I got tired of looking up the various sizes of tire and wheel combinations. I also noticed a lot of people with similar questions. So I made myself the attached file to make things easier.

Below is an example of how to use it. I also attached the actual file in PDF format without the notes. If anyone wants the Excel file to use / modify, then PM me with an email address and I will send to you.

 

Tks for putting this together~

 

wow this is great!!
i'll be honest, I never fully understood the tire profile to wheel relation until now lol thanks!

 

Thanks for posting these charts. They gave me the final piece of info. that I needed to pose the following question.

I have looked at MANY posts here and elsewhere concerning non-OEM replacement tires for stock 19" wheels but to my surprise have found no one that advocates 235/45/19 F and 255/40/19 R for normal everyday driving (i.e., no track driving). They seem to be a GREAT +0 replacement. SO WHAT AM I MISSING? Here are the numbers:

OEM:
225/45/19 F Dia: 26.97", "Stretch" on 8.5" rims: (from chart): 96.0%
245/40/19 R Dia: 26.71, Stretch on 9" rims: 93.3%
F minus R Dia: 0.26" F minus R profile difference: 2.7%

REPLACEMENTS:
235/45/19 F Dia: 27.33" (+1.01% over OEM) Stretch on 8.5: 91.9%
255/40/19 R Dia: 27.03 (+1.01% over OEM) Stretch on 9: 89.6%
F minus R Dia: 0.30" F minus R profile difference: 2.3%

The replacements only raise the average axle height (wheel radius) by 0.17": (27.18 - 26.84)/2.

Admitedly, 235/45/19 is not common but Yokohama ADVAN Sports come in both sizes and are respectably rated by Tirerack (5th out of 28 in category and 97% of the leader).

Your thoughts would be apppreciated since I am getting close to replacing my tires.

 

Thanks for posting these charts. They gave me the final piece of info. that I needed to pose the following question.

I have looked at MANY posts here and elsewhere concerning non-OEM replacement tires for stock 19" wheels but to my surprise have found no one that advocates 235/45/19 F and 255/40/19 R for normal everyday driving (i.e., no track driving). They seem to be a GREAT +0 replacement. SO WHAT AM I MISSING? Here are the numbers:

OEM:
225/45/19 F Dia: 26.97", "Stretch" on 8.5" rims: (from chart): 96.0%
245/40/19 R Dia: 26.71, Stretch on 9" rims: 93.3%
F minus R Dia: 0.26" F minus R profile difference: 2.7%

REPLACEMENTS:
235/45/19 F Dia: 27.33" (+1.01% over OEM) Stretch on 8.5: 91.9%
255/40/19 R Dia: 27.03 (+1.01% over OEM) Stretch on 9: 89.6%
F minus R Dia: 0.30" F minus R profile difference: 2.3%

The replacements only raise the average axle height (wheel radius) by 0.17": (27.18 - 26.84)/2.

Admitedly, 235/45/19 is not common but Yokohama ADVAN Sports come in both sizes and are respectably rated by Tirerack (5th out of 28 in category and 97% of the leader).

Your thoughts would be apppreciated since I am getting close to replacing my tires.

 

As a straight +0 replacement when you need to change tires, you are fine. Nothing wrong with that option. It will look just slightly more aggressive than OEM and no negatives that I see.

A lot of people started going 245/40 and 275/35 because they were moving the OEM rear tires to the front and just buying two new rear 275/35 tires. So it was a "cheap" way to upgrade without buying all 4 tires. Then along comes the S-drives which cost just slightly more for 4 new tires than two OEM Bridgestones in 275/35 size so some sold new OEM Bridgestones and bought four new tires in the larger sizes. And a few other options I have seen.

So unless you have worn out the tires, I don't think most would go through the trouble of upgrading just to bump to 235/255.

 

Thanx HamstersG. Yes, these will be replacements for worn out OEM's. I know that many people replace with 245/40/19 F and 275/35/19 R but I also saw your comment that you are not quite pleased with the profile on the 275/35's so I was looking for alternatives.

 

Forgot to mention one point. The load ratings on the OEM Bridgestones are 92W/94W (F/R) while the Yoko's are 95Y/100Y. "Y" vs. W is no issue (Y being "better" than W) but even though the 95/100 is "better" than 92/94, will the ride be significantly altered.

 

You might notice the difference due to the stiffer sidewall, but it should not be that much. You might want to PM Neal@tirerack who is a sponsor on the forum.

 

I'm going with 245/40 Front and 255/40 rear soon, I saw some pics og the 275/35 rears and it doesn't look coordinated.

 

nice chart. i still just use the miata and other tire size calculators that ive used for years.

i went the 245/275 route and replaced all 4 because im not a fan of the potenzas and wanted as much rubber without looking bubbly.

 

"I'm going with 245/40 Front and 255/40 rear soon, I saw some pics of the 275/35 rears and it doesn't look." Loi


I would love to do that as well because of the MUCH greater availability of 245/40/19 than 235/45/19 in the different brands. But if you look at the numbers in my earlier post in this thread, your combination gives MINUS 0.32" for the F minus R diameter difference while the stock F minus R diameter difference is PLUS 0.26" (and my choice using 235/45/19 gives PLUS 0.30"). I am under the impression that changing the F minus R diameter in that manner and by that much will screw up the VDC and traction control, etc.; but I am no expert, so any comments concerning this impression as it relates to the sizing options under discussion are very welcome.

 

I used those to make the chart so it was easier and faster to look at various combinations.

[quote=w0ady;2659580] i still just use the miata and other tire size calculators that ive used for years.[quote]

 

^ya thats what i figured. cool that you took the time to do it.

 

Can anybody post some pics of 275/35 rears with 245/40 fronts? A side, back and front view would be ideal. Same with 255/40 rear and 245/40 front. Just on paper, the sidewall height of the 275/35 + 245/40 combo looks good (3.79" & 3.86" respectively). And Are Yoko S.drive people happy so far? They look like a good solution price-wise and reviews at tire rack.