Anybody got 16 inch wheels on their FR-S /BRZ?

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by venturaII

225 is certainly acceptable for use on a 7" rim, especially in taller aspect ratios required for running smaller diameter wheels. I run 225/50-16s on 16x7s and have zero issues at all. The tire does not roll over like everyone thinks it will, even when autocrossing, and I'm only running pressure in the high 30's.

Depends also the tire, but the general rule is to use a 215 width tire on a 7'' rim. It is also the option from the factory. If you want to go a bit more aggressive, you can use a 205 width tire on the same rim. This is what I am using. Your width is acceptable if you don't mind to have a little tire flex.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Depends also the tire, but the general rule is to use a 215 width tire on a 7'' rim. It is also the option from the factory. If you want to go a bit more aggressive, you can use a 205 width tire on the same rim. This is what I am using. Your width is acceptable if you don't mind to have a little tire flex.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that less tire on a given size wheel width is more aggressive, but that's beside the point. A 7" wheel is acceptable for a 225 wide tire of nearly any aspect ratio, ESPECIALLY if you are going higher, not lower in aspect ratio. Since that is what you're doing when dropping to a 16" wheel, there's no problem whatsoever. Theory does not translate well to reality much of the time. There was more sidewall flex with my 215/45-17s than there is with my 225/50-16s. Use the correct tire type for how you plan to drive the car, and stop getting hung up on numbers.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by venturaII

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that less tire on a given size wheel width is more aggressive, but that's beside the point. A 7" wheel is acceptable for a 225 wide tire of nearly any aspect ratio, ESPECIALLY if you are going higher, not lower in aspect ratio. Since that is what you're doing when dropping to a 16" wheel, there's no problem whatsoever. Theory does not translate well to reality much of the time. There was more sidewall flex with my 215/45-17s than there is with my 225/50-16s. Use the correct tire type for how you plan to drive the car, and stop getting hung up on numbers.

I am not talking about theory. I'm also using a 225/55 tire on a 17x7'' wheel, but on a different car and for an entirely different application (off-roading).

[Trettiosjuan]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Depends also the tire, but the general rule is to use a 215 width tire on a 7'' rim. It is also the option from the factory. If you want to go a bit more aggressive, you can use a 205 width tire on the same rim. This is what I am using. Your width is acceptable if you don't mind to have a little tire flex.

205 is factory on a 16x6,5" rim...

That said, the /50 or /55 aspect ratio tyres usually have a less sporty, thinner sidewall. And quite often a lower road rating, which usually means softer less strong sidewall. And obviously the sidewall itself is higher. Wider tires on the same rim give less stretch and more room for flex.

Given the same tire type and widths, you will have more flex on 16". Again, obviously. But I've got news. Flex isn't always bad. Just like having suspension travel isn't bad ("hi I lowered my car 5", why is the wheel scraping the liners?"). Duh. Sorry drifting off, anyhow...

Choose 16" for comfort, light weight (and associated performance gains) and/or hard cornering on bad, broken surfaces. Whatever toe settings you have, a bit more toe is needed on more flexing sidewalls (more slip angle) to get the same effect on handling. Could always try that before changing tires. Since sidewall flex has more room to vary on tire type, choose your tire wisely depending on the type of driving you do.

I prefer quite soft sidewalled, round shouldered tires, great for DD and back road driving on bad and unpredictable surfaces.

[MacOverSteer]

Did somebody say sidewall flex....
I'm running the 225/50 setup people have been talking about. This pic is the one of the fronts where deformation is more extreme.
I say get the best tyres you can, the beauty of the small light wheel setup is that it asks a lot from the tyres first. Only when pushed really hard does it ask the suspension and the rest of the car.
I won't lie, this setup when driving normal almost feels a bit vague but start pushing harder to the limit and that's when it comes to life.
Couple of things I must mention... I push the 86 as hard as I can whenever I can... I'm on stock suspension with door stabilizers and front tower bar.

[stockysnail]

Originally Posted by MacOverSteer

Did somebody say sidewall flex....
I'm running the 225/50 setup people have been talking about. This pic is the one of the fronts where deformation is more extreme.
I say get the best tyres you can, the beauty of the small light wheel setup is that it asks a lot from the tyres first. Only when pushed really hard does it ask the suspension and the rest of the car.
I won't lie, this setup when driving normal almost feels a bit vague but start pushing harder to the limit and that's when it comes to life.
Couple of things I must mention... I push the 86 as hard as I can whenever I can... I'm on stock suspension with door stabilizers and front tower bar.

Are those Bridgestone RE-11a?

[MacOverSteer]

There RE002's treadwear 220. The RE 11a was/is hard to get hold of where I am, it's seen as a track tyre here. They just introduced the RE003 here and I'll be checking it out down the line, it's has an improved side wall and even looks a lot like the RE 11a.

[NissanGuy]

I think I've been running my shit long enough to give a thorough-enough review.

I've got 16x7 +40 (after spacers) 17 pound wheels, with Kumho Ecsta 4X front and Hankook Ventus V12 Evo2 rear. I run 46/45 psi front/rear because these tires are really soft, 205/55r16 all around.

Good: Hankooks are lightweight and soft as all hell, so the rear is super comfortable. In low-speed turns, the rear sidewall folds over and the lightness (19lb) means it's eager to wheelspin. Because the tire is so soft it doesn't jolt and hop over bumps (like stock ones do), it's super consistent over rough terrain. Not that it matters in California, but from what I can tell the wet-weather traction from these directional tires is sticky as hell. I haven't been able to overheat the tires yet.

Bad: The downside is that these Hankooks are just so soft. The rear of the car rides, and therefore handles, like a Camry: hit a giant bump and it smoothly loses traction for the next like 80 feet. I briefly had four of these tires and the steering responsiveness was pure shit. Literally, the time delay between steering input, and vehicle maneuvering, made me nauseated. With these out back, and stock 17" front, the car handled perfectly (but looked ridiculous).

So I fitted different front tires as an emergency measure. A friend said Kumho Ecsta 4X are stiff but not too grippy, so I got a pair for the front.

Good: The Kumho is heavier at 21 lbs apiece, partially because it is quite simply bigger. (Turns out, not all 205s are created equal.) The weight adds stiffness though, the steering is more responsive now and much more usable. If I whip the wheel back and forth on the freeway and let go, it oscillates maybe twice before returning to center. With a soft rear and stiff front sidewall, the car oversteers a bit before it ever starts to slide. Compared to stock, it is way softer, a little less grippy (be gentle with the throttle), and in my hands the car is definitely faster on the small wheel/tire.

Bad: The tradeoff with the Kumho is that you can really feel the weight: steering feedback is reduced. Also, these tires I can overheat after going full-speed for around 4-5 miles. The ride quality (stock struts, soft tires, stiffened driveline bushings) is no longer that of a sportscar; the car is soft and comfortable but also gently bounces when driving hard over rough and especially wavy roads. At the beginning, you fight that bouncing by rhythmically jerking the wheel; eventually you just ignore it and let the car bounce along.

Not that anyone is shopping for mismatched all-seasons.

Side note: Everyone says 16s are lighter. They might be, but the difference is minute. The stock wheels aren't super heavy at 22 pounds, and the stock tires (stiff tires, the way most people like) are damn light at 20 pounds. Road and Track did a track test with stock vesus grippy tires on OEM wheels and they found that laptimes didn't change; you might want grip less than you think. If I put some 22 pound Hankook RS3 on my little Volk wheels, they would bring up the grand total to 39 pounds, a mere 3 pound weight reduction. Frankly, I think most people are best off with some OEM-size RPF1 (15 pound!) and stock tires. 7 pound reduction per corner. Light, cheap, responsive, fast.

I want my next set of tires to match, of course, and I wouldn't mind slightly higher grip. And I'm way too stubborn to put my stock wheels back on. The 19 pound Hankooks were fast but sloppy, the 21 pound Kumhos were slower but sharp. I won't go over 20 pounds, but I want a stiffer tire.

I think finding something both light and stiff is a contradiction. Bear with me a moment:

Bridgestone Turanza run-flats served admirably on my old Altima, with zero sidewall flex and remarkable resistance to fade. That car had racing suspension and 1900+ pounds on the front axle and the tires were still responsive, if you want a hard sidewall look no further. They lasted a long time and have great traction, probably why they're OEM for MINI turbo cars. But they lose grip all at once, which frightens me on an FRS, and they weigh 22 pounds. I don't want more than 20. Ride quality is also horrible, and the biggest lightweight size on these tires is 195-width. No thank you.

Michelin Primacy HP run-flats were on a MINI I drove a while back, they seemed fantastic. They rode uniquely well for a run-flat, tiny bumps in the road ceased to exist with these tires. I was able to throw the car around on rough roads and I love the way these tires lose grip: easily, but gradually. Like the stock 17" FR-S tires, lovely. Delightful tires, until I researched them: 25 pounds apiece, also only available in 195/55r16 (chunky, though, like the Kumhos). Comfortable and fun to drive, but not grippy, light, or wide tires. I wonder if they offer something similar...

I originally wanted Michelin Primacy, just like stock but in a smaller size. Sounds simple enough, and upon reflection I should have gone that way. If the big 17s slide nicely, and the little 16 runflats ride and slide nicely, the big 16s will obviously ride well. But will they handle? At a lightweight 20 pounds and a wider fitment than the MINI I began to fear they would flex like crazy and spoil the handling. But while I was reading I came across three pieces of information: Primacys (Primacies?) apparently ride much smoother on bigger cars which would imply they are stiff; People hold Michelin in fairly high regard so you could reasonably expect anything called "Primacy HP" to behave similarly; And a Motoiq article briefly mentioned that a big solid block on the outside of the tread pattern improves stiffness. Focusing on that last one, I can find images of tread patterns to analyze (outside on the right):

Hankook Ventus V12 Evo light, super squishy


Kumhho Ecsta 4X sorta light, moderately squishy


Michelin Primacy HP run-flat heavy, perfect amount of squish, small size only


Michelin Primacy HP light, no clue how it drives?


Bridgestone Turanza run-flat sorta heavy, too stiff, gets heavy in big sizes


The Hankook is softest and has the narrowest outer tread block, the Kumho is second-softest and has the second narrowest outer tread block. The Bridgestone is stiffest and has the widest outer tread block. The runflat Michelin is plenty stiff and has a medium tread block. The width of the outer tread block, therefore, correlates very strongly with driving stiffness.

Meanwhile, the Hankook is lightest and softest, the Kumho is heavier and stiffer, the Bridgestone is heavier and stiffer than still. The runflat Michelin is way heavier, but the second-stiffest. Tire weight seems to correlate weakly with driving stiffness.

So how about that 205/55R16 Michelin Primacy in question? It has the second-widest outer tread block which strongly implies that it's the second stiffest, and it's the second-lightest which weakly implies that it's the second softest.

So it probably ranks about average for stiffness in this group: softer than the runflats, stiffer than the tires I've got. But there's one variable I've been excluding till now: tire pressure. The tires on my car now are full to bursting at 45/46 psi, the runflats were less inflated at 38-41 psi per OEM specs. So that means the run-flats in question were way stiffer. The Primacy is related to the Primacy run-flat, hopefully it's inherited some of that stiffness. All else fails, I can overinflate that shit and add stiffness that way.

Meanwhile it's lightweight so the car will accelerate fast and stop easy (brake fade is a distant memory btw, hooray 3-spoke brake cooling!), it's chunky so there'll be good grip and plush ride quality. Primacies seem to take abuse well and last a long time and, why not mention, it's a narrow low-rolling-resistance tire so mpg might improve.

Only downside I can see is, from what I remember, the stock tires were prone to overheat. These smaller, similar tires can't not be worse. Ah well, tread lightly.

A set of small Michelin Primacy HP, please.

Wait, crap: V- or W- rated?

[venturaII]

17 pounds for a 16x7?? You just might have the world's heaviest 16s...

[chaoskaze]

@ 17 pound I think they are only like 1pound lighter then oem sti 17x7 wheel on blue series

But I like be all ur review on tires /thumbsup

[NissanGuy]

Originally Posted by venturaII

17 pounds for a 16x7?? You just might have the world's heaviest 16s...

Three spoke!

[venturaII]

Nice review btw; just wish it were for tires in a more entertaining performance category.


The pressures you're running are REALLY high though...I'm running ~36/33 when I autocross on my 225/50-16 Kumho Ecsta XS (22 pounds) and that seems to be close to perfect. I don't have much camber either (maybe -.5 deg up front).

[LFA.Baby]

would enkei rpf1 16x7 fit on our cars? can't find anybody with those specs on wheel directory

[churchx]

Most probably will. Loads of other 16" there of different offsets, why rpf1 should be exception? Fitment/not rubbing question usually rises for insanely wide wheels, not 16x7.