195/50 15 and 195/55 15??

[D'janiero]

Has anybody got any pics of the above on their ek9 with standard suspension?

Thanks

 

[ManosEK9]

If I can read your mind correctly.......You want to see how much the fender - to - wheel distance gets bigger with a 195/50/R15 compared to 195/55/R15??
Well, I did this on my previous civic Vti (105 bhp ) and it looked very ugly...... The car seemed as it was higher

 

[D'janiero]

lol spot on Manos, your right. So you reccon its best of sticking with 195/55 15's?
Thing is, I'm used to using GoodYear Eagle F1's, and can only find them in 195/50 15's, not 55's

 

[ManosEK9]

lol spot on Manos, your right. So you reccon its best of sticking with 195/55 15's?
Thing is, I'm used to using GoodYear Eagle F1's, and can only find them in 195/50 15's, not 55's

Even if its just a rubber, by putting on the 50mm tire wall on the same rim, you will reduce the rotating mass of the overall wheel so you have improved performance and a rim that looks bigger........ I remember I felt a slight improvement in acceleration and deceleration when I did that.
The problem however that I told you before can be fixed by lowering you car a bit to restore the distance(keep in mind that the car will be lowered already about half an inch cuz of the tire)

 

[D'janiero]

Hmm. I was thinking about leaving the suspension stock for the time being, but I don't wan't the car looking like its on stilts after fitting 195/50's. Guess I'll have to come to some sort of comprimise

 

[rvm]

My ek9 with 195 55 15 tires with oem suspension

 

[D'janiero]

Thanks man. Did you run with 55's on the track or a different size?

 

[vtecroadhog]

mentioned it on prev thread. . . 205-50-15 will do the job! tire wall on these r the same than on the stock readings...

 

[D'janiero]

Did'nt Blinx say that 205/50 15's will rub slightly on the inner frame rail though?
Is this what size you are using?. If so please post up a pic

 

[JayH]

A little bit? I put 50 series on my front tyres this time and the improvements in acceleration was enormous. :O

Especially for a choice which *saves* you money (compared to 55 series).

Of course, the ride will become harsher though and the speedo reading will be a little off.

edit: but then again I went from some 195/55 semi slick tyres (they are larger for the same rating compared to conventional tyres) to some normal ones, so the improvements I felt might have been more from the reduced tyre drag and grip. The steering instantly felt a lot lighter lol.

 

[jugbugz]

I don't get how putting a small diameter tyre could increase performance? It only throws off your speedo and with a 205, you will definitely rub the insides on full lock. It happended to me. And we are talking about stock wheels too.

But really, 50 or 55, it doesn't make you go faster...it doesn't make sense. It's your misconception thats telling you 'your going faster'.

honda would have done it.
.

 

[vtecroadhog]

'jugbugz' i currently have 205-50-15 (Kumho spt's) maybe rubbing varies on which tyre make/brand. I hve not expierenced no rub @ all even on full lock to any side.

However, i drive an ek4 on stock rims... so the vti stock rims might differ frm ctr ones. anyone?

btw: i guess you earn on acceleration if you reduce the tires profile right? smaller circumference. . .

 

[jugbugz]

Lets put it this way guys... If you actually go faster with 5mm drop in circumference then why would you speedo go off? The fact is less rotational weight = easier spool. It's like having lighter wheels, flywheel etc. This will do way more than 5mm off the tyre circumference...

You will gain a little bit if you drop something like 30mm because the weight goes with it, but you can't seriously feel 5mm. Thats just exagerating... It's like saying taking off my floor mats will give me better acelleration...

I seriously didn't feel any difference in acelleration when I had 205... I felt way more difference between driving at night and day.

vtecroadhog: If I can remember, the ctr offsets are 195/55 +50 or 55. I'm pretty sure it was +50 as I was lowering my car last month. 205 just looked fat and funny. It did rub with 205 but not now with 195.

 

[vtecroadhog]

You will gain a little bit if you drop something like 30mm because the weight goes with it, but you can't seriously feel 5mm. Thats just exagerating... It's like saying taking off my floor mats will give me better acelleration...

i always kept to the stock 195-55 until i experimented with the 205's however i was not after acceleration, but handling.

vtecroadhog: If I can remember, the ctr offsets are 195/55 +50 or 55. I'm pretty sure it was +50 as I was lowering my car last month. 205 just looked fat and funny. It did rub with 205 but not now with 195.

i will try & post some pics to show u how it looks on me ride

to me they r just perfect. probably as i mentioned prev it could be down to the tire's brand. front 205's seem identical to 195's on rear, both Kumho's...

 

[Dino-Spumoni]

The overall diameter of the 195/50 is 19.5mm less than the 195/55, the 205/50 is 9.5mm smaller than the 195/50. This raises the final drive ratio, which lowers top speed but does make the car accellerate faster. The farther the tire size is from stock (overall diameter) the bigger the change in the FD ratio.
To give a rough idea, a 195/50 will spin 29 more times than a 195/55 over the course of a mile.
A 195/50 is about 1 pound lighter than a 195/55, and that is 1 pound lighter than a 205/50, on average. I feel the extra grip of a 205/50 gains more than the 1 less pound of unsprung weight of the 195/55, in both accelleration and cornering.
I wouldn't put a 205/50 on a stock ek9 wheel, because its only 6" wide and with some tires there will be rubbing at full lock. However, I had a 15x7 +41 enkei RP-F1 with a 205/50-15 tire, and there was no rubbing.
Jugbugz- Removing floor mats does make way for better accelleration, why so suprised? You said that the 205/50-15 looked fat and funny, don't you realize there is a performance gain with a wider tire? (fitment issues nonwithstanding) IMO a 205/50 looks fat and awsome.
And when you mention the 5mm difference in circumference, I think your way off, the difference in circumference between the 195/55 and the 195/50 is 61.2mm, and 29.8mm smaller for the 205/50.
Djaniero- The eagle f1 gs-d3 is a good street tire, but they don't make it in a suitable 15" size for the EK. Look for a 195/55, and if your wheel size and offset permits, go for a 205/50.

 

[jugbugz]

The overall diameter of the 195/50 is 19.5mm less than the 195/55, the 205/50 is 9.5mm smaller than the 195/50. This raises the final drive ratio, which lowers top speed but does make the car accellerate faster. The farther the tire size is from stock (overall diameter) the bigger the change in the FD ratio.
To give a rough idea, a 195/50 will spin 29 more times than a 195/55 over the course of a mile.
A 195/50 is about 1 pound lighter than a 195/55, and that is 1 pound lighter than a 205/50, on average. I feel the extra grip of a 205/50 gains more than the 1 less pound of unsprung weight of the 195/55, in both accelleration and cornering.
I wouldn't put a 205/50 on a stock ek9 wheel, because its only 6" wide and with some tires there will be rubbing at full lock. However, I had a 15x7 +41 enkei RP-F1 with a 205/50-15 tire, and there was no rubbing.
Jugbugz- Removing floor mats does make way for better accelleration, why so suprised? You said that the 205/50-15 looked fat and funny, don't you realize there is a performance gain with a wider tire? (fitment issues nonwithstanding) IMO a 205/50 looks fat and awsome.
And when you mention the 5mm difference in circumference, I think your way off, the difference in circumference between the 195/55 and the 195/50 is 61.2mm, and 29.8mm smaller for the 205/50.
Djaniero- The eagle f1 gs-d3 is a good street tire, but they don't make it in a suitable 15" size for the EK. Look for a 195/55, and if your wheel size and offset permits, go for a 205/50.

Dino: Spinning 29 times more over a mile doesn't mean it's accelerating faster. It just needs to spin more obviously because it's smaller. And 195/55 is the same diameter as 205/50, there is no difference between the 2 in diameter, I don't know how you worked that out but everyone knows that.

Your telling me that the difference in diameter between a 195/55 and a 195/50 is 6cm(60mm) difference in diameter? I just called up the tyre shop and it's only 2cm(20mm) difference. Wouldn't that be the cheapest way to lower your car 30mm and have an extra 30mm gap between the gaurds? And I did say 'maybe 30mm difference in diameter would make a difference.' And not only that but your speedo will be like 10-20kmph off with 30mm difference. And 20mm isn't even half a pound in weight loss.

Ofcourse you get a bit more grip but not in the right way. When the tyres are too wide for the wheels they cause a bit of soft springy tension which isn't good for performance. And obviously putting 205 on a +41 offset will not cause rubbing opposed to +50. With 205/50 on my stock wheels gave the tyres visibly 20-30mm(10-15mm each side) wider than the rim itself. This looks good? Maybe to few...to me and friends it looked crap... and it aint good for performance, but if its for everyday driving, its would be fine. Putting 195/55 still give a bit of rubber hanging out but its the correct amount and how it came out of the factory.

The Honda NSXR replaced their shift boot material with aluminium mesh to save a couple of 100grams to make it go faster. I can do it better driving naked.

D'janeiro: you can't use 205/50 tyres on stock wheel because it will rub with CTR wheels. I've tried and done it already.

 

[JayH]

While I have not taken the liberty to calculate the factual differences in figures, Dino stated that the 60mm difference is on the circumference, not the diameter.


Also 195/55/15 and 205/50/15 does have a rough 5mm difference in the height of each of the side walls, indeed making the total tyre diameter of the 195 larger by roughly 10mm. The idea is that the two tire sizes are the closest for that specification hence everyone saying that they are the same, but fact is there are always slight differences between tyre sizes, as well as in 195/55/15 to 205/45/16 conversions. The 205/45/16 is actually smaller in diameter. Strictly speaking they are definately not of the same size.


Jugbugz, your idea of " Spinning 29 times more over a mile doesn't mean it's accelerating faster " is like saying having the 4.7 or 4.9 FD doesnt mean the car is accelerating faster.

Both a smaller wheel and a shorter final drive work on the principle that the same amount of energy produced by the engine is converted into less distance covered, hence the energy is per work involved is higher, i.e. faster acceleration. And you have to understand that the small difference in circumference becomes very large in effect when you are spinning the wheels as fast as cars are.

If you are skeptical you can do a comparison by swapping a big wheel from another car unto yours and do a time comparison with a smaller wheel over a same distance.

Personally I am able to tell small differences well enough to notice the gains. Im not kidding when I say I can feel a 3hp difference when I pay attention. And the improvements from having a 195/50/15 wheel as compared to 195/55/15 across the whole rev range and stretch of road turns out to be very significant by the end of the session.

 

[jugbugz]

While I have not taken the liberty to calculate the factual differences in figures, Dino stated that the 60mm difference is on the circumference, not the diameter.


Also 195/55/15 and 205/50/15 does have a rough 5mm difference in the height of each of the side walls, indeed making the total tyre diameter of the 195 larger by roughly 10mm. The idea is that the two tire sizes are the closest for that specification hence everyone saying that they are the same, but fact is there are always slight differences between tyre sizes, as well as in 195/55/15 to 205/45/16 conversions. The 205/45/16 is actually smaller in diameter. Strictly speaking they are definately not of the same size.


Jugbugz, your idea of " Spinning 29 times more over a mile doesn't mean it's accelerating faster " is like saying having the 4.7 or 4.9 FD doesnt mean the car is accelerating faster.

Both a smaller wheel and a shorter final drive work on the principle that the same amount of energy produced by the engine is converted into less distance covered, hence the energy is per work involved is higher, i.e. faster acceleration. And you have to understand that the small difference in circumference becomes very large in effect when you are spinning the wheels as fast as cars are.

If you are skeptical you can do a comparison by swapping a big wheel from another car unto yours and do a time comparison with a smaller wheel over a same distance.

Personally I am able to tell small differences well enough to notice the gains. Im not kidding when I say I can feel a 3hp difference when I pay attention. And the improvements from having a 195/50/15 wheel as compared to 195/55/15 across the whole rev range and stretch of road turns out to be very significant by the end of the session.

I said small differences don't make much difference to be felt and something around 30mm smaller or more in diameter would.

I don't even know if this kind of mod is even worth considering even if its true or not. But you guys could be right when you talk about it acting like a FD. I just don't think it makes much difference with 195/50 or 195/55. But I know its true with something considerably different in size and with the weight it brings in and take out.

If it really affects this much then everyone just do this instead of changing their final gears... saves a lot of money with a cost of your speedo going off.

Anyway, I'm open to opinions, just a part of everyday learning...

 

[JayH]

Oh I had not noticed earlier you meant the difference is too small to be felt.

Well you wont feel the effects without thoroughly trying it out. I thought nothing of the difference as well for a few days until I went to an open road and went through second to fourth gears in VTEC zone. After that I was completely sold. Of course you do not expect a serious boost in performance (technically youre not even paying anything for it!), but for doing almost nothing its an impressive and noticeable gain... I got less improvements from a back muffler change. But it still isnt anywhere near as much as an FD mod I think.

Indeed a lot of people do this for a cheap way of an improvement.
But of course, you sacrifice quite a bit of road comfort for it.

 

[koruptEK9]

i run 195 55 15 rear and 195 50 15 front on std susp, i will post some pics up when on my lunch break(12pm)