Tyre width questions/opinions?

[boom1]

I currently have a Black Ed, so OEM fitment tyres are 255/35/19. The rim size is 19x8.5j.
I have always replaced like for like (size wise) but have made my way through lots of different tyres and have my likes and dislikes.
For example a Vred Ultrac Vorti 255/35/19 is about £180/corner, whereas the 235/35/19 is £150/corner
But I'm wondering whether anyone has dropped the width?? Was there was any noticeable difference in handling??
Anyone ever tried a mixed size set up (narrower front, wide back)?

[zollaf]

dropping the width but keeping the same profile will make the overall diameter smaller so upset the gearing, speedo and overall performance. if going narrower then you need to up the profile to match to keep the diameter the same. google tyre calculator and enter the sizes. also, a 235 on an 8.5 j rim may be bit stretched so you would need to check that rim is approved for that size tyre.
also remember that everything is worked out by audi to be 'right'. is it worth 30 quid a corner to see if you can do better ?

[Guest 2]

big rims = expensive tyres

example, 4x Michelin PS2 255/35/19 £1000! :(

[zollaf]

i just couldn't do it. for that much i would want some 17'' lenso's and avons for my 80, but i am too tight to do it.

[boom1]

dropping the width but keeping the same profile will make the overall diameter smaller so upset the gearing, speedo and overall performance. if going narrower then you need to up the profile to match to keep the diameter the same. google tyre calculator and enter the sizes. also, a 235 on an 8.5 j rim may be bit stretched so you would need to check that rim is approved for that size tyre.
also remember that everything is worked out by audi to be 'right'. is it worth 30 quid a corner to see if you can do better ?

Not sure what you mean???
General consensus says that the optimal tyre width for a 8.5j rim is actually a 235, with 255 being the maximum the rim can handle, and 215 being the minumum.
Surely the gear ratio, speedo etc is related to the aspect ratio/diameter? So a 235/35 will have exactly the same overall circumference/diameter as a 255/35. Only difference is a 20mm width difference.

[boom1]

big rims = expensive tyres

example, 4x Michelin PS2 255/35/19 £1000! :(

I agree! Big rims = expensive tyres.
Michelin (PS2), Conti (SC3 & 5), Dunlop (Sport Maxx), Bridgestone (Potenza), I have never got more than 15k out of a tyre, and don't really have an issue with that.
But if I was able to drop tyre cost by 10-20% for a 20mm width reduction, provided it didn't effect performance too much I would certainly look into it.

[Guest 2]

I got 31k out of that set of Michelin PS2s quoted above! :approve:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zollaf]

Not sure what you mean???
General consensus says that the optimal tyre width for a 8.5j rim is actually a 235, with 255 being the maximum the rim can handle, and 215 being the minumum.
Surely the gear ratio, speedo etc is related to the aspect ratio/diameter? So a 235/35 will have exactly the same overall circumference/diameter as a 255/35. Only difference is a 20mm width difference.
fair enough , if the 8.5 j rim will take a 235 then thats fine.
the aspect ratio is the depth of the sidewall as a percentage of the width, i.e. the profile. so a 255 35 will have a sidewall that is 35 % of 255mm, 1.e. 89.25mm. a 235 is 82.25mm, so 7mm less, but then its x2 on the diameter because there are 2 sidewalls per diameter, so its actually 14mm less overall on the diameter, so a lot smaller. a 235 40 would then be 94mm, so 10mm overall bigger.


try putting some figures in here and you will see what i mean Tyre Size Calculator - Legal Requirements - Etyres (http://www.etyres.co.uk/tyre-size-calculator)

[boom1]

the aspect ratio is the depth of the sidewall as a percentage of the width



Cheers,
Had always presumed that the aspect ratio was %age of the wheel diameter, rather than the tyre width.
In my my mind it would make more sense for it to be %age of diameter.

[boom1]

I got 31k out of that set of Michelin PS2s quoted above! :approve:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had seen your boasts regarding this before;)
Not sure how you managed that though?
TBH the PS2's I had on a FWD A3 170 lasted the longest of any of the tyres I've had, and were certainly the best performance. But even on the FWD the rears lasted 16k, fronts lasted 14k.
On my A4 Quattro, only getting 12k from a set (Contis & Dunlops)

[Guest 2]

I'm not sure how it happened, but it certainly did.

Full alignment was done at Audi after fitting, about 50:50 town/motorway driving too.

Still 2mm on the rears, needed two new fronts for MOT (Uniroyals) but when the rears need changing I'll be going Michelin again.

Heavier car than your A4 aswell.

[Zenerdiode]

On my A4 Quattro, only getting 12k from a set (Contis & Dunlops)

:bigeyes: Are you driving like you stole it? I'm no <REMOVED > but I'm still on my original tyres with about 4.5mm and 27k miles. (Dunlop Sport Maxx).

Still, they're all wearing nice and evenly, so when they need changing, it'll be all four with that slight pain in the wallet pocket...

[boom1]

:bigeyes: Are you driving like you stole it? I'm no <REMOVED > but I'm still on my original tyres with about 4.5mm and 27k miles. (Dunlop Sport Maxx).

Still, they're all wearing nice and evenly, so when they need changing, it'll be all four with that slight pain in the wallet pocket...

:biglaugh:

It would be rude to not give a squirt every now and again, but wouldn't say that I drive like I stole it (unless you have the rare moment when a numpty has forgetten their money at the Severn bridge and you have an enire road full of people just gagging for the barriers to lift at the same time!).
Most of my mileage is motorway at 80ish mph, but with the rest being nice twisty Welsh B-roads!
27k out a set is very good. Working for Miss Daisy obviously has its perks!;)

[markp306]

:bigeyes: I'm still on my original tyres with about 4.5mm and 27k miles. (Dunlop Sport Maxx).



That's impressive!

I got about 16k from some Sport Contact 2s in standard 225/50R17 size and thought that was acceptable, although a FWD diesel isn't going to go easy on any tyres of course. I now have some KU39s XLs which have managed 12k to date and are on track to do a little more that the Contact 2s. So, in theory the Conti's aren't worth the extra £ v. miles although aren't a bad all-rounder.

Maybe I should take a closer look at these Dunlops you talk about?