Wheels, Rims, and Tires

If I'm not mistaken, the gearbox ratio in the Euro cars is different from our North American version though - Perhaps the different tire rear size combined with the different Euro gear ratio is why the speedometers on both versions read correctly?

Don

Barbagris, do you have CaniOn? Maybe we can compare motor speed vs. road speed and see how it compares across the different versions of the car.

PV1 said:

Barbagris, do you have CaniOn? Maybe we can compare motor speed vs. road speed and see how it compares across the different versions of the car.

Click to expand...

Yes, but do not know if it will be accurate enough.

IIRC, motor speed shows only multiples of 100 rpm.

Anybody have a set of Dunlop 175/60R15's laying around? They're on nationwide backorder since Mitsubishi has the whole stream going to new Mirage's. Current quote is $150-$200 per tire to get them.

PV1 said:

Anybody have a set of Dunlop 175/60R15's laying around? They're on nationwide backorder since Mitsubishi has the whole stream going to new Mirage's. Current quote is $150-$200 per tire to get them.

Click to expand...

I thought the mirages use 165/65R14?

Tirerack seems to have them for $136+tax+shipping, which probably ends up around that $150+ mark that you are looking at. Are they supposed to be available for cheaper? I'm going to need some soon too...

Yeah, the Mirage uses 165/65R14. I don't know how they figured that Dunlops are backordered because of that.

I'd buy them myself, but with shipping and having them mounted and balanced puts them up higher. $150 each is the cheapest right now, from the dealer. I paid $110 each for Continentals, mounted and balanced. Too bad 175/55R15's are too small.

I wonder if there is a wheel and tire combo that'll end up with the same circumference for the rear tires as the stock tires. Paying $140 plus per tire every year is going to get old pretty quickly. Hopefully the Continentals on the front last much longer.

PV1 said:

I wonder if there is a wheel and tire combo that'll end up with the same circumference for the rear tires as the stock tires. Paying $140 plus per tire every year is going to get old pretty quickly. Hopefully the Continentals on the front last much longer.

Click to expand...

185/55 R15, -1% difference (diameter slighty smaller) than 175/60 R15.
Don't know if it's a usual (cheap) size in USA market.

195/55 R15, +0,7% (slighty bigger) but AFAIK needs a wider rim, at least 5,5", better 6".

And if you go to a new rim, you can go 14" and have a wider range of candidates.

Went to the dealer today, but won't know anything about warranty until next week. My Dunlops measured around 4/32nds tread depth at 13,500 miles on front, 14,000 miles on back. I definitely won't reach the stated 30,000-40,000 miles they claim.

I got the front end aligned. Left side was .07 in, right was .31 out, which definitely explains why it pulled to the right. Both front tires were set to .12 in. The tires seem quieter now, it handles much better, and it still behaves well in crosswinds (Continentals are better than Dunlop for this IMO). I won't see range impact until I drive to work, but I'd hope range improved.

PV1 said:

Went to the dealer today, but won't know anything about warranty until next week. My Dunlops measured around 4/32nds tread depth at 13,500 miles on front, 14,000 miles on back. I definitely won't reach the stated 30,000-40,000 miles they claim.

I got the front end aligned. Left side was .07 in, right was .31 out, which definitely explains why it pulled to the right. Both front tires were set to .12 in. The tires seem quieter now, it handles much better, and it still behaves well in crosswinds (Continentals are better than Dunlop for this IMO). I won't see range impact until I drive to work, but I'd hope range improved.

Click to expand...

We're getting pretty thin on our front tires too (after about 18k miles). Are you suggesting/hoping the Continentals should be better for range than the Dunlops? I have the Dunlops at their max pressure, but their max is pretty paltry at 36psi (maybe 38), so even just having a tire that could take more and inflating to that seems would increase range.

How are you liking the Continentals so far? On TireRack they are much cheaper ($75) than the Dunlops ($128). I guess if only the front tires are wearing prematurely, there's no problem to replace them (well, unless you're worried about winter performance, since these state clearly that they are not good in cold conditions). Any good news on a tire warranty for us?

Good news is that the dealer's working on it (they called me by mistake thinking I was Dunlop). I'm hoping the Continentals last longer. I haven't seen a big range hit (maybe 3-5 RR on average, but I think it's due to a change in routes). The Continentals absorb bumps better (maybe that's a good thing?) and are less influenced by crosswinds.

I thought max on the Dunlops was 51 and the car's recommended was 36? I run 40 psi all the way around. The Continental's max is 44.

All four of my Dunlops are just about wore out (~4/32nds left), and since the rear Continentals don't agree with the car, I'm running continental only on front with Dunlop on back. I'll let everyone know what they say for warranty.

PV1 said:

I'm hoping the Continentals last longer. I haven't seen a big range hit (maybe 3-5 RR on average, but I think it's due to a change in routes). The Continentals absorb bumps better (maybe that's a good thing?) and are less influenced by crosswinds.

I thought max on the Dunlops was 51 and the car's recommended was 36? I run 40 psi all the way around. The Continental's max is 44.

Click to expand...

The Treadwear rating of our existing Dunlop Enasave's is 340.
My Dunlop's lasted 33,000 miles.
The Continental ContiEcoContact's have a Treadwear rating of 240.
Based on the Treadwear rating the Continental's should last 70.6% as long or 23,300 miles for me.

The Speed Rating of our existing Dunlop Enasave's is H, or 130mph.
The Continental ContiEcoContact's have a Speed Rating of T, or 118mph.
While our MiEV's will never reach 130mph, or 118mph, tires with higher speed rating are made with better and stronger materials, and have better grip (handling) and stopping power (braking performance), according to the tire websites I checked.

My brother's driver side front wore out the inside edge in about 15,000 miles. The passenger side front was not far behind. The dealer checked the alignment and installed some Yokohama tires. My brother is 6'-6"+ and weighs about 265 pounds, so it may just be a camber issue with his weight on the driver's side, or it may have been a toe issue - the dealer was not able to say what, if any corrections were made.

the dealer was not able to say what, if any corrections were made.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. My dealer had a piece of paper showing toe, camber, and caster alignments both before and after. I requested a copy of the paper to keep.

An update on my tire situation. Continental has had my new, wrong-sized rear tires and is inspecting them before issuing a refund. Waiting to see how that turns out. The dealer was finally able to contact Dunlop, and they are offering a prorated replacement. The dealer has 4 new Dunlops in their parts department that they'll give me when I turn in my old Dunlops. The old tires will go to Dunlop for inspection. I'm not sure how they want payments to be handled. What will probably happen is I pay full price for the tires, then Dunlop will issue a partial refund based on their inspection.

This is starting to get confusing on who has which tires :lol: .

PV1 said:

Went to the dealer today, ... I definitely won't reach the stated 30,000-40,000 miles they claim.
I got the front end aligned. Left side was .07 in, right was .31 out, which definitely explains why it pulled to the right.

Click to expand...

You may recall that my first car had bad toe-in from the factory, alignment was fixed under warranty just after 5k miles. Front tires were due for replacement when I traded in the car at 21k miles. MR BEAN is showing very even wear and has many miles to go, now also past 21k miles. No, my cornering has not gotten milder... :twisted:

I'm sure I'll now get better mileage on the front, but the back tires have excessive wear (though very evenly). I didn't notice my misalignment until after nearly a year (roughly 10,000 miles), IIRC.

I would've liked to had the alignment done under warranty, but I'll see how the warranty on the tires themselves works out.

FiddlerJohn said:

TireRack.com said:

Hey John,

At the moment there is no LRR rating system. It's been something the gov and industry has been trying to lay out for years but it's still in the works. Right now the individual tire manufacturer will designate what tires have a LRR focus during development and rate them as such. At the moment the only LRR tire in the stock sizes for that is the original Dunlop tires.

-Cody

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think already commented in this long thread, but in Europe we have a system with labels, scored on three concepts: rolling resistance, wet braking (both "A" to "F", "A" is the best), and loudness (dB, lower is better).

For example, this is the list of summer tires on the 145/65/15 measure (front), ordered by rolling resistance, from one online seller in UK

175/55/15 (Euro rear)

175/60/15 (US rear)

Not sure if tires sold in NA are exactly the same, "equivalent" or very different.

Barbagris said:

I think already commented in this long thread, but in Europe we have a system with labels, scored on three concepts: rolling resistance, wet braking (both "A" to "F", "A" is the best), and loudness (dB, lower is better).

Click to expand...

For some reason, the 'D' rating isn't used for rolling resistance. Each rating level corresponds to ~1.3% difference in fuel efficiency, all other tire properties being equal. However, tire weight also affects fuel efficiency, so a lighter 'C' tire could be more fuel efficient than a heavier 'C' tire.

Barbagris said:

For example, this is the list of summer tires on the 145/65/15 measure (front), ordered by rolling resistance, from one online seller in UK

175/55/15 (Euro rear)

175/60/15 (US rear)

Click to expand...

It's disappointing that the lowest rolling resistance tires are only 'C'.

Barbagris said:

Not sure if tires sold in NA are exactly the same, "equivalent" or very different.

Click to expand...

NA has far fewer choices in these smaller tire sizes due to North Americans' preference for large vehicles. I'm not certain that NA and EU tires from the same manufacturer with the same model name are identical. The sidewall information is certainly different.

I just got my 2012 i-Miev and I really like it but I wish it handled as good as my 2002 VW Golf TDI, it feels like a lot of under steer.
So I was looking into options to upgrade the front tires. This thread has some good information, but I want to add my 2 cents, wearing my engineer hat:

Tire width, diameter, wear and pressure being equal, rolling resistance should be within 5% (LRR vs non-LRR). Being in the bone dry part of California, I use heavily worn tires and get great grip and RR.

Wheel weight is also important for ride quality over bumps, energy consumption (range), and handling. I measured the OEM alloy wheels with 30-40% worn Dunlops.
Front 24.7 lbs (calculated 25.1 lbs new)
Rear 28.65 lbs (calculated 29.15 lbs new)
Increasing the rotating inertia (mass) will have a big impact on acceleration, regen deceleration, and a small impact on range in city driving (10-20% energy lost during acceleration and regen deceleration).

The front rear diameter mismatch which causes regen and ASC problems might be correctable with an ECU adaptation. I have a VAGCOM that works great to do all kinds of adaptation on my VW TDI I will try to connect to the obd connector (where is it hidden?) and see if I can do anything other than read codes. Otherwise a MUT3 might solve this issue and allow same size tires or other options than OEM.

I was really interested in 14x5.5 inch Honda Civic HX or Insight wheels but the big problem I also noticed is the strut attachment bracket. If the clearance is only a little too tight, the tabs could be ground down a little with a grinding wheel, or edge bent up to 90 degrees, but this would have to be done carefully in consideration of the structural integrity. Up to a 1/4 inch could be gained by this. Wheel spacers would have to be used bringing out the front tires to a wider track than the steering geometry is designed for, but my gut feeling is that would only reduce grip and scrub the tires in low speed very sharp turns. But the lug bolts would definitely have to be changed to get 10-20mm of spacer... The 14 inch Honda wheel+...tire options are less rotating inertia even if the wheel spaces and lugs add mass overall. The mass near the axle has almost no inertia effect. The prevalence of low profile tires is mostly for marketing and not performance. Notice the Mitsu Mirage is using 14's, also Formula One is holding on to small wheels and big tires for pure performance and efficiency reasons. They might switch to low profile but will take a hit in performance unless they compensate somehow (in wheel motors for example would be good).

So the easiest option which appears to be working with better OEM size front's or 155/60R15.

Looking at the options I found:

OEM front tire size options:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/TireSearchResults.jsp?width=145%2F&ratio=65&diameter=15

OEM size Dunlop front
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Dunlop&tireModel=Enasave+01+A%2FS&partnum=465HR5ES01AS&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes&tab=Specs

OEM size Conti front, -1 lb, short life rating, same grip rating
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Continental&tireModel=ContiEcoContact+EP&partnum=465TR5EC&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes&tab=Specs

OEM size Yokohama AVID ENVigor front, -1 lb, very long life rating, same grip rating
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Yokohama&tireModel=AVID+ENVigor+%28H-+or+V-Speed+Rated%29&partnum=465HR5ENV&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes&tab=Specs

155/60R15 Kumho Solus KH16
slightly oversize width for OEM wheel (+.5in), good life and very good grip rating, +1 lb
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Kumho&tireModel=Solus+KH16&partnum=56TR5KH16&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes&tab=Specs

155/60R15 ContiProContact
slightly oversize width for OEM wheel (+.5in), good life and very good grip rating, +1 lb
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Continental&tireModel=ContiProContact&partnum=56TR5CPC&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes&tab=Specs

Is 155 safe on a 15x4 inch rim?

Looking here and putting the closest size 15x5, then subtracting 25mm (5in to 4in):
http://www.tyresizecalculator.com/tyre-wheel-calculators/tyre-size-for-rim-size-width-calculator
Minimum
tyre width 155 -25 = 130

Ideal
tyre width 165 to 175 ... 140 to 150

Maximum
tyre width 185 -25 = 160

155 is not unsafe but wear might be less than ideal.

Thanks GdB- you're getting up to speed on the i-ntricacies of this car very quickly, and I'll be coming back to your last post as a future reference.
I'm looking for a set of i-wheels to experiment with, and to run either traction tires or new all-season tires on this winter. My fronts are fine for another summer, but the tread's getting thin for slushy conditions...