I was just wondering for those of you who have an SE with the 17 inch rims and tires, how much mileage did you get out of the life of a tire. And about how much did you pay for replacing them?????
Thanks

 

hmmm milage to the tires stock ehhhhhh....... about 13k i am rough on tires..... i got the toyo proxes 245/45/17 they work great but peeps have opinions on 245's on stock but i got em and i havent died yet!

 

but you have a buldge.. dont you?

 

what do u mean buldge?

 

13k miles on mine right now.....so far I have plenty of tread left... When they go, I am getting new rims. It's not worth it to pay so much for 225/50/17 tires...

 

Pretty sure he means how much the sidewall sticks out beyond the wheel. To give it a number,

bulge = [(section width) - (rim width)]/2.

FWIW, a large number computed for bulge using the above is an indication that the tire is too wide for the rim. Not that it can't be made to fit or work for mild to moderate street driving (read, primarily for appearance). But you aren't getting all the performance out of the wider tires that you would with wider rims.

The OE 225/50's on 7" wide rims give a "bulge" figure of approximately 0.93" (depending on the exact as-mounted dimensions). Personal experience has suggested to me that a bulge number much larger than about 1" results in "soft" response (think traditional domestic big car, 225's or 235's on 6" wide rims). Crisp handling as a function of bulge starts maybe somewhere in the 0.8x's and improves as the number drops. At down around 0.55" it's near instantaneous, and below 0.5" you may not be able to even mount the tire.

Norm

 

This has confused me also. I have measured the rim (not with a caliper) and it seems larger than 7". I don't know what it means in terms of tire fittment. But, thanks for the insight

 

I currently have 34,500 miles on my stock Bridgestone 17's. I've actually never rotated them so my front ones are almost completely worn but I could still probably get another 3-4k miles out of the back tires.

 

I have over 37,000+ on my stock Bridgestones. About 25% tread left on them. I have to balance them about 5k miles or so to get more wear out of them.

 

The calipers are reading the outside to outside measurement. And when balancing tires using weights that are hammered onto the rim flanges that's the number you're interested in. It's approximate for stick-on weights depending on how they are oriented.

Rim widths are defined by the inside to inside measurement, so any alloy 17 x 7 wheel will measure at least 7-1/2" wide outside to outside, slightly more at the tips. The thickness of the rim flanges hides some of the "bulge". Visually, you are comparing tire section width to wheel outside dimensions, so it doesn't look particularly bad (it makes the "bulge" number look at least 1/4" lower than it really is). But structurally the tire "sees" only the lateral and torsional support from the bead seat, whiuch is at the inside wheel measurement. The bulge number in my previous post is performance based rather than appearance oriented and consequently reflects the structural point of view (after all, I am an engineer).

Norm

 

Maybe WILLSE can describe any difficulty in getting them mounted. Or any rubbing due to additional lateral deflection.

It's probably at the very narrow end of approved rim widths for that size. I had some of that info somewhere but can't find it right away. Best quickly available info was a design width of 8.0" for 245/45-17's (Dunlops). And there is some range +/- from that for "approved" widths.

I've also seen the 245 tire/7" rim combination mentioned on other boards, so it's not that unusual . . .

Norm

 

I've got 17+k on my original 17" tires. Hardly showing any wear, but will rotate them shortly. I do mostly highway driving.

 

ill take some pics and paost them of my rim's with 245/45/17 it wasnt a difficult mount it went right on and beaded normally so i dunno!

 

Will the 235/45/17 work well (i.e., safely) on the stock 17 inch rims?


thanx

jack

 

There's not a tire and rim standards body in the world that will sanction the use of 235/45/17 or 245/45/17 tires on 7.0" wide rims. Why they won't and whether you can get away with it safely or not are questions I can't answer.

Norm Peterson seems to know a lot about this subject. Care to weigh in here, Norm?

 

They are only warrantied to 225 on 17X7"s (go to a tire store and ask them, they won't warrantee 235s on a 7"). People have done it, but for safety reasons, keep it at 225 MAX.

 

Thanks for the info guys - Kevin and MedicSonic especially. I've been looking at buying 17" wheels, and want to stay stock (for many reasons - cost being one, looks another, and it goes on). I've just been disappointed at the selection of 225s out there.

This has probably been asked before (sorry, haven't done a "search" yet), but can anyone speak to the quality of the Kumho, Nitto, and Yokohamas? Things that are important (in order) are a)dry/wet traction and handling b)road noise c)tread life.

Thanks again!

Jack

 

I've gotten 800 miles out of the stock tires and i must say they've got an awful lot of tread left...

 

Is that 800 or 8000?

jack

 

You hit the nail on the head, Jack. There just aren't that many performance tires out there in 225/50R17. Probably the best tire you can purchase in that size is the Michelin XGT Z4. But the Michelins are pricey . . . $182.00 each at Tirerack.com. The least expensive performance tire I've found so far is the Nitto 450 Extreme Performance. They're available at Discount Tire for $129.00 each.

For reviews of both tires, check out:

http://www.carreview.com/reviews/tires/

There is an alternative, of course. You could purchase a set of inexpensive or used 17 X 7.5" or 17 X 8.0" rims and mount 245/45R17s on them. Then you'd have a much wider selection of tires to choose from including Kumhos at about $100.00 per tire

 

I'm selling my 17" rims, partly because of the limited tire sizes. I know some people say 235-45-17 is okay on a 7" rim. None of the manufacturers agree though. They all say emphatically 7.5" is the minimum. I just found out that 225-55-17 specs out to the 17 x 7" Maxima rim fine. Actually 6.5" is the minimum for that rim size. Anyone have feedback on that size? I see it's a common size. There are around 30 tires available in that size. The stock 225-50-17 size only has 4.

If I find someting acceptable, I may keep them after all and sell my 16's instead.

 

At this point I'm making a semi-educated guess, but it has to do with the curvature of the sidewall between the shoulders of the tire and the beads. If you visualize the cross section of a mounted tire, you'd see that the sidewall actually takes on a reverse curve or "S" shape. This is also visible in an unmounted tire if you know to look for it (most people probably don't). The greater the difference between tread width (which defines the shoulder location) and rim width (ditto for the beads), the sharper this curvature must become. Since a sidewall has stiffness and finite thickness there is a limit to how sharply you can bend it without adverse effects, especially over a hard corner such as is represented by the rim flange. This limit is probably a rather fuzzy region, but you do have to draw the line somewhere between go and no-go. In extreme cases, the stiffness and thickness of the sidewall is enough to make seating the beads against the rim flanges quite difficult when the tire is first mounted (when the tire tech has trouble even when he uses aids like a strap around the tire or an air jet ring is a clue). And at least initially in service this effect is still trying to pry the bead inward away from the rim flanges (partial loss of air when subjected to the additional flexing caused by hitting a bump is at least theoretically possible). Also possible is unusual tread wear slightly inboard of the shoulder as the tire's structural stiffness in the shoulder areas tend to bulge out the tread (the second rib wears).

The same effect of increasing the sidewall curvature occurs when you shorten the sidewall height. So the most severe increase in sidewall curvature comes from mounting a wider tire that also has a shorter sidewall on the same rim width.

I can't say whether the width difference or sidewall height is the greater effect, though. It may depend on the combination of the two and the specific rim width. Hmmm, that might be a possible additional feature I could add to a rough tire and rim spreadsheet I have, if I can work out some relationship amongst all these parameters that makes any sense.

Other stuff. Details of the structural configuration of the tire carcass also factor into this. Many low profile tires in particular have some additional bead stiffening elements in the sidewalls for reasons like improved handling, high speed durability, and temperature reduction. So some specific tire models may have a higher minimum rim width than others of the same nominal size. And the measured dimensions of a given size are permitted to vary by a few percent too (I've heard 7%, don't know if that's max to min or what, but you could get a 225 from one mfr that is actually 229 and a 235 from the guy down the street that measures 231 on the same wheel, so . . .). There is flexing, so fatigue is a possible consideration. Even the rim flange height and profile have their effect, and not all rim flanges are the same. That's what designations like "J" and "JJ" that you might see in wheel size descriptions mean, BTW.

Norm