Matt :
It definitely depends on what you are doing, but in general there's no hard
relation between tire width and car weight. _If_ everything else is equal,
then narrow tires do have an advantage in some limited situations, like
moderately deep snow and standing water. But, tread design and whatnot are
bigger considerations.
165/65-14 is not too uncommon, it shouldn't be too hard to find some in a
decent performance tire. Purely as an example, Tire Rack has Bridgestone
Potenza RE92 in that size, $47/tire.
It still isn't going to work well in deep snow or on ice, for that you need
studded tires and/or chains.
Randall
> I've got a 2001 Honda Civic LX Sedan. The car supposedly weighs 2465
> lbs and has the factory all-season Firestones in 185-70-14. I have
> been sorely disappointed at how easy it is to get them locked up in
> the ice, snow and even plain old rain. My old SAAB (89 900 Turbo SPG)
> was never this bad. Admittedly, the SAAB had all-season performance
> tires, but can this be ALL the difference?
>
> It seems to me that the tires might just be too damned wide. I ran my
> SAAB (about 2900 lbs) on 195-60-15 tires. It makes sense to me that,
> all things being equal (like tire compound, weight distribution and
> weight transfer), tread width ought to be proportional to vehicle
> weight in order to get similar traction characteristics out of both
> cars. In the SAAB's case, that's 2900/195 or about 14.9. The Honda
> is 2465/185 or about 13.3. In order to get a similar weight:width
> ratio out of my Honda, I'd need to run 165s (fat chance finding a
> decent set).
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/shop-talk
|