete freeway doing 60 mph. The Eagle F1's were noticeable different than any other tire I ever used. When going thru puddling, even on the freeway at 60 mph, there was no splash sounds as normal tires make when pushing the water out of the way. The Eagle F1 made no sounds thru the puddles. Plus, there was no tugging at the steering wheel when encountering puddles; other tires usualy cause a tug on the wheel whening hitting puddles hard. The thing that I noticed the most was that I could not hear the wet roads. The Eagle F1 made the same sound and had the same feel in the rain that it does in the dry. To me, this indicates that these tires are really different. Other tires make splashing sounds, and you can feel the tire pushing water out of the way. With the Eagle F1, the tires seems to cut thru the water like a knife. (Sorry, I got off topic of the 255 width and I turned into a advertisement for Eagle F1's.)
Why did I get the 255's ? Because I did not like the way the OEM wheels looked and to gain curb protection. What were the engineers thinking ??? Those 235's are way too narrow for that 8 inch rim. Perhaps, they intended for us to upgrade to 255's so the car would look more like a BMW. With all the other styling that they "borrowed" from the BMW body style, I think they wanted to include the wide tires too but the marketing department made them use 235's to keep cost down. I say this jokingly, but who knows --- might be some truth in it.
Back to Why did I get the 255's ? The 255/40 DEFINITELY achieved both of my goals. My TL now looks much better (VERY NOTICEABLE !!!) with the wide tires, and I LOVE THE BMW'ish LOOK that it now has. The second goal was to gain some curb protection. With the 255/40, this goal too has DEFINITELY been achieved. I am very happy that I got the 255's instead of the 245's.
As to Why You Should Get 255/40-17 Tires
for your OEM rims.
(please note this is 255/40 not 245/45.)
10) Lower effective gear ratio
9) Increased braking force per given pressure on brake pedal
8) Slightly lower stance (estimating 1/4 inch)
7) Great rim protection without being excessive
6) With the 255 tires, TL now looks even more like a BMW
5) You will be less envious of others having A-Spec
4) Having wider tires than a G35
3) Car feels lighter (accelerates easier, brakes easier, more responsive steering)
2) Don't need to stay 10-feet away from the nearest curb anymore
1) TL now looks plain 'ol "mean" as heck
I got the Goodyear Eagle F1 (D3) tires. Up to this time, I was running the OEM Bridgestone Turanza EL42. I really LOVE the way the TL now looks with these wide tires. And, BTW my age is the middle 40's. I include this to give some insight into my taste. I have always loved the way BMW's looked with their OEM wide tires. So, now I have that BMW'ish look with my TL.
At first, I was aiming to upgrade to just the 245/45 tires. No one here on the forum had ever mentioned using the 255 tires, so I thought the 255 would be too much and "out of the question".
However, when I was searching the forum, I did find one thread in which a single person did install the 255's. He even included pictures. His TL in the photo LOOKED GREAT with the 255's on the OEM rim.
That was it for me. I then planned to get the 255's after seeing this one person's pictures. I was scared to make this $1200 decision without anyone else to "back up" this one person that had installed 255's on the OEM rims. But, on the bright, there was no one on the forum saying that they tried the 255's and had problems.
So, let me be the second person on the forum to say "GET THE 255/40 !!!!". Skip the 245/45. Go with the 255/40.
There is absolutely no rubbing issues. It is NOT even close to rubbing. I turned the wheel and viewed the clearance in the wheelwell --> Huge clearance.
Because the 255/40 is a half inch shorter in diameter than the OEM 235/45, the tire fills-up less of the wheel opening. To me, there is not excessive open space with the 255/40, and I somewhat prefer the slight increase open space. But, actually, this is very minor and (to me at least) not even really noticeable.
But, the increase in tire width is VERY NOTICEABLE !!!!!!! If you like the way BMW's look with their OEM wide tires, you will LOVE this upgrade.
I weighted the OEM wheel (oem rim with oem tire mounted). The OEM wheel is 51.0 lbs (bathroom scale = +/- 0.5 lb.). The oem rim with Eagle F1 255/40-17 tires weigh 53.0. So, the wider tire is 2.0 pounds heavier. This is a 4% increase.
For performance, look at it this way. The mass increase from the wider tires is probably offset by the smaller diameter of the wider tires. In physics, there is a thing called "angular momentum" - I think that is the term for it. This means that if you have two wheels that weigh the same, but with different diameters, the smaller diameter wheel will gain/lose RPM easier than the larger diameter wheel.
Changing topics now to the tire brand selection. A nice feature of the Eagle F1 is what Goodyear calls it's "Rim Protector". This feature just means that the bead area on the tire where the rim seals against the tire is VERY GREATLY recessed more than usual. So, this helps to make the wide 255 tire to fit on the our TL OEM rim because the tire width across the beading area is less than normal for other brands. DISCLAIMER - This is only speculation as I have not actually compared other brands by measuring the width across the beads.
So, you ask me what I think of the 255 upgrade. Just check the ten items listed above. I really do mean those ten items. I really do notice that my brakes seem more powerful during normal everyday usage. I do notice the engine picking-up RPM slightly quicker than before from the lower effective gear ratio.
You ask where are the pics ? I will try to get some pictures posted sometime this weekend.
Did the wider tires make my steering wheel feel heavier ? NO. The steering actually feels a bit lighter. Why ? I don't know why the steering is lighter than it was with the OEM tires. Stiffer sidewalls (from lower sectional profile) perhaps.
How does the car handle ? I can't answer this because I am not the type that corners aggressively. I will say that I feel a slightly improve steering response. Stiffer sidewalls (from lower sectional profile) perhaps.
Is there more road noise ? Not that I can hear or feel. I have driven the 255's on concrete freeway at 70 mph, and I could not hear any difference than with the OEM Bridgestone Turanza EL42. However, in general, the Eagle F1 does have a different sound (not noisier, just different). Driving around town (stop-n-go, 35 mph stuff), the tire has a "ting" sound similar to a ball that has excessive pressure (the tires had 35 psi) when driving over raised irregularities in the road (uneven joints in the road). I like the way the Eagle F1 sounds.
Does the 255/40 stickout too much (in a figurative and literal sense) ? NO. Although the wide tires are a very noticeable difference, a person that never seen a TL before would think that it was a factory design. The 255/40 on the oem rim has a very clean appearance and fits perfectly.
How much is the speedometer affected ? Too soon to say. I have had the 255's for only two days now. But, so far, the speedometer error has not caused me to notice the small difference in mph. But, on the bright side, remember the error will be having a higher indicated mph than the actual mph. So, you are going slower than the speedometer indicates. So, no speeding tickets that you can blame on the error.
Is the mpg affected ? Too soon to say. I have had the 255's for only two days now.
Does the 255 width increase hydroplaning tendencies ? I am unable to make a blanket statement because I am using the Eagle F1, which has PHENOMENAL wet performance according to the research that I did. On my morning commute this morning, there was heavy to medium thunderstorms. I did appox 10 miles at 60 mph thru moderate puddling (long stretch of standing water) while still raining moderately. Also, I went thru average puddling while still raining moderately along city streets at 40 mph. So, I am trying to say that my commute is half city streets (35 mph rated and doing 40 to 50 mph) and half concrete freeway doing 60 mph. The Eagle F1's were noticeable different than any other tire I ever used. When going thru puddling, even on the freeway at 60 mph, there was no splash sounds as normal tires make when pushing the water out of the way. The Eagle F1 made no sounds thru the puddles. Plus, there was no tugging at the steering wheel when encountering puddles; other tires usualy cause a tug on the wheel whening hitting puddles hard. The thing that I noticed the most was that I could not hear the wet roads. The Eagle F1 made the same sound and had the same feel in the rain that it does in the dry. To me, this indicates that these tires are really different. Other tires make splashing sounds, and you can feel the tire pushing water out of the way. With the Eagle F1, the tires seems to cut thru the water like a knife. (Sorry, I got off topic of the 255 width and I turned into a advertisement for Eagle F1's.)
Why did I get the 255's ? Because I did not like the way the OEM wheels looked and to gain curb protection. What were the engineers thinking ??? Those 235's are way too narrow for that 8 inch rim. Perhaps, they intended for us to upgrade to 255's so the car would look more like a BMW. With all the other styling that they "borrowed" from the BMW body style, I think they wanted to include the wide tires too but the marketing department made them use 235's to keep cost down. I say this jokingly, but who knows --- might be some truth in it.
Back to Why did I get the 255's ? The 255/40 DEFINITELY achieved both of my goals. My TL now looks much better (VERY NOTICEABLE !!!) with the wide tires, and I LOVE THE BMW'ish LOOK that it now has. The second goal was to gain some curb protection. With the 255/40, this goal too has DEFINITELY been achieved. I am very happy that I got the 255's instead of the 245's.
Would like to see a Pic
05-13-2007, 09:35 PM
#243
Stay Out Of the Left Lane
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SE Mass --- > Central VA --- > SE Mass
Age: 57
Posts: 8,953
Received 1,236 Likes
on
1,023 Posts
I had the F-1 GS-D3's mounted and balanced last Saturday. I haven't really pushed them yet as I want to wear off the mold release stuff they apply while manufacturing the tires. However I can say the car is much quiter and I really like the looks.
Rob
PS - I got mine for $166 a piece from the Tirerack and for whatever reason they have since jumped up to 199!!
Rob
PS - I got mine for $166 a piece from the Tirerack and for whatever reason they have since jumped up to 199!!
05-13-2007, 10:47 PM
#244
Safety Car
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern ILLINOIS
Age: 62
Posts: 4,848
Received 133 Likes
on
129 Posts
Originally Posted by Pankul
just a tiny update from me, I got 255/45-17 Kumoho from Tire Rack as well, (about 104 each, $80 install at firestone)
Very happy with them.
If anyone cares for pics for comparisons here let me know. (i needed all seasons and softer ride hence 45)
P
Very happy with them.
If anyone cares for pics for comparisons here let me know. (i needed all seasons and softer ride hence 45)
P
05-13-2007, 11:20 PM
#246
Safety Car
Thread Starter
NBP04TL4ME,
Not sure about your set, but my F1's were sticky as hell from day 1. They were so sticky (like a racing slick) that I could hear small pebbles being picked-up by the tire and slunged into the fenderwell. And, not to mention the stickyness was apparent in excellent traction too.
I would hit it !!!!
Not sure about your set, but my F1's were sticky as hell from day 1. They were so sticky (like a racing slick) that I could hear small pebbles being picked-up by the tire and slunged into the fenderwell.
And, not to mention the stickyness was apparent in excellent traction too.I would hit it !!!!
05-14-2007, 08:15 AM
#247
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Originally Posted by AnothaTL
I have the stock size of those Yokohamas. I love them!
06-08-2007, 12:54 PM
#248
Mike's Silver Bullet
Looking through this thread, I haven't found much info on my 2 primary drivers, noise and treadwear (maybe I just didn't see it?).
Could you guys help me?
For those that have installed these tires:
Which brand do you have?
Are they noiser or quieter than the OEMs?
Did they get noiser as they wore?
How many miles do you have on them now?
How many miles did you get out of the OEMs?
Thanks for your help!!!
Could you guys help me?
For those that have installed these tires:
Which brand do you have?
Are they noiser or quieter than the OEMs?
Did they get noiser as they wore?
How many miles do you have on them now?
How many miles did you get out of the OEMs?
Thanks for your help!!!
06-08-2007, 08:13 PM
#249
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Hi, this is Inaccurate. I am the one that started this thread. Here is a mini update from my experiences.
Which brand do you have?
Goodyear Eagle F1 (D3) tires.
Are they noiser or quieter than the OEMs? I noticed them being quieter than my oem Bridgestone Turanza EL42 from the first day. I still feel that they are extremely quiet. I even have Goodyear Eagle F1 (D3) tires (size 225/55ZR16) on my wife's RL. I drive her RL often. And, I feel that the F1's on the RL are extremely quiet too.
Did they get noiser as they wore? No. I have had my Goodyear Eagle F1 (D3) tires for 12,500 miles. I still feel that they are as quiet as the day that I bought them. Additional, the wife drives her RL many more miles than I drive my TL. And her F1's, which are half worn in the front are as quiet as the day that we installed them. Damn, I love those F1's - great performance and great appearance (thread pattern).
How many miles do you have on them now?
On my 2006 TL (subject of this thread), I now have 12,500 miles. On my wife's RL, her F1's have 16,000 miles and the front tire depth is 0.190 inches. New depth is 0.312. If we consider useable tread depth is 0.25 when new, then her tires have used 50 percent of the useable tread depth in 16,000 miles. On my TL, my depth in front is 0.230 inches. So, I have used 33 percent of the useable tread depth in 12,500 miles. If we extrapolate these figures, mine should last for a total of 37,500 miles. My wife's F1's should last for a total of 32,000 miles.
How many miles did you get out of the OEMs? I got a whopping total of 4,000 miles from my oem tires. That is right, just 4,000 miles. Because I could not stand to look at those ugly tires any longer than that. Even though new with just 4,00 miles, off they went.
Which brand do you have?
Goodyear Eagle F1 (D3) tires.
Are they noiser or quieter than the OEMs? I noticed them being quieter than my oem Bridgestone Turanza EL42 from the first day. I still feel that they are extremely quiet. I even have Goodyear Eagle F1 (D3) tires (size 225/55ZR16) on my wife's RL. I drive her RL often. And, I feel that the F1's on the RL are extremely quiet too.
Did they get noiser as they wore? No. I have had my Goodyear Eagle F1 (D3) tires for 12,500 miles. I still feel that they are as quiet as the day that I bought them. Additional, the wife drives her RL many more miles than I drive my TL. And her F1's, which are half worn in the front are as quiet as the day that we installed them. Damn, I love those F1's - great performance and great appearance (thread pattern).
How many miles do you have on them now?
On my 2006 TL (subject of this thread), I now have 12,500 miles. On my wife's RL, her F1's have 16,000 miles and the front tire depth is 0.190 inches. New depth is 0.312. If we consider useable tread depth is 0.25 when new, then her tires have used 50 percent of the useable tread depth in 16,000 miles. On my TL, my depth in front is 0.230 inches. So, I have used 33 percent of the useable tread depth in 12,500 miles. If we extrapolate these figures, mine should last for a total of 37,500 miles. My wife's F1's should last for a total of 32,000 miles.
How many miles did you get out of the OEMs? I got a whopping total of 4,000 miles from my oem tires. That is right, just 4,000 miles. Because I could not stand to look at those ugly tires any longer than that. Even though new with just 4,00 miles, off they went.
06-08-2007, 08:31 PM
#250
For those that have installed these tires:
Which brand do you have? - Falken Ziex.
Are they noiser or quieter than the OEMs? - Quiter.
Did they get noiser as they wore? - So far no but I only have about 1K on the new tires.
How many miles do you have on them now? 1 K.
How many miles did you get out of the OEMs? 30 K. I could have driven 5K more on it but I had premature rear tire wear and I was just so sick with the OEM tires. It felt like I got a different/better handling car when I got the new tires.
Which brand do you have? - Falken Ziex.
Are they noiser or quieter than the OEMs? - Quiter.
Did they get noiser as they wore? - So far no but I only have about 1K on the new tires.
How many miles do you have on them now? 1 K.
How many miles did you get out of the OEMs? 30 K. I could have driven 5K more on it but I had premature rear tire wear and I was just so sick with the OEM tires. It felt like I got a different/better handling car when I got the new tires.
06-09-2007, 09:47 AM
#251
Cruisin'
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: florida
Age: 42
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that have installed these tires:
Which brand do you have? - Falken 452's
Are they noiser or quieter than the OEMs? - quiter
Did they get noiser as they wore? nope
How many miles do you have on them now? 4k
How many miles did you get out of the OEMs? 30k
Which brand do you have? - Falken 452's
Are they noiser or quieter than the OEMs? - quiter
Did they get noiser as they wore? nope
How many miles do you have on them now? 4k
How many miles did you get out of the OEMs? 30k
06-09-2007, 11:02 AM
#252
Banned
Originally Posted by Inaccurate
For Adobeman ,
Here is a pic for you. Laying a yardstick across the entire tire, then measuring the "offset", we see that we have between a 1/4 to 3/8 inch of tire protruding beyond the rim lip. I am no "curb kissing expert", but I do think that the rim would now never get scrapped.
------------------------------------------------------
For HEK,
LOL... No problem. Here is your pic too.
-----------------------------------------------------
For xedap1998,
oops.... Your right. That would be another disadvantage. But for me, I rather drive "in style" for a indicated 60k miles, and have it really be just 58700 miles (a 1300 penality), than to drive the entire time with 235 wide tires.
MATH STUFF
----------------
60,000 miles Indicated x 0.978443 Factor = 58,706 miles Actual (1293 milage error)
Here is a pic for you. Laying a yardstick across the entire tire, then measuring the "offset", we see that we have between a 1/4 to 3/8 inch of tire protruding beyond the rim lip. I am no "curb kissing expert", but I do think that the rim would now never get scrapped.
------------------------------------------------------
For HEK,
LOL... No problem. Here is your pic too.
-----------------------------------------------------
For xedap1998,
oops.... Your right. That would be another disadvantage. But for me, I rather drive "in style" for a indicated 60k miles, and have it really be just 58700 miles (a 1300 penality), than to drive the entire time with 235 wide tires.
MATH STUFF
----------------
60,000 miles Indicated x 0.978443 Factor = 58,706 miles Actual (1293 milage error)
06-09-2007, 12:23 PM
#253
Banned
OK after Reading Everything You Guys Had i have decided to keep my 2G OEM Wheels and change my Tires, i also searched on what Tires Can fit those 2G Rims. These options i came up with.
http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCal...?action=submit
http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCal...?action=submit
06-10-2007, 06:18 PM
#254
Team Owner
I just replaced the factory tires at 43,000 miles on my 06 TL. Could've gotten another 5K or more but I slacked on the rotations and the inside edge of the fronts were worn bald. I hadn't hit the wear indicators yet. Went with the 255/40 BFG G-foce KDW. These are the Z rated version. There are several things both good and bad.
A week before I had the tires replaced I got an alignment. The car had been less stable feeling and tended to follow road imperfections. As I thought it had a little toe-out. I never drive this car hard but decided to put it through the test so I would have a fair comparison when I got the new tires. Went to the "test" site with traction control off and put the old tires to the test. I should add that I have 100lbs of stereo equipment in the trunk. The car understeered like I expected but it was surprisingly easy to get the tail out. All out grip was better than I expected but not overly impressive. Very predictable and easy to control at the limit. Braking was good. I think I could stop faster without ABS though. If I just stomped the pedal it seemed like the ABS was a little conservative. If I modulated the brakes myself with the pedal pulsing maybe once or twice during the stop it stopped about 10 feet shorter. I was tempted to see if there was a fuse I could pull to disable ABS but decided it wasn't worth it.
I immediately noticed a difference when pulling out of the parking lot with the G-forces. Road noise below 40mph is definately higher. On the freeway they're actually quieter. The car feels more stable. It's less affected by wind gusts and imperfections on the freeway. It doesn't want to skip when cornering and hitting the road reflectors. The steering seems to have a better weight to it. Response is a little better but I feel like this car doesn't really have the suspension to fully feel the tires out. At this point I wasn't sure if the tradeoff with road noise was worth it. Then I took it to the "test" site. The first time I did a 60-0 braking test I had a huge smile on my face. I could actually feel the skin on my face being stretched forward. Same thing with the ABS. In perfect conditions it seems to hinder brake performance. Braking distance was almost 20' shorter than stock which in the real world is huge. Definately more front end dive. Cornering was much improved but it brought out the stock suspension's faults. I could now enter corners much harder and would have to really over cook it and lift off the gas quickly to get the tail out at first. Not as predictable or easy to control and the rear had a weird "twitch" but still never once made me think of losing the rear or hitting a curb. There's a lot more body roll with the extra traction. All out cornering is great but it's not as much fun as it could be with a tight suspension. Not sure if I hit the bumpstops but by the weird random behavior of the rear I think I was bouncing off of them. It would transition from understeer to oversteer to understeer again without any extra input from the steering wheel, brakes, or gas. Remember, I have 100lbs of stereo equipment in the trunk which would make it a little more tail happy than stock . I think an A-spec car would be able to enjoy them much more.
All in all, I don't need a tire like this for my driving habits. There's no temptation to drive this car hard because it's just not fun for me with FWD and no power. With that said I would still buy the larger tires again just knowing how much harder the car will brake and corner in an emergency situation, especially when the girlfriend takes it out. They make the car look much more expensive too. I usually listen to the radio pretty loud so the road noise doesn't bother me too much.
Here's the worst thing so far... I just did my usual trip from Vegas to Bakersfield which is ~260 miles. I usually make it with 1/2 tank left. This time it was barely at 3/8. Hopefully it was just a fluke but I'll find out tonight when I make the return trip.
A week before I had the tires replaced I got an alignment. The car had been less stable feeling and tended to follow road imperfections. As I thought it had a little toe-out. I never drive this car hard but decided to put it through the test so I would have a fair comparison when I got the new tires. Went to the "test" site with traction control off and put the old tires to the test. I should add that I have 100lbs of stereo equipment in the trunk. The car understeered like I expected but it was surprisingly easy to get the tail out. All out grip was better than I expected but not overly impressive. Very predictable and easy to control at the limit. Braking was good. I think I could stop faster without ABS though. If I just stomped the pedal it seemed like the ABS was a little conservative. If I modulated the brakes myself with the pedal pulsing maybe once or twice during the stop it stopped about 10 feet shorter. I was tempted to see if there was a fuse I could pull to disable ABS but decided it wasn't worth it.
I immediately noticed a difference when pulling out of the parking lot with the G-forces. Road noise below 40mph is definately higher. On the freeway they're actually quieter. The car feels more stable. It's less affected by wind gusts and imperfections on the freeway. It doesn't want to skip when cornering and hitting the road reflectors. The steering seems to have a better weight to it. Response is a little better but I feel like this car doesn't really have the suspension to fully feel the tires out. At this point I wasn't sure if the tradeoff with road noise was worth it. Then I took it to the "test" site. The first time I did a 60-0 braking test I had a huge smile on my face. I could actually feel the skin on my face being stretched forward. Same thing with the ABS. In perfect conditions it seems to hinder brake performance. Braking distance was almost 20' shorter than stock which in the real world is huge. Definately more front end dive. Cornering was much improved but it brought out the stock suspension's faults. I could now enter corners much harder and would have to really over cook it and lift off the gas quickly to get the tail out at first. Not as predictable or easy to control and the rear had a weird "twitch" but still never once made me think of losing the rear or hitting a curb. There's a lot more body roll with the extra traction. All out cornering is great but it's not as much fun as it could be with a tight suspension. Not sure if I hit the bumpstops but by the weird random behavior of the rear I think I was bouncing off of them. It would transition from understeer to oversteer to understeer again without any extra input from the steering wheel, brakes, or gas. Remember, I have 100lbs of stereo equipment in the trunk which would make it a little more tail happy than stock . I think an A-spec car would be able to enjoy them much more.
All in all, I don't need a tire like this for my driving habits. There's no temptation to drive this car hard because it's just not fun for me with FWD and no power. With that said I would still buy the larger tires again just knowing how much harder the car will brake and corner in an emergency situation, especially when the girlfriend takes it out. They make the car look much more expensive too. I usually listen to the radio pretty loud so the road noise doesn't bother me too much.
Here's the worst thing so far... I just did my usual trip from Vegas to Bakersfield which is ~260 miles. I usually make it with 1/2 tank left. This time it was barely at 3/8. Hopefully it was just a fluke but I'll find out tonight when I make the return trip.
06-11-2007, 11:25 AM
#256
Originally Posted by TL_S_Driver
Hmmm. i'm curious. so how does 235/35/19 compare in terms of revolutions and mileage to the stock tires?
And to all that don't think different tire size effected your gas mileage, you are wrong. Keep in mind that the error in mph from your new tires, also extends to your odometer and MID. This means all the MPG calculations done by the computer are incorrect as well. You must apply the % correction to all your mileage calculations. If you don't, your mpg will simply stay the same...
Examples:
- 14 gallon fill up
- 400 miles since last fillup
- 255/40/17 is 98.82% the diameter of stock 235/45/17
(400 / 14) x .9882 = actual mpg
28.57 x .9882 = actual mpg
28.23 = actual mpg
or
(400 x .9882) / 14 = actual mpg
395.28 / 14 = actual mpg
28.23 = actual mpg
In this case the diameter is close to stock, so the difference is quite minimal...
06-11-2007, 12:25 PM
#257
Mike's Silver Bullet
...Umm... That could be a little misleading.
With that small of a change to the diameter, the only difference in gas mileage would be from a possible change in rolling resistance.
What changes is how far the car has gone vs the indicated distance.
If you actually did it, the fill up would probably be 14*98.82%=13.83 gal, yielding the same 28.57 gas mileage.
With that small of a change to the diameter, the only difference in gas mileage would be from a possible change in rolling resistance.
What changes is how far the car has gone vs the indicated distance.
If you actually did it, the fill up would probably be 14*98.82%=13.83 gal, yielding the same 28.57 gas mileage.
06-11-2007, 01:32 PM
#258
Originally Posted by sandynmike
...Umm... That could be a little misleading.
With that small of a change to the diameter, the only difference in gas mileage would be from a possible change in rolling resistance.
What changes is how far the car has gone vs the indicated distance.
If you actually did it, the fill up would probably be 14*98.82%=13.83 gal, yielding the same 28.57 gas mileage.
With that small of a change to the diameter, the only difference in gas mileage would be from a possible change in rolling resistance.
What changes is how far the car has gone vs the indicated distance.
If you actually did it, the fill up would probably be 14*98.82%=13.83 gal, yielding the same 28.57 gas mileage.
14 gallons / .9882 = 14.1672 gallons
400 miles /14.1672 gallons = 28.23mpg
Don't worry, I got your back...
BTW: Chances are that there is the same or even less rolling resistance with the wider 255/40 tires. Because, of course, mounting them on a 8" wide rim causes the rears bow out making the contact patch smaller than stock. Therefor that doesn't quite matter...
06-11-2007, 02:47 PM
#259
Mike's Silver Bullet
I agree that the mpg indicated on the MID will be a little higher than the ACTUAL mpg, because the car thought it went 400 miles, when it actually went 395.28.
The ACTUAL mpg will be the same in both cases, under the assumption that the tires have the same rolling resistance, and that the small change in overall gear ratio doesn't affect mileage.
So you'd have to put in less gas to go the 395.28.
If 14 gallons always got you 400 miles (28.57mpg), then with the 255s, the odometer would read 400/.9882 = 404.77, and the MID would read 404.77/14 = 28.91.
The ACTUAL mpg will be the same in both cases, under the assumption that the tires have the same rolling resistance, and that the small change in overall gear ratio doesn't affect mileage.
So you'd have to put in less gas to go the 395.28.
If 14 gallons always got you 400 miles (28.57mpg), then with the 255s, the odometer would read 400/.9882 = 404.77, and the MID would read 404.77/14 = 28.91.
06-11-2007, 04:43 PM
#260
The point I'm trying to make is that tire size effects HOW you calculate your fuel economy. If you don't multiply your calculated mpg by your new tire size expressed as a percentage, your mpg figures WILL be incorrect...
06-11-2007, 06:49 PM
#261
Mike's Silver Bullet
Originally Posted by 94eg!
And to all that don't think different tire size effected your gas mileage, you are wrong.
How the MID does the math won't have an effect on the actual mileage, only the MID indicated mpg.
The MID mpg display will be off by the percentage diffference of the tires.
We're saying the same thing.
06-11-2007, 08:26 PM
#262
Team Owner
Of course the wider tires affect gas mileage. Overall diameter is probably the same as stock. With 1/4" difference when new and the fact that the old ones were worn I would bet they're the same. Wider means more rolling resistance and wind resistance. The softer rubber also creates more rolling resistance. I can tell a difference when lifting off the throttle and coasting. That's why the reduction in gas mileage wasn't that surprising. For what it's worth I always drive 68mph with no stops and get ~35mpg at that pace. For this trip I bumped the speed to 69mph just in case there was a difference in diameter. Don't put too much weight on the computer's calculated mpg. It's a rough estimate. The only way to really know is calculating it yourself at every fill up.
06-12-2007, 11:06 AM
#263
Mike's Silver Bullet
Wider tires may affect gas mileage, but there's no way to know how much beforehand by doing any calculation with the MID and tire diameters. All the MID does is divide the number of miles it thinks the car traveled by the amount of gas it used.
06-12-2007, 12:15 PM
#264
Originally Posted by sandynmike
This is the part that is potentially confusing in your first post on the subject.
How the MID does the math won't have an effect on the actual mileage, only the MID indicated mpg.
The MID mpg display will be off by the percentage diffference of the tires.
We're saying the same thing.
How the MID does the math won't have an effect on the actual mileage, only the MID indicated mpg.
The MID mpg display will be off by the percentage diffference of the tires.
We're saying the same thing.
06-12-2007, 08:05 PM
#265
As this thread has been going on for a while, and as I haven't read all the replies, I hope I'm not duplicating a response.
GY Eagle F1 255/40-17 Tread width is 8.7" OD 25"
Yokohama Advan S.4 245/45-17 Tread width is 8.7" OD 25.7"
Tread width is the same and you don't gain the space between the fender and tire going to a 40 series. Just installed these on the car today mounted on Acura Chromed rims.
GY Eagle F1 255/40-17 Tread width is 8.7" OD 25"
Yokohama Advan S.4 245/45-17 Tread width is 8.7" OD 25.7"
Tread width is the same and you don't gain the space between the fender and tire going to a 40 series. Just installed these on the car today mounted on Acura Chromed rims.
06-13-2007, 12:17 AM
#266
I also wanted to add that this is the 255/40/17 is the same size tire Team-Honda-Research used to bring in a win in their class (and 3rd overall) in their 2004 TL 6MT during the 2005 25-hours of Thunderhill (on an 8" wide rim too)...
Specs:
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/793/releases/3081
Pics:
http://www.acurainspired.com/forums/...showtopic=4811
Specs:
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/793/releases/3081
Pics:
http://www.acurainspired.com/forums/...showtopic=4811
06-14-2007, 04:50 AM
#267
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
This is interesting.
The Yoko ES-100 245's according to their PDF size chart put down more rubber then the Goodyear 255/40's treadwidth 8.7
245/40ZR17 91W Diameter 24.7 treadwidth 9.4
P245/45ZR17 95W diameter 25.6 treadwidth 9.4
And they are approved for an 8" rim.
The ES-100 255/40/17 gains .4 on treadwidth out to 9.8 but is recommended for an 8.5 rim
I have these tires on a BMW 330 & intend to get them for the 06 TL 6spd when the factory summer tires run out. Was surprised about the size of the tread & will check the BMW in the morning & post an edit on the size & treadwidth.
BTW the 330 has different sized tires front to rear as factory STD.
The Yoko ES-100 245's according to their PDF size chart put down more rubber then the Goodyear 255/40's treadwidth 8.7
245/40ZR17 91W Diameter 24.7 treadwidth 9.4
P245/45ZR17 95W diameter 25.6 treadwidth 9.4
And they are approved for an 8" rim.
The ES-100 255/40/17 gains .4 on treadwidth out to 9.8 but is recommended for an 8.5 rim
I have these tires on a BMW 330 & intend to get them for the 06 TL 6spd when the factory summer tires run out. Was surprised about the size of the tread & will check the BMW in the morning & post an edit on the size & treadwidth.
BTW the 330 has different sized tires front to rear as factory STD.
06-14-2007, 05:15 AM
#268
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
This is interesting.
The Yoko ES-100 245's according to their PDF size chart put down more rubber then the Goodyear 255/40's treadwidth 8.7
245/40ZR17 91W Diameter 24.7 treadwidth 9.4
P245/45ZR17 95W diameter 25.6 treadwidth 9.4
And they are approved for an 8" rim.
The ES-100 255/40/17 gains .4 on treadwidth out to 9.8 but is recommended for an 8.5 rim
I have these tires on a BMW 330 & intend to get them for the 06 TL 6spd when the factory summer tires run out. Was surprised about the size of the tread & will check the BMW in the morning & post an edit on the size & treadwidth.
BTW the 330 has different sized tires front to rear as factory STD.
The Yoko ES-100 245's according to their PDF size chart put down more rubber then the Goodyear 255/40's treadwidth 8.7
245/40ZR17 91W Diameter 24.7 treadwidth 9.4
P245/45ZR17 95W diameter 25.6 treadwidth 9.4
And they are approved for an 8" rim.
The ES-100 255/40/17 gains .4 on treadwidth out to 9.8 but is recommended for an 8.5 rim
I have these tires on a BMW 330 & intend to get them for the 06 TL 6spd when the factory summer tires run out. Was surprised about the size of the tread & will check the BMW in the morning & post an edit on the size & treadwidth.
BTW the 330 has different sized tires front to rear as factory STD.
225/45/17 front with a treadwidth of 8.7
245/40/17 rear with a treadwidth of 9.4
by actual measurement.
06-14-2007, 05:49 AM
#269
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
This is interesting.
The Yoko ES-100 245's according to their PDF size chart put down more rubber then the Goodyear 255/40's treadwidth 8.7
245/40ZR17 91W Diameter 24.7 treadwidth 9.4
P245/45ZR17 95W diameter 25.6 treadwidth 9.4
The ES-100 255/40/17 gains .4 on treadwidth out to 9.8 but is recommended for an 8.5 rim
I have these tires on a BMW 330 & intend to get them for the 06 TL 6spd when the factory summer tires run out. Was surprised about the size of the tread & will check the BMW in the morning & post an edit on the size & treadwidth.
BTW the 330 has different sized tires front to rear as factory STD.
The Yoko ES-100 245's according to their PDF size chart put down more rubber then the Goodyear 255/40's treadwidth 8.7
245/40ZR17 91W Diameter 24.7 treadwidth 9.4
P245/45ZR17 95W diameter 25.6 treadwidth 9.4
The ES-100 255/40/17 gains .4 on treadwidth out to 9.8 but is recommended for an 8.5 rim
I have these tires on a BMW 330 & intend to get them for the 06 TL 6spd when the factory summer tires run out. Was surprised about the size of the tread & will check the BMW in the morning & post an edit on the size & treadwidth.
BTW the 330 has different sized tires front to rear as factory STD.
Yokohama Advan Neova AD07
245/40-17 9.4”
255/40-17 9.9”
Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
245/14-17 9.1”
245/40-17 9”
Kuhmo Ecsta MX
245/45-17 9.7”
255/40-17 10.3”
BFG g-Force T/A KD
245/40-17 9.8”
245/45-17 9.6”
255/40-17 10.2”
BFG g-Force T/A KDW
245/45-17 9.6”
And the list goes on!
06-14-2007, 08:23 AM
#270
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
I must be missing something then.
Why put tires that need an 8.5 rim on a 8 inch rim when you can buy tires that fit the stock 8 inch rims & put down almost an inch more rubber on the road?
Also it looks like you have a lot of choices of wide tires with aggressive tread patterns for the 8 inch rims.
Why put tires that need an 8.5 rim on a 8 inch rim when you can buy tires that fit the stock 8 inch rims & put down almost an inch more rubber on the road?
Also it looks like you have a lot of choices of wide tires with aggressive tread patterns for the 8 inch rims.
06-14-2007, 11:04 AM
#272
Originally Posted by sandynmike
I thought the first number was tread width in mm.e.g. 245 = 9.6" and 255 = 10.0".
245 is the section width and NOT to be confused with the tread width. The section width is the widest point sidewall to sidewall in mm. As you can see there are many variations of tread width to a 245 designated tire, as there are no standards concerning the tread.
The "45"is known as the Aspect Ratio. It is calculated by dividing the section height by the section width and multiplying by 100. This example, the sidewall will be 45% of 245.
Hope this helps
06-14-2007, 11:15 AM
#273
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
I must be missing something then.
Why put tires that need an 8.5 rim on a 8 inch rim when you can buy tires that fit the stock 8 inch rims & put down almost an inch more rubber on the road?
Why put tires that need an 8.5 rim on a 8 inch rim when you can buy tires that fit the stock 8 inch rims & put down almost an inch more rubber on the road?
06-14-2007, 01:14 PM
#274
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Originally Posted by 94eg!
The main reasons are diameter & rim protection. The 255 will protect the rim better because the tire sidewall sticks out further. Also, the 255/40/17 is closer to the original 235/45/17 tire diameter than both 245/40/17 and 245/45/17.
So by going to the 255 GY you get some rim protection at the expence of footprint, diameter & rim requirements. IMHO I would go for footprint on a car that will easily slip its tires off the line & on the 1/2-2/3 shifts with the 8.3 inch wide stock Potz Re030 235's
06-14-2007, 01:54 PM
#275
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
Actually the ES-100 245 is closer to the stock 25.5 at 25.6 The GoodYear is 25.7 if I am looking at the right chart.
So by going to the 255 GY you get some rim protection at the expence of footprint, diameter & rim requirements. IMHO I would go for footprint on a car that will easily slip its tires off the line & on the 1/2-2/3 shifts with the 8.3 inch wide stock Potz Re030 235's
So by going to the 255 GY you get some rim protection at the expence of footprint, diameter & rim requirements. IMHO I would go for footprint on a car that will easily slip its tires off the line & on the 1/2-2/3 shifts with the 8.3 inch wide stock Potz Re030 235's
I said a while ago I just installed the Yokohama Advan S.4 245/45-17 on the 8" Acura Chrome wheels, and if you want tire protection, take a look at these tires. The rim must be a 1/4" imbedded into the tire because of the construction.
The Sumitomo 235/45-17 were 25.4, and the 245/45 are 25.7 as most 245/45 tires. I just didn't want to go any smaller in dia. as the tires look lost in the wheel well now, let alone going to a 25" tire. Personal preference, but I don't like the look of roller skates on a car.
06-14-2007, 02:31 PM
#276
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
I am leaning to the ES-100 in 245X45X17.
I get a tire that is designed for an 8 inch rim. Is within 1/10 of an inch of the stock 235 tires diameter. It puts down a full inch more rubber on the ground then the stock tire.
I have a good experence with them on another car & they have a nice looking tread pattern to boot.
I get a tire that is designed for an 8 inch rim. Is within 1/10 of an inch of the stock 235 tires diameter. It puts down a full inch more rubber on the ground then the stock tire.
I have a good experence with them on another car & they have a nice looking tread pattern to boot.
06-19-2007, 03:24 PM
#278
Drifting
Originally Posted by polosport
Has anyone tried Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 255/40/17 on the OEM rims? I'm wondering if there are any clearance issues with these Michelins.
06-19-2007, 09:16 PM
#279
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by polosport
Has anyone tried Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 255/40/17 on the OEM rims? I'm wondering if there are any clearance issues with these Michelins.
There will be NO clearance issues with any tire in the 255/40-17 size on the oem rims. All tire manufactures differ very little in respective tire sizes. And, there is huge amount of clearance with the 255/40-17 size tires on the oem rims.
06-19-2007, 09:28 PM
#280
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by avs007
Those tires will wear out fast. I had those on my other car, and they pretty much went bald after 20,000 miles. Great traction tho.
TireRack.com has an excellant reader's Review section to allow a person to see how other have liked/disliked a given tire. Highly recommended reading
Most Recent Reviews of the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S (click here).