R50/53 Tires: anyone see noticeable MPG gains with 195's over 205's
#1
Tires: anyone see noticeable MPG gains with 195's over 205's
I'm about to order a new set of tires for my 2003 cooper. I currently have 205/50/16's and I like how they look, but it seems like I'd lose about 6 pounds per tire going back to 195's. Seems like there's a benefit there. Any thoughts on this? I've been reading tire threads on NAM for a couple days, but haven't read about this specific question.
Would I see significant MPG or any other gains, or would the difference be negligible?
I'd also be interested to hear whether anyone went to 195s and hated the looks of them...
Would I see significant MPG or any other gains, or would the difference be negligible?
I'd also be interested to hear whether anyone went to 195s and hated the looks of them...
#2
its not worth the trouble. verry verrrry minimal. Just buy the tire that you like the best. what ever looks the best on your car. what ever you are most comfortable with.
also a take on how the tires look- I like smaller tires on cars that are lowered. It makes the wheels look bigger adn allows the wheels to stand out. But if you are at factory height then maybe the bigger wheel so it can fill out that wheel well and make the car look more balanced. your car would look wider with the wider wheels
also a take on how the tires look- I like smaller tires on cars that are lowered. It makes the wheels look bigger adn allows the wheels to stand out. But if you are at factory height then maybe the bigger wheel so it can fill out that wheel well and make the car look more balanced. your car would look wider with the wider wheels
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
Six pounds per tire difference? The info I saw at Tire Rack shows the same tires in 195/55/16 and 205/50/16 sizes to be only about 1 pound different (often 20# versus 21#) in weight for most tires. It makes sense that they're so close in weight because the 205/50/16 is a little wider (rubber gained), but also a little smaller in diameter (rubber lost) than the 195/55/16.
As others have suggested, I don't think the switch would be a very effective way to increase mpg.
As others have suggested, I don't think the switch would be a very effective way to increase mpg.
Trending Topics
#8
Jim, thanks for the reply. I think you're right about the closeness there, though I wonder how the rolling resistance varies.
Most of the tires I've looked at only have about a pound worth of weight difference between those types, but I was going by a comparison using this handy site:
http://www.rimsntires.com/specs.jsp
Which has an estimated weight difference of 4 lbs per tire (not six, as I originally posted).
Most of the tires I've looked at only have about a pound worth of weight difference between those types, but I was going by a comparison using this handy site:
http://www.rimsntires.com/specs.jsp
Which has an estimated weight difference of 4 lbs per tire (not six, as I originally posted).
#9
I used that site link as well, but when I did, it showed no weight difference using those two tire sizes. It says typical tire weight is about 20# for both sizes. Just to make sure we're typing in the same data, I typed in a 195/55/16 on a 6.5" wide wheel with et48 and a 205/50/16 on the same wheel.
I got the tire weights data from Tire Rack, however. For example, a RE760 tire weighs 20# in the 195/55/16 size and 21# in the 205/50/16 size. The GMAXAS 03 tire weighs 18# and 19# in those sizes, and the Yoko ENVigor weighs 21# in both sizes.
The rolling resistance of the wider tire should be slightly more, but the difference should be very small because the tire width increase is only 10 mm (about 3/8"). With such a small difference one could probably equalize the rolling resistance of the two by inflating the wider tire by a few more psi. I'm just guessing, so don't hold me to that.
As others have suggested, the narrower size probably does give slightly more mpg in the real world. The question is whether the very small mpg gain is worth giving up some of what you like about the 205 size.
I got the tire weights data from Tire Rack, however. For example, a RE760 tire weighs 20# in the 195/55/16 size and 21# in the 205/50/16 size. The GMAXAS 03 tire weighs 18# and 19# in those sizes, and the Yoko ENVigor weighs 21# in both sizes.
The rolling resistance of the wider tire should be slightly more, but the difference should be very small because the tire width increase is only 10 mm (about 3/8"). With such a small difference one could probably equalize the rolling resistance of the two by inflating the wider tire by a few more psi. I'm just guessing, so don't hold me to that.
As others have suggested, the narrower size probably does give slightly more mpg in the real world. The question is whether the very small mpg gain is worth giving up some of what you like about the 205 size.
#10
#11
Not enough to care, I just got a great deal on the 195s so I jumped on it and put my 2 best used 192s from the original 16s from my other MINI on the back. I would probably buy 205s if I do it again, just like I went from 195s on my MCS (16" wheel) to the 205s (17" wheel) and will replace them with 215s when it is time for tires.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dandw2
MINIs & Minis for Sale
0
09-07-2015 11:14 AM