Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

18878888908928931065

Comments

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    My point is, rim size by itself doesn't completely determine ride quality. Tires make big difference.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    edited May 2013
    Bigger rims equal lower profile tires if they are going to fit the same car properly. Lower profile tires equal worse ride. More rubber and air between the rim and the road equals better ride.
    Multiple reviews mention worse ride with the larger wheels on this car and others. There is no way the thin low profile 40-45 series tires of any brand can be comparable to the best riding "normal" tires. Maybe they are not "that bad," riding on a Fusion but I want the best ride and least road noise in this type of car, so 18-19" tires are not for me. It would be different if I was getting a sports car or was buying a car just for looks.
    The 17 inch tires on the Fusion SE are already lower profile that the average tire was a few years back. I'd actually prefer the 16 inch 60 series tires on the Fusion S, but that trim level is too stripped of available options.
    It's not even just the ride deterioration and added road noise. They cost much more to replace. The tread life is low so you are back to the tire shop getting them replaced more often and spending more money per tire. There is usually a fuel economy hit associated with bigger rims and lower profile tires.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    Tires are kind of like pizzas. You can't tell by the size which one you will like best.
    We have a 2004 Escape, original tires were 16 inch and were good for about 35k of noisy miles. Our 2009 Escape has 17 inch lower profile tires and they are going to be good for at least 80k and are much quieter.
    I had a 2007 Fusion with 17 inch Michelin tires, they didn't ride better than the 19 inch on my 2013.
    The tires on my 2007 Fusion were rated as Low Rolling Resistance. Looking at the tire width, it was a result of it having more space across the tread bands than some narrower tires.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    edited May 2013
    Invalid comparisons since you are comparing different vehicles.
    Tires will not completely make up for and older car not riding as well as a newer model.
    One the same vehicle, better riding, less expensive, longer lasting tires will be available in the higher profile, smaller tires.
    I am not cross-shopping 2004 vs 2009 or 2007 vs 2013 cars.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    edited May 2013
    Adding a sub-woofer to a stock stereo is usually the best way to go these days. Why?

    Stock head units incorporate lots of useful functions, such as Bluetooth, USB and line in (i-pod/mp-3 player support) plus Satellite radio, digital FM, and most importantly, steering wheel controls. If you want to upgrade your recent-model-year stereo, the new unit has it's work cut out for it. Also, keep in mind that aftermarket stereo's are a huge target for theft. If a thief see's a stock head unit, he will move on.

    So, adding a powered sub allows you to keep your car stock looking, while enjoying a powerful and responsive system. You can also replace the crappy paper speakers in all the doors, but honestly I don't even recommend that until you have already added the sub and still are left wanting.

    The Infinity sub in my car is NOT the same as the factory unit, but I like the thought of having a sub from an OEM supplier at least, and it only takes up 1 cubic foot.

    The sub and amp your nephew gave you is a great way to get started. You will be able to download the instructions for it online, but even if not...generic sub-woofer instructions will do. I have a bad back, so crawling into my trunk was not an option, so I paid for a pro installation. ($80)

    PS: Lots of Honda's used to have standard single DIN stereo slots, which makes upgrading a cinch. If any of you are considering it and have odd sized OEM stereo's, buy from Crutchfield's online catalog. They include all wiring harness and mounting kit's for free with purchase. Sony is a good quality and affordable brand name that I trust. IMO/FYI
    http://www.crutchfield.com/

    Lastly, here is an example of the great deals on gear. There are HUGE discounts due to the aforementioned diminishing market on car audio.
    http://www.crutchfield.com/p_158XDPPK1K/Sony-XDP-PK1000-Digital-Link-Sound-Syste- m.html
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    edited May 2013
    The Sonata is a global model, and while it does have Korean plates; there is nothing in the pictures suggesting that the car would need any changes to sell it in the USA. There are no drivetrain changes and the bulk of the difference in looks is limited to wheels, LED lighting, and better quality interior assembly w/ added center stack buttons. :)

    Here are the pictures again for all to review: http://www.hyundai-forums.com/222-yf-2011-sonata-i45/146394-first-pictures-2014-- sonata-facelift.html
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Lots of good points, thanks. That link to crutchfield seems too good to be true? 200 bucks? Assuming it is good quality stuff and not Walmart-shelf stuff. But just to confirm, that example system is what you would use with a quite new car...in last 2 to 3 years max? I have no Bluetooth or even an aux input (car is 05). Is that same system useable in my car you think, even though many of its features wouldn't be able to be used. The idea being that it would be useable if I get a newer car.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    edited May 2013
    Cars in different markets very often have trim differences even if the basic body of the car is the same. Things like different taillights, turn signals, changes to the interior, different options available etc..
    The cars are tweaked for the tastes in different regions of the world.
    There are sometimes differences between US and Canadian models of the same car much less US vs Korean market cars.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    It's a great example. The Escape had the same bones from 2001 to 2012.
    Many parts are either the same or interchangeable between years.
    Tires and wheels can be swapped between any of those years.
    Tire expense per set will probably be less with a smaller tire, but they may be lower quality and not last as long.
    On the other hand a smaller high quality tire may cost more the a larger lower quality tire.
    My point is it's not cut and dry, there are several variables.
    Pretty much everyone knows this.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    IN GENERAL, larger tires of the same brand and quality cost more. So do the wheels if they are ever damaged. I think that is the one of the main points. The fact that in a few vehicles it may be hard to notice the ride difference when you have a short sidewall, larger diameter tire is NOT the point. IN GENERAL, the shorter sidewalls of same brand and quality of tires will ride rougher.

    To compare cheap larger tires to expensive smaller tires for a price comparison is silly. Using same brand and quality the larger tires will nearly always cost more and the short sidewalls always ride tighter. They might not ride bad but they will ride a little different and sometimes the extra handling will outweigh the tauter ride in the dirver's eye. But the fact that a short sidewall will take less of a beating. It's just physics.

    IMO 17" are plenty big and they should just design the wheelwells to look good with 17". If someone wants larger the manufacturers should have them as an option and not mandatory if you want a few other options. I spent $900 on Micheliens at Costco for 17" tires. I hate to think what the 18"s on my new car are going to cost me. Probably $1100 or $1200.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    If you have an I-phone and $200 to blow I would get that system in a heartbeat. Really. Crutchfield does not carry crap. The market is really bad for aftermarket stereo systems and that price is a bona-fide steal.

    Just the sub and the amp are worth $200. Then you get the DSP processor, a bump in power for all of your existing speakers, and then you can use your phone hands free through the system, AND your steering wheel controls will still work. Plus, you would have a dock for your phone so you can select mp-3's from I-tunes or Google play or just from your files.

    Keeping your CRV's dash stock is the smart way to go. You can velcro the sub-woofer in the back, and if it is in the way, just unhook two wires and remove it.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    My '02 Explorer, same size as a mid size sedan, is on it's 3rd set of tires.
    The 2nd set were Michelin's, which I was completely happy with, until it came time to replace them. Sidewalls started cracking after 6 years, but I got my 65k out of them, so they worked as advertised. They went from $640 to $850 for a set of 4, so I did some homework.
    Ended up buying a set of General Grabbers for $500 out the door.
    They are equal or better than the Michelin's, other than in cold weather they are a bit stiffer and I haven't gotten the 65k they are supposed to be good for, yet. That remains to be seen.
    I'll go through the same thing when I have to replace the tires on my Fusion.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,048
    >They went from $640 to $850 for a set of 4, so I did some homework.

    There will be another $70 rebate on Michelins in the fall I'm guessing. I still think they are worth the money for the quality of the tire--they stay round and roll round. I'm expecting to buy another set before winter; just bought a set for the Cobalt.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    I bought those Generals over 30k miles ago.
    They are still very quiet and the best mileage over back to back tanks were on these tires at 120k vehicle miles. Now at 135k.
    My Fusion is almost 3 months old and has yet to hit 2k.
    I'm looking forward to our summer/fall driving season.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    edited May 2013
    I don't know why you are spending time defending these larger tires.

    Tire expense per set will probably be less with a smaller tire, but they may be lower quality and not last as long.


    There is no reason I would be buying low quality 17 inch tires.
    In general the lower profile tires of comparable quality have much lower tread life.
    If you look up tread life warranties, you will will not find very low profile tires with very long warranties. While you could possibly buy super cheap 16" tires that will not last if you wanted to, it not that difficult to find 50-80K mile rated standard tires 16-17" tires. If you look up 18 and 19" low profile tires, you will not find tires where the manufacturer has a very long tread life warranty.
    Even if such a tire existed, I don't want overpriced, rougher riding, noisier tires on a family sedan.
    There is not that much extra rubber and other materials in 18-19" tires to justify the cost difference. They charge so much more partly because they are lower volume tires and the rest of the high price is because the people who love the look of low profile tires are willing to pay the premium. I am not.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,179
    edited May 2013
    This just in! Read all about it!

    There is a new, 2 car only; mid size sedan comparo in the June issue, which I just pried out of my mailman's hands. This is a best-of-the-best shootout of the top 2 players in the industry in a winner-take-all contest to prove once and for all which is the best mid size sedan on the market. Period.

    The long and short of it is that the Mazda won. It wowed the C/D staff with it's driving dynamics, stiff structure, quick acceleration (7.0 secs to 60 vs Accord's 7.4) and spiffy interior.

    Specifically, they loved the Mazda's seats and style beyond it's price tag, and the handling sealed the deal. FYI! -Chris
  • Not to mention the larger rim sizes have far fewer choices when replacing. I researched 19's and they were $pendy. Test drove the Mazda 6 with both 19's and 17's and did not find a handling advantage till you were skidding through the corners. Even then it was a wash. (bought the Sport with 17's) Also they tend to have wider profiles which makes for worse winter driving capabilty. We have 18's on a a Sonata 2.0T and had to buy dedicated 16" rims and tires for winter. Not suprisingly the car rode much nicer on 16's.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    Yes, this is what happens when family sedans are rated by people who rank handling and 0-60 times (7.4 seconds is too slow for them) over crash tests, reliability and ride. Now, if there was no compromise made for the better speed and handling, it would be different.
    Their rankings would be more meaningful if they were testing WRX vs EVO or Camaro vs Mustang.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    There is a new, 2 car only; mid size sedan comparo in the June issue, which I just pried out of my mailman's hands.

    You need to complain to the USPS. My mail carrier delivered the June C/D issue to me almost a month ago! :surprise: I think I mentioned the 0-60 results many posts ago.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    C/D said they liked the ride of the Mazda over the Accord's. Reliability? For two brand-new models? Too early to tell, especially given the new powertrains in these cars. As for crash tests, the Mazda6 is an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ just like the Accord.

    Plus the Mazda was quicker, had better handling, better seats, and IMO much better styling inside and out. Plus the economical Skyactiv powertrain.

    What's not to like?
Sign In or Register to comment.