Wheels, Rims, and Tires

Mitsubishi i-MiEV Forum

Help Support Mitsubishi i-MiEV Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
aarond12 said:
alohart said:
Such a tall tire would result in a taller i-MiEV gear ratio (speedometer error, less acceleration, possibly poorer efficiency) and might not fit in the i-MiEV wheel wells.
Not to mention these tires are rumored to be between $280 and $400 EACH. :eek:

They don't call em' Bring More Wampum for nothing. I have owned one BMW product and since that experience I will never own another, their sole aim seemed to be how much cash they could extract from my wallet.
 
aarond12 said:
alohart said:
Such a tall tire would result in a taller i-MiEV gear ratio (speedometer error, less acceleration, possibly poorer efficiency) and might not fit in the i-MiEV wheel wells.
Not to mention these tires are rumored to be between $280 and $400 EACH. :eek:
From: http://www.carid.com/bridgestone-tires/ecopia-ep500-17795424.html
BRIDGESTONE® 1619 - ECOPIA EP500 (155/70R19 Q) Eco Tires (1619) by Bridgestone®. 155/70R19, Speed Index 99 mph, Tire Weight 27 lbs. Bridgestone is proud to announce the new Ologic Technology. The unique Multicell rubber compound contains microscopic bubbles and tubes which clear water rapidly from between the tire and ice or snow surface and assure a proper contact of the tire on the road. As the water is cleared, the ‘bite’ particles come into contact with the ice surface, improving the grip even further.
SKU:17819175 Price: $137.14 Qty:4
Delivery:UPS Ground $86.16
Make: Mitsubishi i-MiEV 2012 SE Fitment NOT Verified $548.56
The tire Fitment Difference 145/65-15 vs. 155/70-19
From: http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/tirecalc.php?tires=145-65r15-155-70r19
14565-15vs15570-19_zps44d94184.png

Five inches larger diameter. Who makes a 4x100mm 19" narrow wheel?
The percentage diameter and Circum. difference is really the same as the percentage Revolutions per mile difference because 22.8% up is the same as 18.6% down.
 
FiddlerJohn said:
Five inches larger diameter. Who makes a 4x100mm 19" narrow wheel?
I just measured the tire to fender clearance. The tire diameter could be increased maybe two inches but certainly not FIVE inches. The clearance changes with the steering and suspension travel.

If BRIDGESTONE® made a 17" or smaller ECOPIA EP500, I would be tempted.
 
RobertC said:
JoeS said:
Our range has decreased by at least 15%, with no other explanation for the decrease.
Are you still running at 40 psi instead of the 60 psi that you were running before?
Yes, it's been 40 psi, but today I bumped it up to 51psi. We'll see if that does anything. Next time I take a long measured trip I'll go back up to 60psi as that's the pressure I had been running for two years.
 
Don said:
JoeS said:
Interesting about the TireRack OEM tire availability - I often wonder if "independent" tire dealers are somehow restricted in accessing a manufacturer's supply chain or if large outfits such as TireRack simply glom onto a batch of rare tires and don't share
Tire Rack does indeed make special purchases in large quantities of selected tires and for sure, they don't 'share'

The best 14 inch 'Miata Tire' ever made was the Bridgestone RE-71 (developed specially for the Porsche 959) in 195/55R14 size and when Bridgestone discontinued production of that size in 2000,
Don

If best means most efficient, the most efficient tire ever made in roughly this size is the legendary RE92 in the 165/65r14 size, if you can make it fit and air it up enough to support the mitsu's weight you should roll much further on those old LRR tires.

Understand that is the Honda Insight G1 size and is the only LRR version of the tire. In tinker toy size tires there is very little that is truly LRR, even the RE92 was never designated as one but it definately worked as one outperforming many true LRR tires.

Cheers
Ryan
 
JoeS said:
RobertC said:
JoeS said:
Our range has decreased by at least 15%, with no other explanation for the decrease.
Are you still running at 40 psi instead of the 60 psi that you were running before?
Yes, it's been 40 psi, but today I bumped it up to 51psi. We'll see if that does anything. Next time I take a long measured trip I'll go back up to 60psi as that's the pressure I had been running for two years.

My tires are in need of replacement. The Yokohama's are really well priced on TireRack right now but based on Joe's review I'll wait and get the OEM tires. The description on TireRack for the Dunlop's specifically state they are meant for the i-MiEV. I think based on these two facts, it will best for now to stay with the Dunlops even though they are twice the price of the Yokohamas.
 
MLucas, how many miles are on your. tires? I have about 11,500 miles and mine are getting pretty thin in the treads. A new set of Enasaves are $520.
 
PV1 said:
MLucas, how many miles are on your. tires? I have about 11,500 miles and mine are getting pretty thin in the treads. A new set of Enasaves are $520.

Just over 27k miles. I've done pretty good on these tires compared to others. I looked at TireRack and the EnaSaves are at that price. Based on JoeS experience I'm going to put those on the car, I can't lose 15% of my mileage because of a poor tire choice. I did get home on 5 bars yesterday, so I know my battery is in good shape and my tires are fair. 5 bars for me is the Holy Grail of mileage in my case - when I've achieved that I know the EV gods were smiling on me that day.
 
Anybody looked at the new Mirage wheels/tires? 165/65R14 Enasaves on all corners, 4.5" wide rims offset 44 mm vs our 4" front rims with 35 mm offset. The front diameter would only be 0.2% off (1 mm taller!). Spacers are easy to push the rears back out, and the 9 mm greater front offset should compensate for the 1/2" (13mm) wider rims. 3.7% less circumference than our stock rears improves acceleration, with cheaper LRR tire options available (including the $89 "legendary RE92"), and the Mirage forums are full of ricer boys "upgrading" to big rims and desperate for spending money. :roll:
I'd like to find a local Mirage owner to do a test swap with...not sure about the centerbores and strut clearance up front yet. The following comparator says I'd have 19mm less strut clearance.
My favorite tire and wheel comparator was the old miata.net site, but this one gives much more info...
http://www.rimsntires.com/specspro.jsp
 
MLucas said:
Based on JoeS experience I'm going to put those on the car, I can't lose 15% of my mileage because of a poor tire choice.
Don't be too surprised if that's exactly what happens when you install a new set of Ensaves

From the Tire Rack website, this discussion of LRR tires

"Will you see an immediate measurable impact on your fuel economy with a new set of tires? Not necessarily, for a couple of reasons

1. New, Full-Treaded Tires Generate More Rolling Resistance Than Shallow-Treaded, Worn Tires
Tire rolling resistance gradually drops by about 20% during the life of a tire as the tread wears from its original molded depth to worn out. This can be attributed to the reduction in tread mass and rubber squirm, as well as subtle hardening of the tread compound during years of service and exposure to the elements.

While this gradual reduction in tire rolling resistance and minor increase in fuel economy may be too subtle to register during the tire's life on a tank-by-tank basis, the virtually instantaneous switch from worn tires to new tires (even if they are the same brand, type and size) will typically result in an increase in rolling resistance of about 20%. Since the automotive industry estimates a 10% increase in tire rolling resistance will result in a 1% to 2% decrease in vehicle fuel economy, drivers should expect to experience a potential 2% to 4% decrease in mpg.

2. New, Full-Treaded Tires Travel Farther per Tire Revolution Than Shallow-Treaded, Worn Tires
Vehicles are programmed with their Original Equipment (O.E.) tire's revolutions-per-mile to allow their odometers to calculate the distances traveled. Unfortunately vehicle odometers aren't always 100% accurate and the tire revolutions per mile will change as its tread wears.

While many of these individual differences may seem insignificant, it is easy to understand that when they are added together, the new tires may appear to reduce vehicle fuel economy. It also means that a Toyota Prius appearing to get 50.0 mpg just before replacing its worn-out tires with new tires of the same brand, type and size, might be reduced to registering just 47.25 mpg afterwards, even if all of the driving conditions were identical."


So, any new set of tires can appear to 'cost you' mileage (range in our case) over what you experiences with your old, worn, hardened tires and then you add in another couple percent because the new' larger tire offsets your odometer by about that amount

Wickipedia says changing from standard tires to LRR tires could save you 'as much as 1.5% to 4.5%' so not much of Joe's observed 15% can be directly attributed to the tires alone

If you pay double for the Ensaves only to notice the same thing Joe did with his new Yokohama's, you're probably not going to be a happy camper either

Don
 
Don said:
MLucas said:
Based on JoeS experience I'm going to put those on the car, I can't lose 15% of my mileage because of a poor tire choice.
Don't be too surprised if that's exactly what happens when you install a new set of Ensaves

From the Tire Rack website, this discussion of LRR tires

"Will you see an immediate measurable impact on your fuel economy with a new set of tires? Not necessarily, for a couple of reasons

1. New, Full-Treaded Tires Generate More Rolling Resistance Than Shallow-Treaded, Worn Tires
Tire rolling resistance gradually drops by about 20% during the life of a tire as the tread wears from its original molded depth to worn out. This can be attributed to the reduction in tread mass and rubber squirm, as well as subtle hardening of the tread compound during years of service and exposure to the elements.

While this gradual reduction in tire rolling resistance and minor increase in fuel economy may be too subtle to register during the tire's life on a tank-by-tank basis, the virtually instantaneous switch from worn tires to new tires (even if they are the same brand, type and size) will typically result in an increase in rolling resistance of about 20%. Since the automotive industry estimates a 10% increase in tire rolling resistance will result in a 1% to 2% decrease in vehicle fuel economy, drivers should expect to experience a potential 2% to 4% decrease in mpg.

2. New, Full-Treaded Tires Travel Farther per Tire Revolution Than Shallow-Treaded, Worn Tires
Vehicles are programmed with their Original Equipment (O.E.) tire's revolutions-per-mile to allow their odometers to calculate the distances traveled. Unfortunately vehicle odometers aren't always 100% accurate and the tire revolutions per mile will change as its tread wears.

While many of these individual differences may seem insignificant, it is easy to understand that when they are added together, the new tires may appear to reduce vehicle fuel economy. It also means that a Toyota Prius appearing to get 50.0 mpg just before replacing its worn-out tires with new tires of the same brand, type and size, might be reduced to registering just 47.25 mpg afterwards, even if all of the driving conditions were identical."


So, any new set of tires can appear to 'cost you' mileage (range in our case) over what you experiences with your old, worn, hardened tires and then you add in another couple percent because the new' larger tire offsets your odometer by about that amount

Wickipedia says changing from standard tires to LRR tires could save you 'as much as 1.5% to 4.5%' so not much of Joe's observed 15% can be directly attributed to the tires alone

If you pay double for the Ensaves only to notice the same thing Joe did with his new Yokohama's, you're probably not going to be a happy camper either

Don

I see what you are saying, Don and some good points. I just hate to blow $300 dollars when for a bit more I could have gotten the tires that were designed for this car. The Yokohama's are not LRR and are used on a lot of other cars whereas the EnaSaves according to TireRack are designed for the i-MiEV and are LRR. I'm thinking the Yokohama's suffer from all three factors, not LRR, not designed for the car and being new and that adds up to the 15% loss.
 
jray3 said:
Anybody looked at the new Mirage wheels/tires? 165/65R14 Enasaves on all corners, 4.5" wide rims offset 44 mm vs our 4" front rims with 35 mm offset. The front diameter would only be 0.2% off (1 mm taller!). Spacers are easy to push the rears back out, and the 9 mm greater front offset should compensate for the 1/2" (13mm) wider rims. 3.7% less circumference than our stock rears improves acceleration, with cheaper LRR tire options available (including the $89 "legendary RE92"), and the Mirage forums are full of ricer boys "upgrading" to big rims and desperate for spending money. :roll:
I'd like to find a local Mirage owner to do a test swap with...not sure about the centerbores and strut clearance up front yet. The following comparator says I'd have 19mm less strut clearance.
My favorite tire and wheel comparator was the old miata.net site, but this one gives much more info...
http://www.rimsntires.com/specspro.jsp

Interesting, let us know how it goes.
 
JoeS said:
One-month (exactly 1000 miles) update using the Yokohama AVID ENVigors.

Something has gone wrong with our mileage: easily a 20% drop in range!
I might be overthinking this. Since the front tires rev/mile just became bigger (783 to 926 or 18% increase):

uNhl8IL.jpg


Does the iMiev computer change the power going to the wheels if it notices a speed difference between front and back wheels? I noticed while playing in the snow if one wheel turned faster than the other, all power was cut off. Thus I had to turn off the ASC when stuck in snow.

Also, with the Yokohama tires, how does the iMiev odometer compare to a GPS? Maybe the question was already answered but there are so many pages on this thread I could have missed it.

Thanx,
-Barry
 
BarryP said:
JoeS said:
One-month (exactly 1000 miles) update using the Yokohama AVID ENVigors.

Something has gone wrong with our mileage: easily a 20% drop in range!
... Since the front tires rev/mile just became bigger (783 to 926 or 18% increase) ... -Barry
Barry, thanks for posting.

I like your thinking, but this smaller tire would falsely indicate longer distance and better range. I'm hoping we can understand this before I need new tires.

Barry's TireRack comparison also shows that our rims are 1/2 inch thinner than the design spec.

from: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=199
"The measuring rim width is the industry standardized rim width upon which the tire must be mounted in order to confirm it meets its dimensional targets. Because the width of the rim will influence the width of the tire, a standard rim width for every tire size is assigned and must be used."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top