Why must OE's spec "oddball" tires?

Or why don't the tire manufacturers manufacture "better" tires in the OE sizes?

Vehicle I am looking at purchasing needs tire and specs out a 225/60R16 tire. I already had this tire on a different car and it's a hell of a size to get anything but a rock hard all season. I could go wider and a couple digits smaller on the aspect ratio, but then I am running into not enough rim width. Grrrr. Guess if I get it, I'll see about a 245/50R16 instead.

Be glad you live here where you can put what the hell you like on, not like some countries where you have to run the OEM size.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Be glad you live here where you can put what the hell you like on, not like some countries where you have to run the OEM size.

I'd rather be dead than red. This is America!

Ranger50 wrote: Or why don't the tire manufacturers manufacture "better" tires in the OE sizes? Vehicle I am looking at purchasing needs tire and specs out a 225/60R16 tire. I already had this tire on a different car and it's a hell of a size to get anything but a rock hard all season. I could go wider and a couple digits smaller on the aspect ratio, but then I am running into not enough rim width. Grrrr. Guess if I get it, I'll see about a 245/50R16 instead.

That's the same tire size as my Intrepid, which should only run rock-solid all-seasons! Are you sure you have a performance car?

kylini wrote: That's the same tire size as my Intrepid, which should *only* run rock-solid all-seasons! Are you sure you have a performance car?

LOL. Well, it is a Lincoln..... And your Decreptid isn't in the same class.

The other car was a 00 Monte Carlo SS. Most probably wouldn't call it a "performance" car, but it sure wasn't no slouch either.

Oh. I thought this was going to be a thread about why the berkeley do OE's spec the most absolute E36 M3 tires, that also happen to be the most expensive tires when you hit up tire rack or the like.

Not that I would ever buy said tires again. ever.

Ranger50 wrote:

kylini wrote: That's the same tire size as my Intrepid, which should *only* run rock-solid all-seasons! Are you sure you have a performance car?

LOL. Well, it is a Lincoln..... And your Decreptid isn't in the same class. The other car was a 00 Monte Carlo SS. Most probably wouldn't call it a "performance" car, but it sure wasn't no slouch either.

Kind of like arguing over whether Barbara Bush or Janet Reno is less attractive....

failboat wrote: Oh. I thought this was going to be a thread about why the berkeley do OE's spec the most absolute E36 M3 tires, that also happen to be the most expensive tires when you hit up tire rack or the like. Not that I would ever buy said tires again. ever.

Same difference. Goodyear RS-A's on the MIL's Imp are middle of the road priced, but are garbage tires. If I go down on the aspect ratio, I pick up a bunch of better tires for less money.

Same size tires on my 99 Bonneville. You are right, no decent performance tires for it. Mine currently has 700 tw tires on it, about as hard a tire as the Flintstones used.

Ranger50 wrote: Or why don't the tire manufacturers manufacture "better" tires in the OE sizes? Vehicle I am looking at purchasing needs tire and specs out a 225/60R16 tire. I already had this tire on a different car and it's a hell of a size to get anything but a rock hard all season.

15-18 years ago when I started out working full-time in a chain tire/service shop, the only 225/60R16 tires available were fast-wearing high performance tires, which irked cheap W-body owners to no end.

It appears that the pendulum has swung the other way.

That's the same tire size as my Intrepid, which should only run rock-solid all-seasons! Are you sure you have a performance car?

I put 245/45/16s on my old intrepid, which was only fast enough to keep up with 4.6 mustangs. I thought it performed well enough when it worked right.

LOL. Well, it is a Lincoln..... And your Decreptid isn't in the same class.

I hope you're not talking performance class, because if you put the same tires on a same-year top-spec intrepid and lincoln and go around a track it is bad news for the lincoln! Maybe a v8 LS would do better? Barbara Bush and Janet Reno, indeed.

The range of tire sizes has gotten absurd. I would hate to try being a tire warehouse these days.

25 years ago, all 3 American pickup trucks used 235/75 15 tires, unless they were 3/4 ton or larger. How many optional sizes are there out there now for a regular old 1500 series pickup?

ugh.. I am reminded of the Micheline MXV Energies that were on my hyundai tiburon. Hard hard HARD rubber with no wet grip at all.. and almost $300 a piece back in 2000

Primewell PZ900 is available in 225/60/16. They are on the cheap side and i've read good things about them on the internet. So maybe that?

Your real frustration is the move to bullE36 M3 rubber band tires and bling wheels by all the car manufacturers.

they have to. Have you looked at new cars recently? The New Camaro would look really aweful (as opposed to just aweful) on 16s

Same as it was with my Maxima...an oddball profile on the 225/17s and of course on the tires you could get in that size, they were $40 more each than the size on either side of them, being OEM size.

Not as if I've ever bought an OEM-size replacement tire though :)

Shopped for 14s lately?

Tire Rack doesn't have one tire in front and rear sizes for my MR2.

mad_machine wrote: they have to. Have you looked at new cars recently? The New Camaro would look really aweful (as opposed to just aweful) on 16s

Ever think maybe the car was designed for that?

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

mad_machine wrote: they have to. Have you looked at new cars recently? The New Camaro would look really aweful (as opposed to just aweful) on 16s

Ever think maybe the car was designed for that?

Yes, as has been discussed ad nauseum, a 4000lb 400hp car isn't going to be able to fit enough brake under a 16in wheel. Even if the proportions had been designed around smaller wheel wells.

There are seriously like 6 topics this board can't over.

Think that's bad? Try buying metric TWX tires. If you can find them, they are a bazillion dollars.

I don't think most people want performance tires. They want rubber doughnuts that will last 100,000 miles without adding any air.

Will wrote: Shopped for 14s lately? Tire Rack doesn't have one tire in front and rear sizes for my MR2.

Try finding hoops for a Lotus Esprit. Where are all the 225/60VR14s at?

Or, heck, an old RX-7. 185/70HR13s have been nonexistent for a long time.

z31maniac wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

mad_machine wrote: they have to. Have you looked at new cars recently? The New Camaro would look really aweful (as opposed to just aweful) on 16s

Ever think maybe the car was designed for that?

Yes, as has been discussed ad nauseum, a 4000lb 400hp car isn't going to be able to fit enough brake under a 16in wheel. Even if the proportions had been designed around smaller wheel wells. There are seriously like 6 topics this board can't over.

NASCAR seems to work alright with little 15" wheels, ditto for F1. The W126 Mercedes 560SEL came with 15s and nobody bitched about the brakes. Massive wheels and the ugly cars built around them is a fad, plain and simple, they ride like ass, break, and cost stupid money. Most cars dont need more brake than a 16" wheel supports, it was only a few years ago that supercars got wheels bigger than 18".

225/60/16 is probably the most common tire size out there for mid size cars built in the last 20 years.. not a lot of performance tires in that size- but not a lot of performance cars that use that size, either... unless you consider something with the 240hp my '01 Grand Prix GTP has to be a "performance car".. i don't know why they didn't still use the 16X8 lace wheels with 245/50/16 tires on the supercharged GTP's that they used on the older DOHC 3.4 powered GTP's, but GM does weird things sometimes..