'95 Civic CX HB with '93 VX wheelset-Tire Question
 

Hi everyone...
I recently bought a used set of the factory '93 VX alloys at 9lb ea. to replace my stock '95 steel wheels with plastic hubcaps at almost 19lb+ ea. I've been trying to figure out what size tires to put on these wheels, so my odometer and speedometer won't be affected. I went to the dealer, and they told me for the 1993 VX wheel, the stock tire size was 165-70-13. I'm understanding the first number is the width of the tire, so this shouldn't affect the speedo or odometer should it? If I go wider but lower profile, then the instruments should read accurately, correct? Do we buy the tire size to match the wheel specs, or to match the year and model of the car?

I don't know,but the tires that came with the car were really small, and they just looked funky.

Currently on the 13" steel stock wheels now on the '95 car, I have 185-70-13 which is what the people at the tire store sold me, and I think I'm going faster than the speedo is indicating, cause at 80mph, I'm leaving everyone in the dust, and people pretty much all drive 80 here on the freeways.
The other thing is, I was thinking about the Sumitomo HTR 200, which is sposed to be a high perf but low rolling resistance tire, to increase my gas mileage.
so they have three sizes, and I'm not sure which one to get, cause now the wheels call for different size than my car calls for, cause they are from different years.
The sizes I have to choose from are 175/50HR13 72H, 175/70HR13 82H and 185/60HR13 80H. The first one is $48 ea the other two are $39 each. Why is the smaller tire more expensive? Is 50H a low profile tire?
Any suggestions anyone can offer with authority or experience in this would be appreciated. I'm buying these tires through Tirerack.com, so I can't exactly go to the local tire store, they aren't gonna be all that enthused to help me buy tires from the competition. OR, if anyone can suggest a better tire for gas mileage, I'd appreciate it. I got this brand and model off the greensavers website.
thanks!
Barb

Tire size calculator website 1010tires.com
 

Wow, thank you.

That chart is very cool, exactly what I needed. Now I can see what tires to buy, based on keeping the speedo the same.

I was looking for certain tires that are low rolling resistance, and the internet isn't the greatest for finding tire stores in the local area, unless they have their own website, which most of the smaller ones do not. The bigger chains don't seem to have the tires I'm looking for...

thanks again, well done!

Bixy:thumbup:

'95 CX original tire size from factory was 165/70/13. My experience has been if you go w/ a taller tire than the original tire size, the odometer will register too few miles. There are only a few tires available in this size now since it is an oddball size. For a 165/70/13 LRR tire, your only 2 options (from my research) is the Sumitomo HTR T4, available from Sears for around $46 (I have these in size 175/70/13 on my '95 Civic hatchback) and Vredestein Quatrac II (limited availability from a couple of Vredestein dealers in the US).

You can also use 175/70/13 for which there many more tires available.

The stock size on your Vx wheels are 155/80/13. That what came out on the civic Vx. But you can go up to 175/70/13. 155 is skinny, but still can handle great (no too great).

I used 155/80-13 on my both set(winter & sunner) of VX mag.

The first number in the tire size is the tread width in millimeters. So a 155/80-13 tire would have a 15.5 cm wide tread.
The second number is the aspect ratio of the tire. It's the ratio of the tread width to the side wall height. So going back to the 155/80-13 example, the tire side wall would be 155 mm * .80 = 124 mm.
The final number is the rim size in inches.
So, if you wanted to find out the overall rolling diameter of a tire, you calculate the side wall height, convert it to inches (or the rim size to metric if you prefer SI measures), multiply it by two (measuring the diameter of a wheel/tire combo means measuring the sidewall twice) and add the rim size. Once you have the diameter, you can calculate the circumference (distance traveled per revolution) by multiplying by pi.

So, the side wall height would be 165 mm * .70 = 115.5 mm, or 4.547". The overall diameter would be (4.547" * 2) + 13" = 22.094.

175 mm * .50 = 87.5 mm or 3.445". (3.445" * 2) + 13 = 19.89"
175 mm * .70 = 122.5 mm or 4.823". (4.823" * 2) + 13 = 22.646"
185 mm * .60 = 111 mm or 4.370". (4.370" * 2) + 13 = 21.74"

I took some time to record odometer and GPS readings in my CRX several years ago and then compared them along with calculated tire sizes. I came to the conclusion that a wheel/tire combo with a 23" overall diameter would make the odometer accurate. Obviously the CX speedo may be calibrated for a different overall diameter, but I thought I would throw that idea out there.

Which tire do you think I should buy? I want a reasonably well handling tire.

Size: 145/80/13
Price: $43.66
Weight: 11 pounds

--or--

size: 165/70/13
Price: $53.50
Weight: 14

How much more LRR do you think the first tire is? Would it fit on my VX wheels?

After shipping the first tires are $42 cheaper. $199.12 for four of them with shipping. For a set of four of the second tires is $241.27 with shipping.

I just wanted a comparison of the two tires. One is 145mm wide, the other is 165mm. Their aspect ratio is slightly different as well (you can see the size differences in my post) otherwise they are identical tires.

BTW, here is a diameter calculator

well geez mister, you sure are smart! I'm gonna take some pics of my tires and get your expert opinion of their r.r. Thanks for the dissertation! :)

meanwhile, here is a pic of the tires I am thinking of buying.

https://www.tiresunlimited.com/images...n/Quatrac2.gif

A wider tread will give you a bigger contact patch and therefore more grip. I went from 175/70-13s to 195/60-14s... Huge difference in traction. The 175 profile tires were terrible in the rain, though I suppose tire design probably played a big role there as well. That reminds me... When comparing tires, make sure you look at the UTQG code. It will be a 3 digit number followed by two letter codes - AA, A, B or C. The number represents the rate of wear... A higher number tire should last longer. The letters grade the braking force in the wet, and resistance to heat buildup during high speed use.
So I guess I would say that if the tires UTQG code is decent - 300+ and A's or better, you might be able to get away with the 145 profile, though you would be practically driving on spares.
Personally, I think the 165s are pushing the small end of the scale. I wouldn't even consider 145s for my car. Tires are a safety item. If the tires lose traction with the road, the best suspension and brakes mean nothing... You're sliding wherever the car's inertia takes you.

cool, thanks.

here's the review of the 175/70/13s

Tell me my front tires aren't seriously high r. r.!

This is my front tire:

https://bp1.blogger.com/_Y8WoJeZ-J4c/...0/Fall+241.JPG

and my rear tire:

https://bp2.blogger.com/_Y8WoJeZ-J4c/...0/Fall+240.JPG

https://bp0.blogger.com/_Y8WoJeZ-J4c/...ear+tread1.jpg

Heh, well they advertise the tire as "reasonably low rolling resistance"

Yikes.
This thread is loaded with approximate unconfirmed old wives tales.

Wider tread does not make a larger contact patch.
Contact patch size is determined by weight of vehicle working against the tire's air pressure. So a wider tire gives a different shape contact patch but the area in sqare inches remains the same.

What does give a performance improvement - in practical terms - is a larger wheel diameter. Because to keep the same overall (outer) tire daimeter, you now use a tire with shorter sidewalls. Shorter sidewalls will flex less and so give you a handling improvement. Keeping the outer tire diameter constant is needed so that your speedo and odometers will be correct.

OK. Next.

All that above is only about handling. Handling affects fuel economy only in that better handling would theoretically enable you to control the car better. That's all, though that can be critical at some times.

Skinnier tire will give better fuel economy. I wouldn't get anything skinnier than whatever was stock, but I wouldn't go 30-40 mm wider either. Considering that many cars from early '90's still had pretty skinny tires, 10-20 mm. wider might be reasonable.

Rolling resistance has little to do with tire size. Has a lot to do with tire pressure and has a lot to do with rubber compounds and tread design.

More tire pressure = reduced RR. Most of us run our tires AT LEAST at "max sidewall", the spec you'll see on the tire itself. The car maker's spec is mainly for the comfort of your backside. Higher pressure also improves handling. Again, because the now stiffer tire will hold up better when stressed in fast cornering and braking. Also gives longer tire life, due to less flexing of the rubber. That flexing creates heat and stresses the material. Less flex, longer life, better handling, reduced rolling resistance.

Tire makers have avoided giving us standardized RR specs for their tires. Sorry. There's some information out there but very little, and much of the most detailed information is from '05, so the tire models have changed since then. Vote in some green liberal politicians, we might get more/better information that way.

Sorry for the rant.
Sorry too that I didn't give references.
Google searches can help.
Also tirerack.com has some tech information re. tires.

Maybe. The weight of the vehicle distributed over the contact patch of all four tires... The air pressure in the tire would distribute the weight of the car over the back of the tire's contact patch. If you increase the weight of the car, the patch's area would grow to compensate. But that assumes that the tire is infinately flexible. If you had no air pressure, the theoretical tire would have an infinately large contact patch unless the car had no weight.
In fact, the tire has structure in the form of steel and textile reinforced rubber. When you have no air pressure, the tire's structure still applies force to the road. Yeah, a wider tire may result in a wider, shorter contact patch, but I don't think it's area would be the same as the original tire's.

here's an email correspondence I had with the people at vredestein tire about the Quatrac 2. Thought I'd share with everyone:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Root [mailto:chesterules@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:50 PM
To: info@tiresunlimited.com
Subject: Low Rolling Resistant tire


Hi, I am interested in buying the most low rolling resistant tire possible for my car. You have mentioned that the Quatrac 2 are a "reasonably low rolling resistant tire". Just how LRR are they? I was thinking of buying a set of four Quatrac 2 tires in the size 165/70/13. I am wondering just how Low Rolling Resistant the tire is? Do you have any comparisons or results from tests or some other kind of information on the LRR of the tires for me to read? It's very hard to find a LRR tire in this size! (Honda no longer makes the original LRR tire for the Honda Civic VX)

Thanks,
Jason





Jason,



You don’t have many options. In your size we have a Marangoni Trio and the Vredestein Snowtrac and Quatrac. The Quatrac is the only tire I will put on my car, my wife’s car, my three son’s cars and their wife’s and fiancée’s cars. Period. And it’s not because of the low rolling resistance but because it’s a world-class tire and I haven’t seen anything that can beat it.



Thank you,



Allen W. Rowe

Tires Unlimited, Inc.

How the hell is a snow tire LRR?

How the hell do you reply so fast? I think he's talking about the quatrac 2 which is all season and which is what I was referring to.

He also mentions some snowtrac tire besides that one, which I assume is a snow tire.

right, he does. But he says the quatrac is the only one he puts on his wife's car, not for LRR but for performance or whatever. He doesn't say snowtrac. He only mentions that there is a snowtrac tire.