Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-24-2009, 10:11 AM   #1 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SantaFe
Posts: 32

GoldFocus - '09 Ford Focus SE
Thanks: 2
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
NarrowerTires?

I have an '09 Focus that is giving pretty good FE. The tires on it are in good shape with only ~22k miles. It will be awhile before I need to look for new shoes but in thinking of ways to improve economy, I was thinking of switching out to some narrower tires when the time comes.

The stock tires are a 195/60-15. I found a 155/80-15 that looks to be within 2% of the stock diameter so it should work without effecting gearing or the odometer/speedo. The only negatives I can think of is the ride will be harsher and to avoid cornering at high speed with the effective higher profile to width ratio. In the realm of safety, seems like it should be fine?

Any thoughts or advice on what I may be missing?

Doug

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 11-24-2009, 11:21 AM   #2 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
I think rolling resistance won't be lowered unless you run them with much higher pressure than stockers. But then, you could just as well pump up the stockers.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:06 PM   #3 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SantaFe
Posts: 32

GoldFocus - '09 Ford Focus SE
Thanks: 2
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Hmmm, that is surprising. I would expect a width difference from 195 to 155 would be notable or significant effect on reducing rolling resistance?

Doug
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:10 PM   #4 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Depends on the loads the tire sees.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 02:34 PM   #5 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,515

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.71 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)

Appliance car - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 52.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,062
Thanked 6,959 Times in 3,603 Posts
There will be a small but real aerodynamic benefit from going with narrower tires as well.

See this BMW data: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...g-cd-7475.html

Will 155's fit properly on the rims (width)?

In "the realm of safety", as you put it, I expect you'll likely see reduced lateral grip in the dry (not certain about wet - depends on many other factors). Whether you're OK with that is up to you.
__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 04:22 PM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,479
Thanks: 201
Thanked 262 Times in 199 Posts
Potentially braking traction will be affected as well. Not definitely, as other factors will have an influence.

I went from 195 to 185 width on my CRX. The difference seems to be "in the noise".

-soD
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 04:27 PM   #7 (permalink)
Administrator
 
Daox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,203

CM400E - '81 Honda CM400E
90 day: 51.49 mpg (US)

Daox's Grey Prius - '04 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 49.53 mpg (US)

Daox's Insight - '00 Honda Insight
90 day: 64.33 mpg (US)

Swarthy - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage DE
Mitsubishi
90 day: 56.69 mpg (US)

Daox's Volt - '13 Chevrolet Volt
Thanks: 2,501
Thanked 2,585 Times in 1,553 Posts
I went from 185s to 155s on the Paseo. The change was noticeable at low speeds.
__________________
Current project: A better alternator delete
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 06:15 PM   #8 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
The change of what?
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 08:44 PM   #9 (permalink)
Administrator
 
Daox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,203

CM400E - '81 Honda CM400E
90 day: 51.49 mpg (US)

Daox's Grey Prius - '04 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 49.53 mpg (US)

Daox's Insight - '00 Honda Insight
90 day: 64.33 mpg (US)

Swarthy - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage DE
Mitsubishi
90 day: 56.69 mpg (US)

Daox's Volt - '13 Chevrolet Volt
Thanks: 2,501
Thanked 2,585 Times in 1,553 Posts
I could noticably coast farther after 'the change' of tires/rims.
__________________
Current project: A better alternator delete
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 08:19 AM   #10 (permalink)
Tire Geek
 
CapriRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Let's just say I'm in the US
Posts: 794
Thanks: 4
Thanked 388 Times in 237 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiftbow View Post
I have an '09 Focus that is giving pretty good FE. The tires on it are in good shape with only ~22k miles. It will be awhile before I need to look for new shoes but in thinking of ways to improve economy, I was thinking of switching out to some narrower tires when the time comes.

The stock tires are a 195/60-15. I found a 155/80-15 that looks to be within 2% of the stock diameter so it should work without effecting gearing or the odometer/speedo. The only negatives I can think of is the ride will be harsher and to avoid cornering at high speed with the effective higher profile to width ratio. In the realm of safety, seems like it should be fine?

Any thoughts or advice on what I may be missing?

Doug
Doug,

First, a 155/80R15 83S is 4 load indices lower in load carrying capacity. That means that all other things being equal, you will need to use 4 psi more than what is on the vehicle tire placard for comparison purposes.

According to Tire Guides, a book that summarizes vehicle tire placards, a 2009 Ford Focus with P195/60R15 87T's should have a tire placard that says to use 32 psi. Please check the vehicle placard to see if that is correct.

What this means is that even if you inflate the tires to the maximum, the tire has less load carrying capacity than the original tires. Not only is that going to hurt the fuel economy, but it's a safety issue, too. Less load carrying capacity increases the risk of a load related tire failure, which sometimes has tragic results.

PLUS, going down in speed rating (T to S) is also the wrong way with regard to safety.

While the amount of tread rubber is important, there are 2 other considerations for a tire's contribution to fuel economy: The rubber, and the amount of deflection.

As I pointed out above, the lower load carrying capacity means more deflection and worse fuel economy - all other things being equal.

The type of rubber is very important - and probably the most important thing. Tires designed for good fuel economy (like what came OE on your Focus), are going to use types of rubber compounds that give good fuel economy. That is generally at the expensive of traction (especially wet traction) and tread wear (or both!)

Going narrower also means a smaller footprint, and that has implications for traction.

So while going narrower may seem like a good idea, there's a lot of down sides to this. It has to be done carefully - which why you asked the question, isn't it!

  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CapriRacer For This Useful Post:
MetroMPG (11-25-2009), Swiftbow (11-26-2009)
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com