How about 215's on stock SE 17's?
 

Any thoughts?

Seems that a 215/50/17 with a comparable section width and potentially larger contact patch would be a decent replacement option for the stock 225/50/17.

1. for year-round? Why go thinner?

2. how will a 215 have a larger contact patch than a 225?

I should have mentioned that I don't like any of the tire options in the 225/50/17 catagory.

1) Yes, for year round. I like the idea of keeping the sidewall height the same for the ride comfort and speedo/gearing etc, and 215/50/17 opens up a ton of better/cheaper tire options.

2) It is certainly not a given, but from what I undersand the stock 225 Potenza RE92's have a pretty small footprint, much smaller than most 225's. Just in the Potenza line, a 225/50 RE92 is listed with a 6.7" tread width, while the same size S-02 has an 8.5" tread width. These are probably about the two extremes of a 225 tire. With a good 215/50 tire, tread width seems to average around 7.2-5" , all example being measured on a 7" rim width. This would seem to suggest that the contact patch on the 215's may be better than the stock RE92.

The sidewall height on a 215/50 is going to be thinner than a 225/50. The "50" is an aspect ratio, i.e. 50% of the width (225).

I basically asked the same question in this thread and no one has responded.. oh well.

I'd like to go with the 215/50 but am not sure how noticable the gap increase will be. It measures out to like a .2" more or something...

The Continental's seem like the best bang for the buck for A/S tires for those of us on a budget.

Why not open up even more possibilities with 235/45-17?

This is true, but it less of a change to move to 215/50 than to move to 235/45. The 215/50 is going to have a very similar diameter(slightly lower) to a 225/50, while a 235/45 is going to be an even lower profile. The 215/50 I am looking at (the new Yokohama Avid V4s) is only off by 2 tenths in overall diameter from the OEM tire.

i've run 215 and they seem ok... for the price...

The Bridgestone Turanza LS-Vs in 215/50 are no less than half an inch wider than the OEM Potenza RE-92s, also only about a tenth of an inch smaller in diameter.....

I know because I have the LS-Vs in stock 225/50/17 size and they are HUGE compared to both the Potenzas and Michelin Pilot Sports.

I'm assuming you have 17" SE wheels on your GXE - how does the wheel gap look? I think that's the only thing that really concerns me. I know it's minor but I don't want to see a difference when I stand back and look at the car.

The Turanza LS-Vs get pretty good ratings at Tire rack too, but they're a bit more money and they're out of stock until 12/10 in 225/50-17.

I think at around a 25.5 inch overall diameter, the ContiExtreme's should look fine as far as the gap is concerned. I would be surprised if you could really tell much of a difference. If i was going for a real performance tire, I might go the same route, but I am looking for longer tread life, and more comfort.

You may also want to look at the 225/50/17 Falken Ziex ZE-512. You can get them at Discount Tire in the same price range as the Conti's. I hear this is a pretty good tire.

Yeah - I'm aware of the Falkens but all the balancing problems keeps steering me away. I really don't have the patience to keep bringing my car back if I have the issue. I've gone through about 5 Bose stereos and I'm reeeally tired of bringing the car in. I just want to get the tires and be done.

I know there are several threads on the ZE-512 and it seems like a majority of people who purchased them have had the problem.

Do you consider the Conti more of a performance tire than the ZE-512? I think no matter what I end up with, it HAS to be better than the RE92 tires..

I wish this decision wasn't turning into being such pain in the ARSE!!!!!! :confused:

I would just go with the Conti. The Tire Rack ratings are great, and yes, I bet you will love them compared to the RE92's.