Pressures on the 18's 4 lbs above the other tires. Hm-m-m-m-m. I expect they would be harsh and not grippy.
Story By Per Schroeder
Dunkin’ Donuts Munchkins aren’t really made from the dough cut out of the center of each doughnut. If they were, you’d end up with a really funny-looking doughnut, one reduced to a thin ribbon of dough. That wouldn’t do a good job of filling you up (and out) in the morning. As we all know, the best doughnuts are those with the smallest holes in their centers.
However, what’s true for doughnuts isn’t always best for performance tires. The general consensus is that a low-profile ring of rubber delivers the sharpest, crispest performance, passenger comfort be damned. Car came with 15-inch tires? Then 16s or even 17s will make it faster. The manufacturer fit 17s from the factory? Then you’ll need 18s to really fly, the pundits will say.
This concept of plus-sizing is pretty easy to grasp: Increasing the wheel diameter while reducing the tire’s sidewall will keep the overall outside diameter constant—thus not changing the gearing—yet replaces the flexible rubber sidewall with unforgiving metal to improve lateral performance. These low-profile tires generally don’t look half bad, either. In theory larger wheels also provide more room for bigger brakes.
Plus-size tires do have their downsides, though. Bigger wheels can add more weight to each corner of the car, and those short sidewalls mean a reduction in the tire’s inherent spring rate, leading to a rougher ride over pavement irregularities.
No matter what the perceived downsides, larger wheels are currently ruling the street scene for their cosmetic effect, and the concept has been taken to the extreme. Think huge rims wrapped with thin rubber bands.
Sure, those big, honking wheels can look neat, but do they really offer any increase in performance? Many manufacturers are now offering 17-, 18- and even 19-inch options on street cars; do they know something that we don’t? Or is this all just about style?
What’s certain is that this trend has made it very hard to find good street tires for our older sporty cars. Our beloved 15-inch performance tires are becoming obsolete, while requesting a high-performance 13- or 14-inch tire will usually earn a laugh from the local tire dealer.
The concept of running upsized wheels is nothing new. Two decades ago, in fact, we published our first plus-size tire test. It ran in the January 1987 issue, and we used a then-new Pontiac Trans-Am and a bunch of Firestone Firehawk tires at the University of Texas in Arlington.
Our test data showed that bigger was better as the larger tires performed best in every category measured. The Plus Two 245/50R16 combo was faster than the 215/65R15 Plus One and 205/70R14 Plus Zero setups. (And for a little terminology, a Plus One setup features a wheel diameter that is one inch larger than stock; Plus Two would be two inches bigger, and so forth. The Plus Zero term is used when fatter than stock tires are paired with the original wheel diameter; these fatter tires feature a lower aspect ratio so the outside tire diameter doesn’t change.)
We ran another plus-size tire test in the January/February 1999 issue of GRM, this time using a 1998 Honda Civic EX coupe owned by Koni’s Lee Grimes. That test was done at The Tire Rack’s old headquarters in South Bend, Ind.
Despite a totally different car plus another decade in tire technology, the results were the same. The Plus Three 215/40R17 Dunlop SP Sport tires were faster than Plus Two, Plus One and Plus Zero setups. Slight penalties in ride comfort, weight and acceleration were offset by improvements in grip and transient response.
Fast forward to another decade and we are still bench racing about the pluses and minuses of plus-sizing. Time to order up another dozen funny-looking doughnuts so we could stage another plus-size tire test. This study’s subject is a late-model BMW 325i, and the lab is the new Tire Rack test track. The giant tire retailer is still in South Bend, albeit now on the other side of town.
To remove one potential variable, we used the same make and model of tire for each step in this test. We chose the new Yokohama S.drive, the replacement for their popular, sporty AVS ES100. The S.drive, however, has better wet and dry grip than its predecessor while still maintaining great comfort and affordability in a summer tire.
We tested three sets of tires and wheels starting with the Plus Zero upgrade of 16x7.5-inch wheels and 205/55R16 tires. We then jumped to 225/45R17 tires on 17x8-inch wheels followed by 225/40R18 tires on 18x8-inch wheels. (To witness the effects of a Plus Zero upgrade, check out our October cover story; going from all-season 215/45R17 Bridgestone Potenza RE92 tires to some very sporty 225/45ZR17 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01Rs on our Subaru Impreza WRX cut autocross lap times from 32.871 seconds to 31.882.)
Our drivers for the test were The Tire Rack’s Woody Rogers and our own Per Schroeder, both old hands at The Rack’s proving grounds. In other words, no time would be wasted learning the course. The testing order would go from smallest wheel to largest, with the first set retested at the end of the sequence to ensure consistency.
This wouldn’t simply be a tale of lap times, however. Before hitting the test track, each driver sampled the tires on The Tire Rack’s street loop. This test loop goes from weather-pocked concrete to smooth asphalt, all at varying speeds. The end result is a nice picture of real-world ride and comfort.
Our performance track was the same configuration of The Tire Rack’s test facility that we use for our tire tests. It’s a nice combination of a five-cone slalom, quite a few offsets, a long skidpad section and a few high-speed sweepers.
Okay, time to don the white coats and start the testing.
Wheel size: 16x7.5 inches
Tire size: 205/55R16
Mean lap time: 43.353 sec.
As expected, the 16-inch tire package was very comfortable and mild-mannered on the road. Our drivers felt minimal road harshness, while small to medium bumps seemed somewhat distant. Larger impacts were apparent but not objectionable, and the steering was responsive, more so than an O.E. touring tire but not laser-sharp. We wouldn’t mind selling this combination to our mom.
On the track, the the car felt free, not locked down. Steering response was linear, just not prompt. This Plus Zero combination required some steering input lead time when snaking through the slalom and negotiating the tighter 90-degree corners. Waiting too long to initiate a turn forced us to hack through the maneuver, grinding the front tires or sliding the rears.
The free, tossable feeling of the tall sidewalls was fun to drive. It encouraged us to chuck the car around, but that’s not the way to quick lap times.
Wheel size: 17x8 inches
Tire size: 225/50R17
Mean lap time: 43.155 sec.
On our road loop, the 17-inch package delivered upgraded steering feel while still being tolerable to our (tolerant) butts. More high-frequency noises snuck into the cockpit from the pavement, but small and medium bumps were still well-damped. Larger bumps would occasionally crash through, but the ride wasn’t unpleasant. We might not put our mom on these tires, but we certainly would recommend them to a performance-oriented friend.
Once let loose at speed, there was a big improvement in steering response compared to the 16-inch combination. Interestingly, the increased responsiveness was not matched by a similar improvement in steady-state or mid-corner grip. We’ll gladly take the improved lap times, however.
Despite the tire’s added width, the 17-inch combo did not seem to stop quite as well as the smaller setup. This could possibly be due to the increase in tire and wheel mass.
Overall, the 17-inch combination felt the best of the three. This package had a good balance of responsiveness, stability, cornering traction and braking capability.
Wheel size: 18x8 inches
Tire size: 225/50R18
Mean lap time: 43.339 sec.
Here’s a shocker for those hailing from the bigger is better camp: The 18s didn’t win this little comparo. For one, the 18-inch wheel and tire package yielded a real degradation in ride quality on our road loop. We heard and felt more high-frequency road noise as interior panels vibrated while crossing rougher sections of pavement. Medium and large bumps became objectionable when encountered at the same speeds as before. We’d steer away from a setup this radical on a daily-driven car.
Between the cones we saw another improvement in responsiveness, although not as big a change as going from 16- to 17-inch wheels. Interestingly, the 18-inch combination felt more stable around the steady-state skidpad than either of the other combinations. The short, short sidewalls could have been the reason, as there’s simply less vertical rubber to roll over when facing high g-loads.
There was a noticeable reduction in braking performance, unfortunately, as we could feel the extra mass fighting the car. Slowing the car for the tighter turns required more pedal pressure plus an earlier braking point. The extended stopping distances hurt lap times, as the 18-inch wheel and tire package was only slightly faster than the 16s and several tenths behind the 17s.
Whether talking about doughnuts or tires, there’s always a good middle ground. Some are too sweet, while others are bland and boring. The ones in the middle of the box can often be the keepers.
For us, our middle-of-the-road 17-inch Plus One setup yielded the best combination of ride comfort and track performance. There was enough edginess to feel sporty without intruding upon conversations when encountering less than perfect roads. We’ll gladly forego that extra inch of bling and settle on solid performance.
Pressures on the 18's 4 lbs above the other tires. Hm-m-m-m-m. I expect they would be harsh and not grippy.
So apparently my 18" wheels are considered super radical? Aren't new cars coming with 20+ inch wheels nowadays? My buddy has a Challenger with 20" wheels and it rides more comfortably than my car with 18" wheels.
HapDL said:Pressures on the 18's 4 lbs above the other tires. Hm-m-m-m-m. I expect they would be harsh and not grippy.
And the 18s were significantly heavier too. Trying to find setups closer in weight would have been a better test, IMO. Same with testing width vs diameter separately (so test a 7" wheel with 205 in each size and then the 8" with 225).
You also have to watch out for the inevitable butterfly that farts on the tires too. All that uplifting gas will momentarily throw off the results depending on whether you are in corner or on a straight.
Good test overall there are just not enough of these tests that are even remotely controlled like this one
One of the other mainstream auto magazines (C&D ??) did a comparison using a VW Golf a couple years ago that was similar to this. If my (failing) memory served, they started with the 16" steel wheels shod with the selected comparison tire make / model to set a baseline, went +1, +2, maybe +3 (can't recall for sure) using alloy wheels beyond the 16's. Surprise, surprise ... the 16" setup was the fastest on their test course, probably due to the lowest unsprung weight.
Again, this is from memory so maybe not 100% accurate, but it stuck out in my mind at that time as pretty interesting.
Moment of inertia will have an effect not only on acceleration but also deceleration. It will effectively sap torque and subsequently horsepower from the whole operating range.
dannyzabolotny said:So apparently my 18" wheels are considered super radical? Aren't new cars coming with 20+ inch wheels nowadays? My buddy has a Challenger with 20" wheels and it rides more comfortably than my car with 18" wheels.
18" are considered radical to many who post on this site used to buying 13" autoX slicks, or 15" tires for an E30/Miata/etc.
The new GT350 and PP2 GT Mustang come with 19s, the 1LE Camaro's come with 20's, etc.
In reply to z31maniac : No! Corvettes and Camero’s come with 15 inch wheels.
Errr, in my era, but then I still own a car I can start with a hand crank.
dannyzabolotny said:So apparently my 18" wheels are considered super radical? Aren't new cars coming with 20+ inch wheels nowadays? My buddy has a Challenger with 20" wheels and it rides more comfortably than my car with 18" wheels.
It's a fairly old article. Per has not been a writer at GRM for a few years, now. So don't let the editorial part of the article bother you.
Plus sizing I always thought was a larger rim but the same overall diameter, width should stay constant. Shouldn't the test have been done with rims & tires that are the same width? The 16's were 0.5" narrower than the 17/18's, adding 2" more total width would equalize the grip levels and times.
In reply to dannyzabolotny :
Right below the headline in the full article, it reads:
From the Feb. 2008 issue
Yes, a lot can change in 10 years.
If you think about it wheel and tire combinations that weight more give you a double whammy.
You have to accelerate/decelerate the mass both linearly and rotationally. I guess if you have a need for bigger brakes it makes sense.
Then the practicality of narrow sidewall ultra low profile tires - its much easier to pinch them against a pothole and ruin them not to mention the expensive wheels you dent.
In reply to jharry3 :
Yes the wheel would be heavier but then the same diameter tire would be lighter. Assuming the same tread width isn’t it pretty close to a wash?
I suppose I can go to Tire Rack and find out.
In reply to frenchyd :
It depends on the tires and the exact sizes in question. Sometimes a step-up in wheel size doesn't change total weight significantly. Other times it does.
Lately it seems like the fastest setup is the company/size that lets you fit the most tire (unless you are in a width restricted class)
For instance the typical STU/STX/STS classes all restrict tire width and wheel width, nearly all competitors max those out and then it's simply a matter of who offers the fastest compound and what size nets you the least rotational mass.
In unlimited type classes it's a bit muddier. take CAM-S/Optima Do you run the 335/30r18 Rival S or do you run the 285/30r18 RE-71R? they're closer in time than you might expect, but then.........Bridgestone also offers the RE-71R in a 305 width....but you have to step up to a 19" wheel. Which is faster then?
Even if the total weight doesn't change much, the MOI can change enough to have an effect because the weight is farther out.
In reply to einy :
I thought they did a gas mileage test? I remember the test, just not a track comparison.
I remember this test but thought the 16's were the fastest. At least, that's what I've been telling my son. His MINI has 17's on it and I was recommending 16's, instead, for better ride, lighter rotational mass and better cornering.
-Rob
Tire choice is also a concern. My Accord runs a fairly tall tire from the factory, but came with 15 inch wheels. I can run a performance 15, but size goes down enough to screw with my gearing. In order to get back to stock-ish gearing and be on a reasonable compound I need to be up to a 17 inch wheel.
You are forgetting that the cars suspension was designed for the 16" wheels. A minor change in wheel dia will make a gain. Porsche normally offers a plus 1 wheel. Lighter wheels do help.
In reply to rob_lewis :
An R83 16" MINI "5 star" alloy wheel and Yoko NON-run-flat radial weighs a whopping TEN POUNDS LESS than a 17" MINI 8-spoke Minilite replica with MINI's OE run-flat tire.
That's a huge diff in rotating mass and unsprung weight.
In reply to The Staff of Motorsport Marketing :
Wait a minute. Shouldn’t horsepower enter into this discussion?
Assume an excess of power bigger tires would then reduce lap times.
frenchyd said:In reply to The Staff of Motorsport Marketing :
Wait a minute. Shouldn’t horsepower enter into this discussion?
Assume an excess of power bigger tires would then reduce lap times.
It all factors in, to be honest. I have been part of several of these tests over the years/decades. I hate to give a cop-out answer, but how do you find the best solution for your particular car? Test. It's what the fast people are doing. Watch what David Whitner does. We're presenting these tests in the magazine, but in the end there are lots of variables out there.
I'll give you a real-world example. Did you catch our Live show with Dynasty Racing? I'll post it here:
So, check this out: They determined that a 15-inch tire/wheel would be best for their FR-S. You'd assume that the lower-profile, 17-inch tire would help them in the turns, but they decided that the gearing advantage provided by the shorter tires would be even more valuable. End result: First and second at the Runoffs. And then the SCCA changed the rule for this year. 
Another variable that we haven't discussed too much: Tire construction for just one make and model of tire can vary depending on size. So, for example, the 17-inch version might feature different internal construction than the 18-inch version. I know, it's maddening.
Then there's reality. Like someone noted earlier regarding the Rival S and RE-71R, availability also matters. An 18-inch tire might be best for you, but what if your favored model doesn't come in that size?
Many years ago we did a heavy vs. light wheel test with a professional test driver. Same tires, same wheel sizes, etc. We used my personal Miata. I want to say that we tested the Kosei K-1 vs. a really heavy chrome wheel. In the end, the results were really, really close. So what happened? We're thinking that the smooth test surface negated some of the advantage of the lighter wheels. On a bumpier surface, the heavy wheels would have forced the suspension to work harder. Grip probably would have been less, so times would have been slower. On the smooth surface, though, that all went away.
A while back we did an article on tire testing--how to attack it so you can get the best results for you. Let me see if it's online. If it isn't, we'll get it into the queue. Andy Hollis wrote it and did a killer job on it.
Here's another thing to add to the tire discussion. I'm about to pull the trigger on new tires for my wife's Civic Si. The car came with the summer tire option, so I was going to stick with them. I discussed it with a friend at Tire Rack. He recommends an all-season tire from the same brand since it's a daily driver that sees rain. Won't the all-season tire be slower? I asked. Not really, he said. The all-season tire is newer, and advances in technology have made it just as fast as the summer tire from a few years back. So, yeah, so many variables.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
I'd call BS on the all seasons being as good. IMO, a summer with a good tread pattern to clear water is much better in the rain than an all season (as far as how well they stick). Heck, the difference between an average SUV type all season and even a mediocre summer tire on the Jeep is the difference between WOT at 50 (2nd gear) on wet pavement snapping the tail out instantly and WOT at 20 (1st gear) sticking perfectly fine.
In this case we were comparing a just-released all-season performance tire vs. a summer tire that came to market 6+ years ago. For daily driving, I'm going to go with some trusted friends that they're close enough in the dry with the all-season being better in the wet. In this case, we were discussing two very specific tires in a very specific case. The point was just that sometimes it's tough to compare tires based on generalities. Sometimes you have to dig deeper for the answer.
Take a look - addresses the question of what is best for performance.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/effects-of-upsized-wheels-and-tires-tested
In reply to David S. Wallens :
New technology, hmm some of that has to be buzz words while some is likely fact.
Nascar has developed the 15 inch tire to a science and those without the budget can almost stay with those that do have the budget. If you put out options like 18-20 inch wheels only those with massive budgets could be competitive. What camber curve for this track, another track etc is really optimal? Then toe issues and this style of driving, a more aggressive etc.
It’s really like tailoring a car to a drivers style not just finding out what’s best. At least at the top level of Motorsports.
As I worked on designing my MGUAR I had access to a suspension program that did predictions based on the variables I put in. I could then do the simulator thing and apply that data to a couple of the tracks I’ve raced at. Since I had no class I needed to comply with I could use almost any wheel and tire.
Remarkably the 19 inch wire wheels ( with 9.5 inch rims ) weren’t that far from 15X10 wheels with NASCAR slicks. They both even fit in the same fender.
Sure one was a racing slick while the other was a DOT tire. The only real difference was cost. One cost less than $300 a corner (‘“mag “ wheel and NASCAR take off) and one cost $900 a corner ( wire wheel and DOT tire ) $1200 vs $3200.
GRM, first of all, thank you very much for this review, finally someone did it right with
a. right car
b. similar rims and tyres
My favorite ride is BMW E46Ci and I had three different set of rims: 17" native offset, 18" near native offset, 18" huge deviation from offset for look.
To the point: 17" wheels with 245 tyres width and 45 profile is just perfect, I only wish I could put there less offset (now it deviates for 7mm) for the look but driving experience is just incredible, so guys, style is good but if you wanna rather feel it than impress others - 17 is the choice,
By the way, why do you think all motorcycles using 17" rims diameter?
In reply to z31maniac :
I think you should not compare its excellency BMW engineering department with American cars but this is only my humble opinion = )
In reply to mykola_m3 :
Did you really bump a 3 year old post just to be a fanboi?
Pro-tip. I've owned 4 BMWs. 
In reply to z31maniac :
The answer remains test. Test and test. Control all the variables. Do computer simulations to minimize the variables and then actual tests.
suddenly we're talking massive budgets. Well beyond any hope of grass roots budgets. We need some solid data so even if it's a computer simulation we can have some assurance of its accuracy.
I tried to compile a list of weights of wheels and 4 years later most of the wheels I have data on are no longer being sold.
More small tyres = more better. Well, maybe,...in theory
You'll need to log in to post. Log in
