[nick17s]

Originally Posted by nick17s

Hello folks, can you please help in choosing 195/60/15 or 205/55/16 for 2010 IVTEC?

Will 205 be too fat ?

Got Maxxis MAZ1 205 55 15 fitted on OE rim.

[ecenandu]

Guys, I was planning to upsize my tyres to 195/60 Michelln Primacy ST. But have steel rims, do you guys recommend the upsize on stock steel rims?

Honda City '09

[Habanero City]

Originally Posted by ecenandu

Guys, I was planning to upsize my tyres to 195/60 Michelln Primacy ST. But have steel rims, do you guys recommend the upsize on stock steel rims?

Honda City '09

You can upsize on stock rims (15 inches) with 195/60.
In fact the previous post says upsizing even upto 205.
Please be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of upsizing and make a suitble decision.

[Aston Singh]

Guys, upsizing to 195 for the Honda City is more than enough considering the power output, weight, suspension setup etc. It's not always about fatter tyres providing better grip, cornering, comfort etc, it's also about the quality of the rubber. From a personal experience, always go in for a good quality rubber. And most importantly decide on the basis of your usage.

[breezydrive]

My 2011 ANHC has covered 48000 km; the stock Michelin XM1 could have lasted atleast for another 5000 km but for a sharp metal piece which pierced the front RHS tyre and rendered it useless.

I am now contemplating upgrade to 195/60 on alloys. I have finally zeroed down to Michelin Primacy or Michelin XM2. Would like to have users/ experts opinion, pl advise.

For alloys, most of designs are available in 6.5 J; Michelin recommends rim width between 5.5 J to & 7 J with an ideal size of 6J. Has anyone installed 6.5 J rims, do they cause any problems with the suspension/ steering/ scrap wheel well ?

[sdatta]

I recently bought a used 2010 Honda city V that has been driven just 31,000 in 5 years !! It has the MRF tyres and I dont like them, too much road noise and seems a bit hard and already had 3 punctures in one tyre since I bought it 1 month ago. So I want to shift to Michelin XM2 or Primary 3ST (I had the XM1 on my old Swift).

I've read through all the posts and it seems most of you are suggesting 195/60 R15 as better compared to standard 175/65/R15 size for better ride comfort, and grip and looks of the car.. but it seems quite odd to me that with that I'll lose upto Rs. 600 per month on fuel (assuming 1kmpl loss and 1000km per month) - To me that's not nothing !

I'd like to tell myself that the loss of mileage is not really 1kmpl or I wouldn't drive it 1000km per month, because I really like the 195 for the above reasons, but it's a heart and brain debate and ultimately I think the brain will win, and I'll go for the XM2 175/65/R15 as I dont want to spend the extra money on fuel each time, or look at my dashboard mileage and repent buying the tire everyday. Regarding the model, if I take 195/60 R15 I will go for Primary 3ST instead as that tyre is available at that size and its supposedly better than XM2)

My questions are
1. Is my understanding on the fuel consumption between 175 and 195 correct, i.e. 1kmpl difference ? Or is it any other difference that comes into play, like you drive more aggressive with a better tyre? Or is it a difference between brand/model itself (e.g. MRF vs XM2 vs P3ST) and not just the size.

2. If I move from the current MRFs to XM2 175,i.e. same size, will I feel anything better with Roadnoise and grip ?

3. If answer to question 2 is yes (asuming so else there's not much point to change the tyre!), then how much more better will 195 Primary 3ST ?

Fuel efficiency is important to me.. ! Thanks for your inputs guys!

Thanks for your inputs.

[ecenandu]

Went for 195/65, looks good. Too early to comment on the performance. Will update after fair usage. Thanks everyone for the suggestion. Especially, Habanero City.

[arunkumarsarat]

Originally Posted by sdatta

but it seems quite odd to me that with that I'll lose upto Rs. 600 per month on fuel (assuming 1kmpl loss and 1000km per month) - To me that's not nothing !

My questions are
1. Is my understanding on the fuel consumption between 175 and 195 correct, i.e. 1kmpl difference ?
2. If I move from the current MRFs to XM2 175,i.e. same size, will I feel anything better with Roadnoise and grip ?

I don't think that estimating such minute variations in fuel efficiency and then extrapolating it for an entire month is the right approach.

Even if it is, for 600 rupees you get better braking and control, noiseless tires and a less bumpy ride. Imagine the loss you may suffer if the car does not stop on time even in a single instance.

Your stock MRFs are five years old and you should definitely change them to XM2 due to the reasons mentioned above.

[sudeepg]

Originally Posted by ecenandu

Went for 195/65, looks good.

I wish you went for 195/60 rubber. this is a wrong upsize for Honda city with a stock size of 175/65. You are going to have a serious deviation in the speedo readings as well as odo readings.

[ecenandu]

Originally Posted by sudeepg

I wish you went for 195/60 rubber. this is a wrong upsize for Honda city with a stock size of 175/65. You are going to have a serious deviation in the speedo readings as well as odo readings.

I know it's not the correct upsize, but needed that extra ground clearance.

[sudeepg]

Originally Posted by ecenandu

needed that extra ground clearance.

It's really a myth (IMO) that upsizing by an incorrect and higher size leads to better ground clearance. While someone on the forum did claim to have better ground clearance with 195/65, it's going to strain your car for sure. The problem with the city's Ground clearance is not its tyres, but rather the suspension. It's too soft and will sit down with a full load. Now consider that with a higher patch tyre, it's not good for the car in the long run.

The correct way to address the ground clearance issue is to change the suspensions to a bit stiffer ones. There are many cars with a similar ground clearance spec but do not scrape because they have firmer suspension setup. I've been researching this quite a bit and thought Koni FSD would be the best thing to go in for, but unfortunately, they do not have Konis for City. I confirmed this with the Methods Automotive sales team. The only option seems to be Teins Super Street or go in for a hack like using Autorunners placed on the rear coil springs. It surely has sorted out my ground clearance to about 95%.

[hserus]

Sort of OT but I don't see a different thread for it, and no point starting one given the wealth of information in this thread. Any suggestions for upsizing tires on a Honda Amaze 1.2 i-vtec? (S MT variant, no ABS).

The stock tires are 175/65 R 14 MRFs, nothing much to write home about. Done ~ 10K KM so I can use them for a good bit more, but the ground clearance still manages to scrape a few of the outside speedbreakers people keep installing around bangalore. I'd probably move to Michelin or Yoko - though I'm not really brand conscious or anything, ride quality is what I'm looking for.

[ecenandu]

Originally Posted by sudeepg

It's really a myth (IMO) that upsizing by an incorrect and higher size leads to better ground clearance.

Ah, good to know that the ground clearance issue got sorted out using Autorunners. Any drawbacks of using the same.

The usage of my dad's City is sparse now. 2kms(Bad roads)/6days and 80 odd Km(highway) trip twice or thrice a month. In the 2 Km weekly route, the car used to scrape over two bumps, nothing bad but very irritating and has to go really slow at an angle.

(BTW, mostly 2 people on board with little luggage)

The upsize did work on these two bumps at least, so the 'Myth' looks like plausible.

it's going to strain your car for sure.

In what ways? If its about the wider(195mm) contact patch, then definetly yes. I can see a drop of about 0.8 to 1 kmpl drop in mileage.

[sudeepg]

Originally Posted by hserus

Any suggestions for upsizing tires on a Honda Amaze 1.2 i-vtec? (S MT variant, no ABS).

.... ride quality is what I'm looking for.

Using an online tyre size calculator, it seems you could do with 195/60 R14
http://1010tires.com/Tools/Tire-Size...5R14/195-60R14. This will keep the overall diameter variance under 2% and therefore the speedo error won't be that much.

Originally Posted by ecenandu

Ah, good to know that the ground clearance issue got sorted out using Autorunners. Any drawbacks of using the same.
The upsize did work on these two bumps at least, so the 'Myth' looks like plausible.
In what ways? If its about the wider(195mm) contact patch, then definetly yes. I can see a drop of about 0.8 to 1 kmpl drop in mileage.

The drawback of using Autorunners is yet to be proved. A few people are trying this out at the moment to understand the long term effects. GTO is using this on his Civic and has not noticed any problems so far. I am using it since 4 years and my car's suspension feels a bit more planted on the rear, besides solving its purpose of preventing the scraping. Many here believe that there is a slight strain on the suspension because we are not allowing the full compression of the coil spring. This can happen especially when running under full load. so let's say if your suspension is to be replaced at 100,000 KMS, then you may need to change it just at about 90,000. But again, this is yet to be proved. The theory here is that if the suspension is at 90,000 KMs, it's more or less hosed anyways.

Secondly, wrong upsize can cause the following problems

a. Speedo error in excess of 2%, i.e. 4.27%, which is a big no no in my opinion. In other words, if your speedo shows 100, your car is actually doing 104+. Thus the stopping distance will increase in the event of an emergency braking
b. Strain on your braking system will lead to premature brake wear or unexpected brake failures. Although I am yet to hear a report around this. You will definitely start to see that your brake pads will wear out much faster with this upsize.
c. Also, if the interceptor flags you down when you think you were within the speed limit, chances are you were actually over the limit and you didn't know about it. There is no argument with the cop at that point.
d. The suspension will also take a strain over a period of time because the tyre is now over and above the recommended size.

Question: Are you sure that it's the car's under belly that was taking the hit when crossing the dump or was it the front mud flaps that were taking the hit? After upsizing my tyres to 195/60/R15 the usual speed breaker where my mud flaps used to scrape no longer do. So it may "seem" like the wrong upsize made a difference.

[hserus]

Either that or 185/65 R14 looks like - that's 2.23% though. As for me, underbelly - at the back of the car with a full load of passengers, when I take a hit. Sounded too solid / metallic to be mudflaps. Thanks!