Trying to find new-type winter tires to fit older car
November 11, 2011 9:04 PM Subscribe
I know very little about car tires. Having problems finding a Blizzak-type winter tire, and retailer of same, for lady friend's older car. Advice gratefully accepted!
Hi everyone. I swung by Costco today to get tires for a 1992 Toyota Camry. I particularly wanted to get a set of the new-generation winter tires, like Bridgestone's Blizzak or Michelin's X-Ice.
The current tires say "P195/70Rr14 90S". Costco guy said they don't carry this size, and their website seems to back this up.
Recommendations? Is there a good online retailer, preferably one that offers free shipping, that I should check?
Tirerack, for example, only seems to offer a single tire in this size: The Firestone Winterforce, which as far as I can tell does not seem to be one of the "new generation"-type tires.
I would love to get any helpful pointers or suggestions you might have.
Hi everyone. I swung by Costco today to get tires for a 1992 Toyota Camry. I particularly wanted to get a set of the new-generation winter tires, like Bridgestone's Blizzak or Michelin's X-Ice.
The current tires say "P195/70Rr14 90S". Costco guy said they don't carry this size, and their website seems to back this up.
Recommendations? Is there a good online retailer, preferably one that offers free shipping, that I should check?
Tirerack, for example, only seems to offer a single tire in this size: The Firestone Winterforce, which as far as I can tell does not seem to be one of the "new generation"-type tires.
I would love to get any helpful pointers or suggestions you might have.
They just don't make those tires in R14. Actually I'm shocked at the R14 sizing, until I re-read your post and saw 1992.
posted by sanka at 9:35 PM on November 11, 2011
posted by sanka at 9:35 PM on November 11, 2011
Response by poster: Sanka, why is the R14 shocking? Is that something you don't see on new cars? Why not? Just curious.
posted by Alaska Jack at 9:44 PM on November 11, 2011
posted by Alaska Jack at 9:44 PM on November 11, 2011
R14 refers the size of the wheel; 14 inches in this case. This size was very common on smaller cars in the 90s.
Most modern cars that I have seen have wheels that are 16 inch or larger.
To see what is available, take a look at Tire Rack and America's Tire.
Also, talk to some independent tire stores, if you have some nearby. They may be able to order something in for you.
posted by nickthetourist at 10:08 PM on November 11, 2011
Most modern cars that I have seen have wheels that are 16 inch or larger.
To see what is available, take a look at Tire Rack and America's Tire.
Also, talk to some independent tire stores, if you have some nearby. They may be able to order something in for you.
posted by nickthetourist at 10:08 PM on November 11, 2011
Best answer: Alaska Jack writes "why is the R14 shocking? Is that something you don't see on new cars? Why not? Just curious."
Rim sizes have been trending upwards for mostly aesthetic reasons since the 60s. Very few cars come with 14" rims anymore even though they are perfectly adequate from a mechanical point of view (IE: a 14" tire will support the weigt of the vehicle and a 14" rim can clear the brake caliper). The good news is that generally the smaller the rim the cheaper the tire even for tires that have the same circumference.
At any rate you could try plus or minus sizing your tires using the same rim size and for winter tires I'd even consider up sizing by one (IE: going with a tire with a larger circumference). A taller tire will: effectively reduce your gearing reducing acceleration and increasing gas mileage but will also roll over deep snow easier (picture trying to push a base ball over a curb vs pushing a basket ball over the same curb). It'll also make your speedometer read slow.
You can play with the mechanical results of different tire sizes on here. Your +1 size is a 205/65R14 (1% smaller) or 215/65R14 (1% larger) and the +2 size is a 225/60R14 (0.5% smaller). A potential taller tire would be a 205/70R14 which is ~5% larger.
Note that a 1% difference in circumference is within the range of the difference between new tires and worn out tires or variance between manufacturers.
Finally if your jurisdiction allows studding I strongly recommend it. It trades off slightly reduced traction on bare pavement (plus a little noise) with greatly increased traction on ice and compact snow; especially hard ice covered with water that moulded sipes have trouble gripping.
posted by Mitheral at 12:59 AM on November 12, 2011
Rim sizes have been trending upwards for mostly aesthetic reasons since the 60s. Very few cars come with 14" rims anymore even though they are perfectly adequate from a mechanical point of view (IE: a 14" tire will support the weigt of the vehicle and a 14" rim can clear the brake caliper). The good news is that generally the smaller the rim the cheaper the tire even for tires that have the same circumference.
At any rate you could try plus or minus sizing your tires using the same rim size and for winter tires I'd even consider up sizing by one (IE: going with a tire with a larger circumference). A taller tire will: effectively reduce your gearing reducing acceleration and increasing gas mileage but will also roll over deep snow easier (picture trying to push a base ball over a curb vs pushing a basket ball over the same curb). It'll also make your speedometer read slow.
You can play with the mechanical results of different tire sizes on here. Your +1 size is a 205/65R14 (1% smaller) or 215/65R14 (1% larger) and the +2 size is a 225/60R14 (0.5% smaller). A potential taller tire would be a 205/70R14 which is ~5% larger.
Note that a 1% difference in circumference is within the range of the difference between new tires and worn out tires or variance between manufacturers.
Finally if your jurisdiction allows studding I strongly recommend it. It trades off slightly reduced traction on bare pavement (plus a little noise) with greatly increased traction on ice and compact snow; especially hard ice covered with water that moulded sipes have trouble gripping.
posted by Mitheral at 12:59 AM on November 12, 2011
Best answer: Another option is to buy a set of tires in a compatible size that actually exists AND ALSO buy a set of appropriately-sized cheap steel wheels for them. If you buy both tires and wheels from Tire Rack, they'll mount and balance them for free. This will save you money if you keep the car for a couple of years, because you won't have to have the mounting and balancing redone every spring and fall when you switch back and forth between your 2 sets of tires.
posted by jon1270 at 2:16 AM on November 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by jon1270 at 2:16 AM on November 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: jon1270 - Yeah this seems pretty reasonable. Except with Tire Rack, at least, it looks like I would get totally hosed on shipping charges. Probably makes more sense to investigate local tire shops.
posted by Alaska Jack at 2:09 PM on November 12, 2011
posted by Alaska Jack at 2:09 PM on November 12, 2011
Response by poster: OK, just located an inexpensive set of 15" wheels at a local junkyard. That should give me more options.
posted by Alaska Jack at 3:17 PM on November 12, 2011
posted by Alaska Jack at 3:17 PM on November 12, 2011
Response by poster: OK, thank you very much for the advice everyone. I ended up buying the 15" rims, then going back to Costco and going with the Michelin Ice-x's. (They were out of Blizzaks).
Thanks again!
posted by Alaska Jack at 11:03 PM on November 12, 2011
Thanks again!
posted by Alaska Jack at 11:03 PM on November 12, 2011
Best answer: Dasein writes "You really should not run tires with more than a 3% variance from the original diameter. Doing so effectively changes the gearing on your car, which is hard on the engine and transmission."
OCMV. Many vehicles come with a choice of final drive ratios with much greater variance than a measly 3% usually as part of a performance or towing package. For a couple of vehicles I'm familiar with: The 84 Fiero had a choice of two final drives 3.23 and 4.10. The third gen Dakota had final drives options of 3.23, 3.55 and 3.90. And the 92 Tercel itself was available with two different final drives: 3.944 for the C140 four speed and 4.058 for the C150 five speed (a difference of almost 3%).
On studs vs non on ice and bare pavement it's fairly complicated but typically a studded tire will perform 5-15% better than an non studded tire on packed snow and ice vs a 2% degradation in traction on bare pavement (pg 18 of this PDF WA report summarizing Alaskan testing data) with the best improvement near freezing. Studs do perform poorly vs a blizzack on concrete with stopping distances 16-32% longer. Admittedly that is worse than I originally thought however I stand by my recommendation. In my experience people rarely get in trouble in the winter on bare pavement (at least not more so than in the summer); it's ice and snow that makes winter driving challenging. The pavement chewing is of course a concern but it also a benifit as it helps to break up compact snow and roughen icy surfaces aiding traction to all drivers including those using non-studded tires (pg 44 of the above report) even during the non winter months. Though I've never seen the sort of damage pictured here which if truly caused by studded tires shows a bizarrely consistent track width and positioning of studded vehicles.
posted by Mitheral at 7:15 AM on November 13, 2011
OCMV. Many vehicles come with a choice of final drive ratios with much greater variance than a measly 3% usually as part of a performance or towing package. For a couple of vehicles I'm familiar with: The 84 Fiero had a choice of two final drives 3.23 and 4.10. The third gen Dakota had final drives options of 3.23, 3.55 and 3.90. And the 92 Tercel itself was available with two different final drives: 3.944 for the C140 four speed and 4.058 for the C150 five speed (a difference of almost 3%).
On studs vs non on ice and bare pavement it's fairly complicated but typically a studded tire will perform 5-15% better than an non studded tire on packed snow and ice vs a 2% degradation in traction on bare pavement (pg 18 of this PDF WA report summarizing Alaskan testing data) with the best improvement near freezing. Studs do perform poorly vs a blizzack on concrete with stopping distances 16-32% longer. Admittedly that is worse than I originally thought however I stand by my recommendation. In my experience people rarely get in trouble in the winter on bare pavement (at least not more so than in the summer); it's ice and snow that makes winter driving challenging. The pavement chewing is of course a concern but it also a benifit as it helps to break up compact snow and roughen icy surfaces aiding traction to all drivers including those using non-studded tires (pg 44 of the above report) even during the non winter months. Though I've never seen the sort of damage pictured here which if truly caused by studded tires shows a bizarrely consistent track width and positioning of studded vehicles.
posted by Mitheral at 7:15 AM on November 13, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Joh at 9:34 PM on November 11, 2011