I'm planning to get a set of 225/50-16 performance tires for my '03 MCS. The car is unmodified and I intend to keep it that way. I definitely want a setup that will allow a full range of steering and suspension movement without any rubbing issues.

Some folks I've spoken with have said this size tire should fit fine on a stock (not lowered) Mini; others have said that it will rub. Based upon what these different people have said, it would seem that the wheels will make the difference.

Tire manufacturer recommendations are that these tires be used with a wheel having a width of 6-8 inches. I understand the stock 16 x 6.5-inch wheels have a 44mm offset, so I know I can't vary much from that.

I'd be interested to hear from people who have successfully used 225/50-16 tires on their Minis. Did you have any clearance issues, and where? What width & offset were your wheels?

Thanks much...

 

In my opinion a 6.5" rim is too narrow for a 225/50 tire. 7 to 8" wide would be a better choice.

 

Given stock wheels and suspension you should be OK. The tires are taller than stock at 24.9" (about 0.6" taller). There is enough wheel gap to clear the tall tire and give enough room not to scrape. The wider tire will fit the narrow rim and be a little less wide than it is normally given a 7" rim.

It's really the same scenario for those using 205/55-16 which is 20mm more narrow but has the same 24.9" tire diameter and that's also fine for stock suspension/wheels.

There are some penalties for using 225/50-16 over 205/55-16. The wider tire is about 2 pounds heavier. 7" wide rims fit the former while 6.5" stock rims perfectly fit the later. It's more rubber so contact patch is increased but so is rolling resistance and lower mpg possibly. Cost is similar.
55 series a bit more comfortable for daily use and street driving. 50 series better for handling/cornering.

One good tire in 225/50-16 is Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position for $128 each 140 treadwear (Max Performance Summer tires)
others are
Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
Dunlop SP SportMaxx

Not enough performance?
Try also
Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
225/50-16 $124 each 140 treadwear 26 lbs V speed rated
205/55-16 $133 each 140 treadwear 27 lbs V speed rated
205/45-16 $151 180 treadwear 21 lbs W speed rated 23.2" tire diameter
You do give up a little comfort but traction is impressive.

Want more comfort in 225/50-16 with good value?
In Ultra High Performance tires find
General Exclaim UHP for $63 each 380 treadwear 20 lbs V speed rated

Or if you want balance with longer treadlife and All Season use then-
Still in 225/50-16
Bridgestone Potenza RE960AS Pole Position
$126 each 400 treadwear 25 lbs W speed rated
Yokohama ADVAN S.4.
$130 each 400 treadwear 24 lbs W speed rated

 

For all 225/50-16 tires.
They are designed to fit rims 6 to 8" wide with a perfect fit for 7" rims.

MINI stock 16" rims are 6.5" wide so that is well within the design specs for those tires.

Certainly using an 8" rim would make the most use of the wider tire but there would also be less clearance.

While the tire to rim fit is OK, the larger than stock width and height of the tire can result in problems with rubbing depending on the offset of the rim used and the suspension upgrades added to a MINI. It's pretty tight overall.

Stock suspension parts will give the most clearance. Anything that affects ride height will reduce clearance. Choose carefully.

Additionally Big Brake kits will often not fit 16" or smaller rims.

 

subscribed

 

If you want fat rubber without new wheels, try the Falken Azeni 215-45x16. It has smaller diameter and is very wide. Acceleration is slightly improved (I have the older transmission which is geared higher (lower numerically). I run these on my factory x-lites and they work very well.

 

I'll have a set of summer Dunlops in 215/50/16 off the car and for sale this week....3k or so miles (going to 17's).

 

I was actually thinking of getting either Falken Azenis RT-615's or Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R's, both of which are available in the 225/50-16 size I mentioned earlier.

Good point about the 215/45-16 size having a slightly smaller overall diameter (23.6-inch) than the 225/50-16 size (24.8-inch). One would think that the O.D. (outside diameter) would more or less determine the rolling circumference of the tire, and by extension the number of times that tire must roll to cover a given distance. Oddly enough, according to Falken's web site:

http://www.falkentire.com/rt615_sizes.html

...the smaller O.D. does not necessarily translate directly to Revs Per Mile. In the chart, note that the 225/50-16 tire, with an OD of 24.8-inch is shown to need to rotate 881 times to cover a distance of one mile. One might think that the 215/45-16 tire, with a smaller OD of 23.6-inch, would need to rotate a greater number of times to cover that same mile. The chart, however, shows that it actually rotates a lesser number of times (only 768) to cover that same distance.

When I first saw this, I thought there must have been a mistake in the figures presented in the chart, but have been assured by Falken's U.S. Director of Technical Services that the RPM figures resulted from actually measuring the number of times each tire needed to revolve to cover a given distance. He explained that this effect is due to a number of factors including the flexing of the sidewall that occurs when the tire is under load. A 50-series tire would usually flex more than a 45-series tire, which would flex more than a 40-series tire, etc...

I'm not sure if or how this would effect the gearing ratio that results from a given tire. Your thoughts...? (Sounds like a question for minihune...)

In any case, I autocross my '03 MCS, which also has the higher gearing, so a smaller O.D. is probably somewhat better than a larger O.D. I am focusing on the 225 tread-width tires in the belief that the extra rubber will help the car to stick better in corners.

 

I run 225/50R16 Continental ContiSportContact 2s because they're a very light (21lbs) high performance summer tire with a 24.7" diameter.

I have JCW suspension with 16x7 SSRs that have a 42mm offset. The only place that rubbed was the rear fender flares- I trimmed .25" off the inside of the flare & it hasn't rubbed since.

In comparison, the stock 205/45R17 runflats weigh 22lbs & have a 24.2" diameter. For me, losing 60+ lbs of rotating mass with better traction/ride more than makes up for the infinitesimal overall gearing change.

 

bahawton,
Any pics of your setup?

 

If you use a 225x50 x16 on stock wheel width ( 6.5"), the centermost part of the tire will tend to want to balloon out and wear out more quickly. I think the 215x45 on 6.5" wheel with is the limit in that respect. It would be better to have 7 or 7.5" width.

I find it hard to believe (and do not) that a tire with a 1.2" bigger diameter (225x50) (static, unweighted apparently) would squish so much as to need 117 more turns per mile. That is about 710 feet! It may be the other way around.

 

Mike- I need to get a real camera instead of using my Wife's cell phone...

You can see a couple more pictures of the car here at Cardomain.com

-Brett