Are Larger Wheels and Tires a Waste of Money?
An otherwise very intelligent golfing buddy recently purchased a 2007 Mercedes E350 with the "free" sport package that included larger 18" staggered size wheels and tires. On the 19th hole, we did a little math after I bet him that the difference in tire replacement cost with that "free" sports package would exceed the gas savings he would get from the E350 V6 over the E550 V8. Even I was surprised at the results:
E350 standard tires = 17" V-rated 245/45. Tire Rack replacement price for Pirelli's = $147 each. Including shipping and mounting/balancing, about $750 per set. Expected lifespan of these tires = 30-35k miles with rotation. E350 Sport tires = 18" W-rated 245/40 front; 265/35 rear. Tire rack replacement price for Michelin's $263/310. Including shipping, mounting/balancing, about $1,400 per set. Expected lifespan 12k-15k miles, no rotation possible.
Difference over 6+/- years and 100k miles (buddy drives 16k miles a year): Standard = 2-3 sets at a total cost of $1,500-$2,250. Sport = 6+ sets at total cost of $8,400. Or a whopping $6,150-$6,900 more for the E350 Sport. By comparison, the additonal cost of gas for a E550 V8 @18 mpg instead of the E350 V6 @23 mpg would only be about $4,000 over 100k miles.
In my own garage(s) are a 2004 Acura TL 6-speed (17" 235/45) and 1995 Nissan Maxima SE 5-speed (15" 215/60). The former required new tires at 22,000 miles at a total cost of $800. The latter has gone 155k miles, and just needed it's 3 replacement set, bringing the total cost up to $1,300 for 13 years and roughly 7 times the mileage on the Acura. Yes, the TL handles a little better than the Maxima. But it sure as heck isn't within a country mile of my 911. It's still a FWD sedan for goodness sake.
It seems to me, at a time when a lot of people are concerned about gas prices, the added cost of equiping the family sedan with larger wheels and high performance tires is both financially imprudent and, at least in the case of cars like the E350, an enormous waste of money (it still doesn't handle as well as a non-sport 5-series, IMO).
So I pose the question - how prudent are 17-18-19 inch wheels and low profile, high performance tires on a family sedan?
E350 standard tires = 17" V-rated 245/45. Tire Rack replacement price for Pirelli's = $147 each. Including shipping and mounting/balancing, about $750 per set. Expected lifespan of these tires = 30-35k miles with rotation. E350 Sport tires = 18" W-rated 245/40 front; 265/35 rear. Tire rack replacement price for Michelin's $263/310. Including shipping, mounting/balancing, about $1,400 per set. Expected lifespan 12k-15k miles, no rotation possible.
Difference over 6+/- years and 100k miles (buddy drives 16k miles a year): Standard = 2-3 sets at a total cost of $1,500-$2,250. Sport = 6+ sets at total cost of $8,400. Or a whopping $6,150-$6,900 more for the E350 Sport. By comparison, the additonal cost of gas for a E550 V8 @18 mpg instead of the E350 V6 @23 mpg would only be about $4,000 over 100k miles.
In my own garage(s) are a 2004 Acura TL 6-speed (17" 235/45) and 1995 Nissan Maxima SE 5-speed (15" 215/60). The former required new tires at 22,000 miles at a total cost of $800. The latter has gone 155k miles, and just needed it's 3 replacement set, bringing the total cost up to $1,300 for 13 years and roughly 7 times the mileage on the Acura. Yes, the TL handles a little better than the Maxima. But it sure as heck isn't within a country mile of my 911. It's still a FWD sedan for goodness sake.
It seems to me, at a time when a lot of people are concerned about gas prices, the added cost of equiping the family sedan with larger wheels and high performance tires is both financially imprudent and, at least in the case of cars like the E350, an enormous waste of money (it still doesn't handle as well as a non-sport 5-series, IMO).
So I pose the question - how prudent are 17-18-19 inch wheels and low profile, high performance tires on a family sedan?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But I do agree low profile tires don't last very long and do dip into the wallet. With 35 and 40 series tires you can almost feel the paint stripe of a crosswalk.
19th hole dinner and drinks.
Perhaps, but I wonder how many others have done the math and realize that, on cars like the E-class, the sport package wheels and tires will actually cost them several thousands more in tire replacement over the life of the car?
I consider myself pretty financially prudent, and I didn't give it much consideration when I opted for the $200 "HPT" package on my Acura TL 6-speed. I certainly didn't realize at the time that I would need to spend roughly $5,600 in tires for my TL to get the same mileage (155k) I got out of my 1995 Nissan Maxima SE for under $1,500 in tires.
I do agree that most people probably don't realize just how much they will end up spending on these larger wheels.
PS
looking at an ML320 CDI, I will opt for the fattest tires available for that vehicle. I plan to go off road from time to time.
What was the aspect ratio? I find that 60-series is a good balance between handling and comfort for a daily driver on unkempt roads.
As for giant wheels, one thing I'd like to do eventually is put some lightweight 15s and 40-series (maybe 35?) rubber on the S2000. Tricky part is figuring out whether or not a 15-inch wheel can clear the brakes.
Aesthetically, it's the rare car that looks good with big wheels...certainly the "formal" looking cars like a Benz look very clumsy in those 18" running shoes, IMHO. It's more suited to a Mitsubishi EVO.
My 2002 Honda S2000 came with 16" wheels, 55/205 and 50/225 series tires front and rear. If you dropped the wheel diameter down to 15" and put even lower profile 40/35 series tires on them, I think you'd have an ugly mess. Both from driving dynamics (suspension) and aesthetics. Not to mention that your speedometer and odometer would be way off.
I'm not a fan of boy racer modifications in general. But with the S2000 in particular, it's so good out of the box that I think it should be a criminal offense to mess it up.
The second is interested in performance upgrade. I have always wondered just how much better your handling gets as you go to a lower profile tire. Lets say I start out with a car that has 225R50 tires on 17" wheels and go to 235R45 tires on 18" wheels. Would I notice the difference? Assume that the tire brand and type were constant.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Excellent question. I suspect the answer is "not much" - and that's the point of my starting this forum.
When I test drove at least 6-7 Boxster S's before buying a 911S in September 2005, about half came with the standard 18" wheel and 45 series tires and half came with the 19" 35 series upgrade (they were also wider tires in the 19"). I honestly had a very difficult time telling the difference in my test drives. Maybe on a track, but not on public streets. Alternatively, for those Boxster S's (and 911's) that came with the PASM option (Porsche Active Suspension Management), the difference was profound. Push the "sport" button, electronically stiffen the adjustable suspension, and what was already minimal body roll completely vanished and you were glued to the road (and felt every bump in the process). That was the case whether you had the 18" or 19" wheels, although at that point, the 19" felt a little "firmer".
In the case of my Acura TL 6-speed, I can immediately feel the difference between its stiffer suspension and faster stopping Brembo brakes, compared to the automatic transmssion model. But among 6-speeds, I could not tell the difference in handling between one's equiped with the optional "High Performance" tires and the standard ones. That's not to say there isn't a difference, but relatively speaking, a high performance tire is not going to turn a FWD 60/40 weight balanced Acura TL into a 335i with respect to handling. Suspension set up, weight balance and all those engineering refinements that make a Porsche a Porsche or a BMW a BMW are far, far more important to handling than slapping high performance tires on Honda, Infiniti, Acura or Mercedes, IMO.
A lot of sports cars have stiffer suspensions to begin with (rougher ride), so going to a smaller sidewall wouldn't make a difference in overall ride quality. The smaller sidewall may help in cornering situations, but I would guess you wouldn't be able to detect a huge difference when hitting bumps during straight line driving.
My friends went from 16" to 17" (and smaller side wall) wheels on a Chevy HHR. On this vehicle, you can feel the bumps more during straight line driving with the 17" wheels, and smaller side walls.
You see car reviews from time to time that lament "if only this car had sticker tire it would handle better." Perhaps they aren't talking about larger tires or lower profile tires but rather ones with a "sticky" compound in the rubber.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Although, with wheel size, we must also consider brake rotor diameter.
For most part, rims are getting larger mostly for cosmetic purpose. People seem to demand it. Ten years ago, Accord sedan did fine with 14" (DX) and 15" (LX/EX/V6). Now, that would be the size one gets with Fit.
Civic has moved on to 15" for the very basic DX trim, while the more mainstream LX/EX get 16". The Si trim gets 17". And if one chooses to go with HFP package, 18" rims.
Compare that to the fact that the high performance 2000 Integra Type-R used 15 inch rims.
As did the Ferrari 308, if I'm not mistaken.
My 1984 Toyota Supra (sport version) came standard with 225/60's on 14" rims. The "L" luxury version had 205/70's on narrower 14" rims. :surprise:
Just wait until we see 19" rims in the next Tiburon. (Rumor is, that will be an option on top of 18" standard rims). I might not even consider it for that reason alone.
What a sissy Magnum PI was. Or did he drive a 328?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Two ways: the larger wheel is also usually wider, which will dictate a wider tire with a larger contact patch; and the larger wheel and tire can be heavy enough to overpower the engine. Most people consider that a bad thing.
I’m assuming that Crossfire with 19” rims actually came with stickier (sportier) rubber than the smaller rim.
Actually the 19" rims were standard, but I think you're right about the stickier tires. They were Pilot Sport 2's. It didn't help that the Crossfire only had 215hp. Shame. Nice looking car.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
When Ford went from 225/70R15 in '97 to 225/60R16 in '98, upper ball joints that had been lasting for the two to three years the cars were in service began failing within a year. After market companies came out with a larger upper ball joint that worked a lot better.
Police service is harder than most retail CV/Gr. Marquis customers' driving habits, but I still do a lot of upper ball joints for the blue hairs.
The '03 and up CV's have a different suspension, and do not seem to have a problem.
The message is clear, increasing the diameter of the wheel and shortening the sidewall does shorten the life of some suspension parts, and stress the cars.
Harry
On the other hand, if a relatively upsizing upsizing of wheels from 15 to 16" on a Crown Vic caused the mechanical failures you cited, that to me is a confirmation of the crappy engineering and poor quality of Ford. No surprise there.
Not my cup of tea but it is something an import enthusiast can get their teeth into. Lets face it, long gone are the days of buying a car with steel wheels and hub caps unless you are simply buying a commuter car. I totally agree that 14 and 15 inch 60 series tires and fine for most every day use and they tend to be less expensive. low profile tires are the style right now for car people and big tires are the style for truck people. If you can afford it and you like the way it looks it isn't a waste of money if you have the money to spend.
Rather, my target audience included the unsuspecting buyer of a no-cost "Sport Package" option on a E350 that will potentially be spending 4 times as much (an extra $6,000) to keep rubber on 1" larger wheels. Or the Acura TL buyer like me that went for the $200 "high performance tire" option. Or every 3/5/7 series that gets a sport package option, even if it's predominantly used as a grocery getter and mundane commuter. Or, for that matter, every bloody automatic transmssion car out there. :surprise:
I do agree that it's all about personal taste and preferences. And a significant percentage of larger wheels and high performance tire upgrades are purchased based upon looks, not performance (see A/T comment above). My only point was to suggest that, given the dollars involved, the decision warrants a bit more financial analysis and prudence than is probably being done by most. After all, look at how many forums include that famous question "do I REALLY need to use premium gas in my $30k/$40k/$50k+ xxxxx?". Whenever gas prices spike, some people are tempted to put low octane gas in a high compression engine thinking that they are saving 7-8% in fuel cost (not realizing that the lower octane results in retarded timing, lower mpg and the risk of long term engine damage). In the case of that aforementioned E350, over the course of 100k miles, the theoretical difference between premium and regular gas would only be $850+/-, unrealistically assuming NO loss in fuel efficiency. That's less than 15% of the additional cost that will be spent on replacement tires during that time, thanks to the no cost Sport Package.
And no, I haven't loaded up on put options on Pirelli and Michelin and I'm not trying to drive down their stock price.
Subie tire upgrade
This is one reason the big wheel options perform better - better tires. Put the same tire on both, the difference would shrink greatly. I did that, got much better handling with no wheel change.
One other problem is on some cars (BMWs?) the big wheel option comes with run-flats, which seem to cause problems.
My E55 has 18" factory wheels, and that's about as big as I want to get, knowing what decent tires cost for the thing.
But for a daily driver, stock is most often the best except for better looking wheels even if they are the same size as stock.
I've seen lateral acceleration (g- ratings) go from 0.79 to nearly 0.9 on a Honda Civic by switching from factory tires to a sticky grip tire that is two sizes (i.e. a 185 to a 205 mm) larger. Although there are other aspects to handling, that is nearly the rating that a low end Porsche would get. It turns an almost intolerably boring breadbox into something a little more fun to drive for about $500-600 if the rims are not changed. Pricewise, I believe the consumer would be much better off doing the conversion as an aftermarket addon instead of a dealer upgrade. On the other hand, I believe that the gains on a high end car are very marginal (although I don't have any data). For example, I would be very suprised if a Subaru WRX STi would increment in the same way with a +2 tire swap (i.e. if the tires would fit and not rub in the wheel well, the STi would likely go from 0.92 to 0.95 or so instead of the same increment of 0.11 as on the Honda Civic) since the STi has already had some level of optimization by the manufacturer.
Our MSRP $27,105 2007 SEL AWD Fusion came "standard" with P225/50R/17 Michelin tires and I am already dreading the day when I will have to replace them. The base S Fusion comes with 16-inch 60-series tires, which I believe would ride better but not handle as well.
As to "how prudent," the answer is "not very," but high performance tires seem to be the trend (probably a conspiracy with the tire manufacturers to sell more tires since they don't last very long either, in addition to being more expensive).
It seems then that the original question: "Are larger wheels and tire a waste of money" was half right. The wheels make minimal difference but the tires can enhance handling quite a bit.
I wonder if that stabilizer bar trick would work on some of these FWD cars that understeer? Why don't he car companies put them on as standard equipment?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Case in point, the original Lexus GS400, when it first came out. Lexus offered an upgraded 17" wheel and high performance tire option. Friend of mine bought one. At 5,000 miles, the tires were already showing excessive wear. At 8,000 miles, Lexus refunded his option price and gave him a set of the standard rims and tires. The probelm was the Buick like suspensions Lexus used resulted in the body roll of a typical Camry. The high performance tires were wearing out dispropotionally on the inside and outside edges due to the body roll.
The lesson is - if you want a good handling car, start by buying one with a good suspension. Then put on high performance tires if you want even more performance. But there isn't enough rubber in a Pirelli factory to turn a Lexus into a BMW.
P.S. That friend of mine that went through a set of 17" tires on the Lexus GS400 in 8,000 miles ended up trading it on a BMW 545i a couple of years later. With the sport package and staggered wheels (can't be rotated), he got 20,000 to 25,000 miles out of the even higher performance softer compound tires. (i.e. because the BMW didn't come standard with that wonderful Lexus body roll and the tires were held flat to the ground by the BMW sport suspension).
My 16" 60 series are fine on a FWD car. The same size tires are pretty questionable on my RWD Mustang. I have to drive long distances on dark, snowy and icy, narrow roads in the winter.
Big rims do have a look that dresses up the car but they make for a harsher ride. I don't know if they are a waste of money if looks are what the driver wants. If how a car looks wasn't important to some there would be so many after market parts stores and custom paint shops.