Mazda5 Tires & Wheels

PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
Talk about your Mazda5 tire & wheel issues here.


  • sampsamp Member Posts: 7
    Does anyone know if the Mazda5 has standard sized tires, if it is easy to find replacements? One problem I've had with my Protege 5 has been finding replacement tires when I need them. Both times I had to replace a tire, it was difficult to find replacements, and I would get comments like "that's an odd rim size" and so on. My parents even had problems finding tires for their MPV because it was an odd size tire.

    I'm curious if the Mazda5 will have the same problem.
  • rlawrencerlawrence Member Posts: 92
    "One problem I've had with my Protege 5 has been finding replacement tires when I need them. Both times I had to replace a tire, it was difficult to find replacements, and I would get comments like "that's an odd rim size" and so on."

    Really? Do you live in a small town? Because if you go to the specs page for the Mazda5 here on you will see that the Mazda5 tire size is: P205/50VR17. That doesn't sound like an odd size to me.
  • sschribersschriber Member Posts: 89
    rlawrence - The Protege 5 and the Mazda 5 are two completely different vehicles.

    Personally, I think the tires are way too oversize for a family wagon. If I purchase a 5 I'll probably swap out the monster rubber for 195/65 R15s and new rims. There's only about .4% speedometer error and 1) I'd get better gas mileage, at $3 per gallon this is significant and 2) I'll save $300 to $400 each time I replaced the tires.

    Mazda really needs to parallel market to "sensible" over 30's. The Matrix/Vibe twins were all about youth appeal when they came out yet the majority of drivers I see in these are seniors attracted by a small economical wagon.
  • smariasmaria Member Posts: 279
    I've had my Mazda5 for 2 weeks, and I love the feel of the Toyo tires. Not sure I'd like softer tires on the 5.

    1) I'd get better gas mileage, at $3 per gallon this is significant

    Do you know how much of a MPG difference this might make? At $3 per gallon, every 1.0 MPG increase in the Mazda5's mileage saves roughly $70 per 15,000 miles. So, I can see how an increase of 2-3 MPG could be significant.

    2) I'll save $300 to $400 each time I replaced the tires.

    Except for the initial tire change, of course ;)
  • rlawrencerlawrence Member Posts: 92
    "rlawrence - The Protege 5 and the Mazda 5 are two completely different vehicles."

    Really? Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Of course I know that the Protege5 and Mazda5 are different vehicles, especially since I own a Mazda5 (read my profile). However, his question was if the Mazda5 might have unusually sized tires and I was giving him the specs on that. Maybe I should have looked up the Protege5 specs to see what size stock tires were on that vehicle.

    "Personally, I think the tires are way too oversize for a family wagon."

    So-called practicality would doom it for certain. What attracted me and many others to this vehicle was not just the '5's functionality, but also some unconventional features like a manual transmission and sporty nature. Read the many customer reviews here at Edmunds and other sites on the Internet. Keep in mind, because the prospects of selling this vehicle in the NA are low to begin with, Mazda had to keep the choices simple. Europe is another story because vehicles of this class and size are extremely popular. I am sure it's the same way for American cars sold abroad. Choices are kept relatively simple when projected sales volumes are small.

    "Mazda really needs to parallel market to "sensible" over 30's."

    Why? And what is a sensible over 30-year-old? Again, it's the KISS principle and Mazda felt they should make the car appeal to the broadest possible audience.
  • sampsamp Member Posts: 7
    As was mentioned by someone else, the Mazda5 and Protege 5 are two different cars. I've had my Pro5 since 2002. Tire size is P195/60R16 on a Pro5. And to answer your question, no, I don't live in a small town. I live in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

    The first time I had tire problems, it was in BC, but the second time, about year ago, I was in the US travelling through Washington state. We ended up "stranded" at a hotel since no one had tires close enough, it was evening, and we couldn't get home on the donut. So the next day I had to phone around and I found a dealer 1.5 hours away. Travelling that far on the freeway with a donut, going under the speed limit during local rush hour with my hazards on, and with the car completely packed to the gunnels with camping gear, was pretty stressful. :)

    So I'm sensitive to tire availability now, which is why I'm wondering if I will have a hard time finding replacements if I get a Mazda5.
  • rlawrencerlawrence Member Posts: 92
    Again, I realize the vehicles are different cars (especially since I considered buying the Protege5 and I did buy a Mazda5). But your question was whether or not the M'5's tire size was unusual and I pointed out that it does not seem like an unusual tire size to me.
  • rlawrencerlawrence Member Posts: 92
    "Tire size is P195/60R16 on a Pro5"

    Are you sure? I did a look-up on factory specs for a 2002 Protege5 and it's 195/50R16. Maybe that's why you're having such a difficult time finding tires? I thought the size you gave sounded a bit odd - given that the Protege5 seemed to have a fairly low profile tire. I did a quick search here in SoCal for the correct tire size and had no trouble finding it in stock. I cannot say how difficult or easy it would be be to find a 195/60-16 tire.
  • sampsamp Member Posts: 7
    Sorry, that was a typo. For a while, the Pro5 was only one of two cars that shipped with that size tire (stock) and there were only two kinds of tires available in that size. I can't remember what the other car was. I'm sure now it's a little more common (over a year since my last problem), but I doubt it's something every tire store near an interstate freeway stocks even now.

    But it's good to know the Mazda5 has a generally available tire size.
  • petero1petero1 Member Posts: 7
    Got my car back, and have now been driving in very snowy conditions in Winnipeg, Canada. I bought the base version, which in Canada has 16 inch wheels, specifically because I felt the tires would be better in Winter. Other than the low ground clearance and spoiler, which scoops up snow from the road, the car handles surprisingly well in winter conditions. Has anyone put on snow tires, and if so, did they find significant improvements in winter handling?
  • ffunffun Member Posts: 29
    Why do you think 16 inch wheels will be better in winter? I've noticed that a lot of people also believe this but I've never gotten a good explanation as to why. Some say that a narrower tire is better at digging through the snow. That doesn't make any sense as modern winter tires are designed for traction on the snow rather than digging through it. When it comes to ice the wider your wheels are the better. Spreading out the weight gives you more traction on ice (Ever try walking on ice with skate guards on?). The only reason I can see 16" wheels being better is price. If I'm wrong, please let me know why.
  • frank4carsfrank4cars Member Posts: 98
    The way I've always understood it, narrower tires will concentrate the weight over a smaller area and dig down, providing better contact with the road surface. Wider tires would act like a snow shoe and spread your weight so you would ride on top. But this doesn't have a lot to do with choosing a 16-inch wheel over a 17-inch one, as the section width will be almost the same. What the 16-inch wheel would allow is better availability. The standard 17-inch tires are more of a summer tire with their short sidewall. I don't think there are a lot of low-profile snow tires out there. Most available snow tires will have a taller sidewall as the tread block is taller than an all-season or summer tire.
  • ffunffun Member Posts: 29
    The only way you'll ever dig down with a winter tire is if you are spinning your wheels. This is never a good thing and usually gets you stuck. You'll never dig down to the road surface. You'll just polish the snow into a nice icy rut. Most winter tires are designed with sipes provide traction on ice. The wider the tire the more sipes you have.
  • frank4carsfrank4cars Member Posts: 98
    Yeah but the siping only disperses wet material. Snow packs into the tread fairly quickly and creates a slick. I would think you'd still want to dig down because it would give you better traction. The concentrated weight will also probably create more heat and help to melt the snow beneath it better. And on ice, logic says narrower is better. Think of a skate blade versus a shoe. The skate cuts in because the weight is concentrated on a point and allows you to accelerate away fairly easily. A shoe will just slide around. Of course studs and chains would be best. Maybe we need some engineers to weigh in on this. :)
  • bfyerxabfyerxa Member Posts: 78
    On pure ice or hard pack a wider tire with the sipes would be better because of the larger contact patch, but in loose conditions, i.e., snow, slush, even gravel, you want a narrower tire to cut through the junk to the better surface below. Wider tires are nasty in snow and especially slush as they will "float". Here is an interesting site from MOT (Canadian Govt) regarding ABS with some info about longer stopping distances in snow.

    As for low profile, e.g., 17" rims vs. 15" rims, I have no idea if that makes a difference in performance. All I know is trying to get 17" snows for the Mazda5 would be difficult and expensive. We are picking our GT today and I am hoping the tires are sufficient for this winter - next winter I will put on 15" rims with snows.
  • ffunffun Member Posts: 29
    Your skate to shoe analogy is terrible. A skate has sharpened metal edges which gives you grip laterally but not strait ahead. If you want to compare wide versus narrow try walking on ice in shoes and then in skates with rubber guards on the bottom. You will definitely have better traction in the shoes (I know this as I have tried it).
  • ffunffun Member Posts: 29
    This issue has been really bugging me so I've done a little bit of research and come up with the following.

    1. Going to a smaller wheel will mean cheaper rims, tires, and more selection so it is definitely a good choice.

    2. Friction is calculated using a coefficient of friction between two materials and normal force. Surface are is not really a factor. Therefore the width of the tire has very little effect on friction force.

    3. Everyone experiences different winter driving conditions. I live in Edmonton, Alberta where we have long cold winters. Most of the driving I do is on plowed streets and highways. What concerns me is ice and packed snow. In this case I don't thing the size of the tire will make make much difference. If you encounter a lot of fresh snow and slush then I would agree that a narrow tire can be better. If you are driving through 6" of snow, there will be less rolling resistance on narrow tires and they will therefore require less traction to move forward. Narrower tires are also better for slush since there usually firm footing underneath the slush that you want to get to and a narrow tire can carve through the slush easier.

    In summary, down sizing definitely makes the most financial sense. As far as ice traction goes it makes very little difference what size your tires are. Narrow tires can be better because of decrease rolling resistance through snow and cutting through slush to get to pavement.
  • bfyerxabfyerxa Member Posts: 78
    I agree in Alberta tire width is not a big issue. Here in Ottawa where we do get a lot of slushy junk, wide tires are a quick ticket to the nearest ditch. And cost is a big issue as well - a buddy of mine got one of the first Infiniti G35 coupes with the big Brembo brakes. He could not physically get smaller rims (had 18") because of the brakes hence had to pop for $1300 in snow tires!

    As for tire size not affecting overall traction, that is wrong. The concept of the available force simply being a factor of the coefficient of friction times force on the contact area is so simplistic it only applies to grade 9 science. In general you want as much tire contact patch as you can "afford" as long as the surface is reasonable. Once the surface turns to junk like gravel, snow, mud, slush, etc. then you are now into a completely different ball game.
  • frank4carsfrank4cars Member Posts: 98
    Thanks for adding some science to this discussion. It does seem to matter what kind of surface you are most likely to encounter. I guess I was picturing Chicago-style slushy roads and occasional heavy snow and ice as opposed to unplowed roads and solid ice underneath. Seems like 4-wheel-drive and a lot of praying might be your only hope in the latter. Now I remember why I moved to California. :)
  • garandmangarandman Member Posts: 524
    Simplistically, a long, narrow contact patch seems to do better in snow than a wide, short one. Perhaps because it allows more compression of the surface.

    Michelin X-ICE or Nokian RSI's are excellent studless snows. We have the Nokians on an Accord V6 and I'm going to put X-Ice on my subaru this Winter.
  • rideyourbikerideyourbike Member Posts: 17
    For this discussion I turn to the best science there is: observation. Hmm...4 cylinder, front wheel drive (and all-wheel drive) performance cars? WRC!!! World Rally Championship racing is probably the most overall demanding (and fun to watch) motorsport out there on 2,3, or 4 wheels. There are three basic types of roads: paved, unpaved, and snow covered. Tires for each surface differ greatly in function and appearance. Tires for tarmac (paved roads) are wide, low profile tires on large rims. Tires for unpaved (gravel, dirt, mud) are high profile (tall sidewall) tires on a smaller rim, with a narrower width than the tarmac tires. The snow tires, similar to the offroad tires, have a tall sidewall on a smaller rim, but they are very narrow, especially compared to the tarmac wheels. I would say that if you are looking for best perfomance in snow, follow the lead of the ones who drive at 100+ mph on it!
  • kdawg69kdawg69 Member Posts: 9
    I've always believed most off-roading - snow, mud, and sand - is about flotation. More surface area on contact patches distributes the weight better to assist flotation. Look at tanks and snowmobiles - treads for more surface area.

    I can verify that when 4-wheeling in NC red clay that momentum is your friend and if you lose it you sink. And walk home.
  • frank4carsfrank4cars Member Posts: 98
    On long stretches of unplowed or deep snow, yes, that makes sense. Like using a snow shoe to stay on top. But over asphalt or concrete when the snow starts to melt, wider tires become more dangerous over wet material for the same reason. In those situations you want to cut down through to the high-traction surface and not ride on the water.
  • kdawg69kdawg69 Member Posts: 9
    I do believe that when the snow starts melting that digging down (narrow tires) is good. Maybe it's a NC thing, we get a lot of ice here, but the only thing I've ever dug down to through the fluffy stuff on top is hard-packed ice underneath. And I'm convinced it doesn't matter how wide your tires are or how many wheels you're driving on the ice.

    I'm also convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that summer tires on a Miata on the ice makes for an absolutely miserable drive home. ;)
  • siiamomsiiamom Member Posts: 1
    I'd like to hear from someone with 17inch tires and lots of experience driving in snow. Can the Mazda 5 get up an icy driveway without snow tires?
    Are there any plans for bringing out an AWD version next year?
  • skeltonskelton Member Posts: 13
    I grew up in new england and live in central ohio. I've had the 5 for two snowfalls and have had zero problem getting up my unplowed driveway or around my unplowed neighborhood.

    BTW, the manual mode supports starting in 2nd gear for icy conditions. I found that starting in 2nd and using a light foot will overcome the shortcomings of the stock tires. Of course, I accepted long ago that my driving habits need to change with the weather.
  • edf4edf4 Member Posts: 65
    I grew up and still live in Connecticut and last Friday had my first opportunity to drive our M5 manual on both packed plowed roads and deep, (10"), unplowed roads with the stock wheels & tires and was left with mixed opinions. While they provided adequate grip on packed plowed roads, they were downright miserable in the deep stuff. Although I did not get stuck, I came very close when my forward momentum slowed, and I felt that if I were to stop that I would not have been able to get started again, especially on a hill. While it did drive better than a rear drive car with all seasons, it was no comparison to our awd Subaru which has four Nokian Hakkapelitta Q snow tires, though I didn't expect it would. And I recognize that this is an unfair comparion, but I'm hopeful that after I mount the four Dunlop Winter Sport M3 snow tires on Kazera 16" wheels I just purchased through the Tire Rack, that my winter confidence in this vehicle will grow significantly.
    So essentially, it depends what you'll be driving in, and how often. But I do want to stress to anyone thinking of buying this vehicle, that it is an excellent vehicle, a fun driver and other than in heavy snow, the stock tires will do for winter and excel in summer. But, if in doubt, you can't go wrong with a set of four snow tires, whatever the brand. They are well worth the investment and piece of mind.
  • wusterwuster Member Posts: 153
    Here is question for you guys mounting snow tires.

    How does the new tires work/affect the TPMS system? Does the warning light just stay lite on the dash all the time?
  • edf4edf4 Member Posts: 65
    Good question. This was one that had me stumped and hesitant to buy aftermarket wheels for a while, until I read here, or somewhere, that the TPMS is only on the vehicles with a navigation system, which mine does not have. Thus, any wheel will work, (hopefully). However, if you have the navigation and thus the TPMS system, then you must find a wheel which will accept the Mazda TPMS valve stems, otherwise you will have that idiot light on all winter long, or until the bulb burns out.
  • wusterwuster Member Posts: 153
    Yup, we have nav on our Mazda5, thus the TPMS. But interestingly, it was not mentioned anywhere on the Mazda literatures that TPMS came with Nav (at least the ones that I read).
  • frank4carsfrank4cars Member Posts: 98
    I might have been one of the first to post about this. The only place I ever saw it mentioned was in the brochure and on a sticker stuck to the side of a Touring model on the showroom floor. Navigation package includes GPS Navigation system and TPMS.
  • hifivehifive Member Posts: 72
    No, it can't get up an icy driveway, LOL. I was parked on my driveway for a minute last night while my husband moved some stuff from the garage. We had a heavy snowfall, and the driveway had been cleared except for a very fine layer of new snow. I had ZERO traction. Lately I roll slowly into the driveway. I must say as much as I love the Five I am looking forward to Spring, it is not great for winter driving. I feel like I should put chains on.

    HiFive in Minnesota :shades:
  • carquerycarquery Member Posts: 35
    I read several of the posts that said that the 5 isn't exactly the greatest in the snow. A few of them suggested swapping in snow tires as a solution, but wondered the impact changing the rims would have on the tire pressure monitoring system on the Touring Edition. I live in CT and have targetted the 5 as the car I'll be buying in the spring. I'm just wondering if anyone has put snow tires on their 5 yet, if it made for more secure snow/ice handling (we have a sloped driveway, so I'll need to be able to exit my home), and if there is a solution to the TPMS issue (or does the light just stay on for the winter?).

    Any experiences would be welcome.
  • nym5nym5 Member Posts: 20
    I can't speak to the TPMS as our 5 does not have it, but the addition of a set of snows made a world of difference in winter driving. We went with a 16" alloy set with Dunlop SP M3's from tire rack. They grip great, snow or ice, are quiet, and look good too. And of course the ride is bit cushier with the larger tire/smaller wheel set-up.
    I would imagine the TPMS could be temporarily disabled by the dealer as well.
  • edf4edf4 Member Posts: 65
    The impact changing the rims will have on the TPMS system is that if you do not get a wheel that is compatible with the Mazda TPMS valve stems, then you will have the idiot light on all winter or until the bulb burns out. Perhaps there is a way to turn it off, but I doubt it.
    I live in CT too, (Hartford area), and just this evening also mounted Dunlop M3 snow tires on 16" wheels, (Kazera's), which arrived mounted (tire on wheel) and balanced, from the Tire Rack. Though I haven't had an opportunity to drive them in the snow, as all it did was pour rain here today melting the last of what we had, I did alot of research prior to buying and the Dunlop M3's got the best rating overall. But really, any winter snow tire would do better than the stock tires in snow and ice!
    Finally, there was a post a while back where someone was wondering if 15" wheels would fit on the 5. From what I can tell, the answer is a resounding no! With the 16" wheels, the wheel balancing weights clear the brake calipers by about a 1/2" at the most. Any smaller wheel and it wouldn't fit.
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Member Posts: 569
    I had a question about winter tires and went back & looked at your earlier post which more or less answered my question (did you drop down a size....from 17" to 16" when choosing winter tires?) How do you like the Dunlops now that you've had them on for a bit? Do they grip well in the snow?(yes, a limited slip would be nice). We mounted Nokians on our 2003 Aerio (almost like a 2/3 or 3/4 Mazda5!) but stuck with the stock size of 195/55-15, as the Aerio already looks under-tired with the 15's. They are pretty good except in deep, slushy snow....may have to do more with the limited ground clearance, short wheelbase and fairly light weight of the car rather than the actual grip of the snows. I like the new Rav4 for the AWD and ground clearance plus gas mileage isn't too bad either, even with the V6....however, the only version with a 3rd row seat in Canada goes for about 36 grand....about 11-12 grand more than a loaded Mazda5. So, if they make a few changes like I suggested above and it performs ok in the snow with winter tires, I just may pocket a few bucks and go with the 5. One more question, edf4....did you stick with Mazda's size for the 16" winter tires (205/55-16) or go with a true minus-1 size of 195/60-16? Thanks in advance for you help and any other insights you could give me. (N.B. Although both versions of the Mazda5 come with 17" wheels & tires in the U.S., the base version in Canada comes with 205/55-16's while the up-level version gets the 205/50-17's)
  • edf4edf4 Member Posts: 65
    In answer to your questions; yes, I did drop down a size from stock 17" to aftermarket 16" wheels for the winter tire set up, but stuck with the stock size of 205/55's, as that was what was recommended, though personally I would have preferred to go with a true minus-1 size of 195/60 as you mentioned. So far I haven't noticed a real difference in the ride quality with the snow tires vs. the stock tires, but then again, I didn't have the 5 for more than a month or two before switching over. But the Dunlop M3's are quite quiet on the highway for snow tires and overall, especially in snow and slush, they are a whole lot better than the stock tires; a hands down improvement! I got four and they perform as well as I would expect on essentially a single front wheel drive vehicle. Given their tread pattern, I would think they'll be excellent in the rain too. I also have pleasantly found that they have had little or no effect on my mpg. Before I got the Dunlops I swore by Nokians, but due to my inability to get the new RSI's when I wanted them, I have no regrets with the Dunlops, and got a good price on them from the tire rack at $109 a piece. Overall, I am now much more confident in the ability of the 5 with the M3's and believe it will do well in all but the most severe snowy conditions or steep hills, especially from a dead stop. If you will be encountering those rare conditions, it would be best to keep a set of tire chains in the trunk.
  • woddywoddy Member Posts: 12
    For tires I really like to order them via You can have them sent directly to your shop to have them installed. That way you have more choices and aren't at the whim of local tire shops. Also, the deals are great. By the way, I too have a Pro5, which I love. I'm in the market for a second car, which is why I'm checking out the Mazda 5 board.

    Vancouver, eh? I guess that makes you a Seahawks fan? I'm from Pittsburgh.
  • woddywoddy Member Posts: 12
    Oh, you know what else, the tire size you quoted IS odd. Did you get that from the owner's manual?

    The "p195" is the width of the tire.

    The "60" is the heighth of the tire as a percentage of the width. (40 being very low profile, 50 being lowish, 60 being pretty high)

    The 16 is the circumference. I dunno what the "R" means!

    The odd part about the measurements you quoted is the "60" That would be a relatively HIGH profile tire. That would look (and feel) kinda a little strange on a Pro 5. I would recommend a p195/50R16 (50 instead of 60). The rims don't care about that portion of the measurement.

    Anyway, will point you to getting the right tire cheaply and easily.
  • wannahavmy5wannahavmy5 Member Posts: 8
    Hi Woody

    You have to be very careful when you compare tires.
    Every measurement is important.

    P205/50R17: P: Tourism tires
    205: Tire width (in millimeters, divide by 25 for inch)
    50: % of the width applied to sidewall height
    R: Radial tires
    17: Size of wheel.

    To find out a plus one or two or zero replacement, use that formula

    (Width/25)*(sidewall/100)*2+(size of wheel) = height of tire.

    Ex: Plus 1 for Mazda5 GT, Touring, Sport.
    P205/50R17 = (205/25)*(50/100)*2+17 = 25.2 Inches
    P225/40R18 = (225/25)*(40/100)*2+18 = 25.2 Inches
    (Almost perfect match, see note (1)).

    Plus 0
    P205/50R17 = 25.2 Inches
    P225/45R17 = 25.1 Inches, acceptable. (1)

    Rule of thumb, ± .5 inches difference from original size is acceptable, more than that will affect the odometer reading.

    So, for a down sizing for winter tire:
    P205/50R17 = 25.2
    P205/55R16 = 25.02 (acceptable)
    P195/60R16 = 25.36 (higher, but still acceptable)
    P195/50R16 = 23.8 (Too low, affect speedometer, tire do more turns)

    (1) For those of you with more knowledge of tires, Don't forget about the compressability of the sidewall ratio.
    Ex: 50 sidewall ratio tire vs a 45, IE a slightly lower 45 won't compress as much as a higher 50, thus making them almost same height...

    Don't forget, when doing Plus Size, that you will test before.
    Tire must clear fenders, steering and suspension when riding, turning, and going over obstacle (bumps).
  • wusterwuster Member Posts: 153
    Good info!

    Do you know if a 215 or 225/50R17 will fit the stock Mazda5 wheels?
  • wannahavmy5wannahavmy5 Member Posts: 8
    Hi wuster

    From what i've heard, the stock wheels are 7" wide, so a 225 should fit.
    Even then, it would probably protect the wheel lip, since it protrude so much from the tire.
    I intend of putting a set of 225/45 this spring, like the ones on the Audi A3, to replace the Yoko.
    It will hurt MPG and maybe acceleration a little, but better looking and handling than the stock.
    Anyone interested for 4 brand new tires (got the car at 16 Km, removed the tires for winter ones at 80Km, so basically the tires have 45 miles)! I'll probably trade them for wider ones at the shop.
  • wusterwuster Member Posts: 153

    The 205/50R17 seems to be an odd size. There aren't too many replacment tires for it.

    Thanks for the info!
  • goatropegoatrope Member Posts: 13
    I was washing my Mazda5 today and I noticed that the (Michelin)tires are 215/50/17 with a load rating of 93. However, the door jamb sticker; owners' manual and window sticker all list the tires as being 205/50/17 with a load rating of 89. They don't rub against anything - they just appear to be a tad bigger than documented.

    Anybody else notice this?
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    that's interesting.

    Our MPV had a recall in 2003 because of a door jamb sticker. I wonder if this will be similar or is of no consequence.

  • wusterwuster Member Posts: 153

    The US Mazda5 models should have come with Toyo tires in the 205/50R17.
  • wa98stratwa98strat Member Posts: 66
    You'll only have 205/50r17's if you buy the touring model. Purchase the GS (sport) and you get much easier to find 205/55R16's. Just had a look on and a search for those comes up with 165 different choices!
  • truckasaurustruckasaurus Member Posts: 44
    That may be true in Canada. In the USA you get 17" on both the Touring and Sport Model.
    Discount Tire list 6 different tires that will fit, ranging from Kumho Ecsta ASX at $115 each to Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S at $195 each.
  • odie6lodie6l Member Posts: 1,173
    has anyone looked at having there tires changed over to Nitrogen? From my understanding the pressure in the tire does not change the way air tires do, and the tires have a longer life. Just checking.

    Odie's Carspace
  • andrewheandrewhe Member Posts: 5
    Hi All,

    I am considering buying a Canadian M5 GT, which comes with 17" wheels. Given my desire for comfort over maximum handling, I would actually prefer to have the 16" wheels that come with the GS. Is there anyone in the Toronto/Thornhill area that has recently purchased a GS but would like to swap wheels with a GT?
Sign In or Register to comment.