245/50/17 on a 17x7.5 STi BBS wheel

The OEM tire size on my Outback is a 225/55/17 on a 17x7.

 

I know that, traditionally, 245's are reserved for 8" wheels. But, there is no 235 size that is similar in diameter to my OEM tires. The 245/50 is the closest diameter.

 

I know a 245 on a 7.5" rim is safe, and I know people who run 275 Hoosiers on 7.5" stock STi wheels.

 

Has anyone actually run this size? What was your experience with it?

 

I have coilovers, though I'll likely be switching to JDM/EDM Bilstein HD's (the Outback specific setup) when I have the spare cash.

 

The tire I'm heavily leaning towards is the Continental Contact Extreme DWS.

 

All-weather performance is the most important thing for right now. I've heard great things about the DWS in the snow and rain, and I'm willing to sacrifice dry-performance for that. So long as they are a step up over the RE92, I'm happy.

You know people that run 275's on a 7.5" wide wheel? That does not sound too safe, but ok.

 

You might be able to get away with 245's on a 7.5" wide wheel, but it will be cutting it close. I have 245's on 8.5" wide wheels and it is a perfect fit; the side walls are pretty much vertical (no tire stretch)

Lots of guys in the 'stock' class auto-X their 04 STi's on 275's. Apparently it's pretty popular, or so I hear.

 

On the 5x114 STi's, it seems the consensus is that replacement tires should be 245/40/17's (to replace the 225/45/17), but that IS an 8" wheel.

 

A 225 seems pretty wide for a 7" wheel, but that's what comes stock. A 235 follows the same-width-increase logic, but a 235/50 is not close enough to stock diameter. I'd, basically, be adding 7.3mm of relative width overall with a 245/50.

 

I'm not concerned with it not being safe, I know it will be. I also know it'll fit, even with stock struts it would fit (bless the Outback).

 

I just want to know if anyone has run that size, and what their impressions were. I've read mixed reviews of the tires themselves, but they seem to be pretty awesome according to Tire Rack's Subaru customer reviews. If I put my stock wheels on my wifes car (since they won't clear Brembos), I was probably going to get a set of DWS's in 225/45/17 for her.

 

I'm open to other A/S options as well, but the DWS seems to be the best balance.

The tires that were on my bbs' that i just bought were kumho drag radials 245/45/17's. The owner before me ran them primarily for auto cross which means he pretty much beat on them quite a bit.

 

Hope that helps.

All-weather performance is the most important thing for right now. I've heard great things about the DWS in the snow and rain, and I'm willing to sacrifice dry-performance for that. So long as they are a step up over the RE92, I'm happy.

 

I dunno....

 

The "snow" part of your equation is what's making me have trouble with your plans here.

 

You're looking at 245s, with an all-season - yes, it's a "winter aggressive" all-season (and a favorite of the Subaru crowd up here in the PA-OH-MI area), but all-season nonetheless - and with such a large footprint, you won't be cutting through nearly as well. Our vehicles are by no means heavyweights....

 

I'd go wider if dry traction is what you're after (and play that, in-turn, off of carcass weight as well as subjective feel), but for winter traction, I'm honestly not feeling very confident about this one.....

my friends running 235s on 8, its pretty damn square already

 

but it all depends on the manufacture of the tire company too...some are wider than others

245/50R17 should in theory fit a 7" wheel with one exception, check the specs for the tire you want to buy first. You can not alway judge if a tire will fit based on width alone. For instance a 245/50R17 made by brand X may fit 7" minimum. A 245/45R17 by brand X may fit a 7.5" minimum. Sidewall height makes a big difference.

 

On the Conti DWS in 245/50ZR17 they will safely fit a 6.5-8.5 inch rim width according to continental. In the winter time, the skinnier the tire the better. I would like to run 195/60R16 with studs, that may be a little to extreme on the 60 mile commute to the city though.

http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/us/en/continental/automobile/themes/car_tires/performance/extreme_dws_en/hidden/printable_datasheet_en.pdf

Good. I'll probably go 245/50/17 when tire time comes around, then.

 

I know skinny tires are better in the snow, but skinny tires aren't better in other situations. They just have to be better than RE92's in the snow, which (with full depth RE92's) is actually not such an easy task. The RE92 is an awesome tire. It's a shame they get such a bad wrap.

After I bought my car it snowed (bad) two days later. I thought great! I have AWD with brand new tires this will be FUN!!! Almost totaled the car after 10 minutes. Long story short my Honda with snow tires did much better than the Subaru with RE92's. Few weeks later I put on Michelin Primacy MXV4's and it was a tank in the snow. I have heard a lot of great things about the DWS. Def keep us posted this winter if you get them.

I know skinny tires are better in the snow, but skinny tires aren't better in other situations. They just have to be better than RE92's in the snow, which (with full depth RE92's) is actually not such an easy task. The RE92 is an awesome tire. It's a shame they get such a bad wrap.

 

And that's precisely why I'm worried - that with such a large footprint, with the 245s, particularly given that the Conti is still, after all's said and done, still an all-season tire, that you won't be happy (and even less so as you continue to lose tread-depth).

 

To me, your end-goal of having a better winter tire simply does not logically mesh with your pursuit of getting a wider footprint.

 

You know well that skinnier works better in wintry conditions, but you seem hung-up on the fact that you want wider tires. I truly think that you're going to have to make a decision for one or the other, it's a fundamental split-point in the decision tree.

 

Look at this thread:

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/which-flavor-tires-year-126404.html?t=126404&highlight=winter

 

You'll see there that for those of us who choose to run "wider" winter tires, we do so knowing full well that the tires' capabilities in true winter conditions will be compromised. We do so in order to favor our wants for when it's clear out, so that we can still have some fun.

 

But again, you seem a bit conflicted - for as you said, and I agree, the RE92s aren't all that bad in the snow, despite popular perception and outcry to the contrary. I just fear that if you bump up width by *that* much, you're going to significantly compromise the tire's capabilities in the wintry stuff.....

See, that's what I'm not sure about. 245's aren't THAT wide. We ran a pair of Pilot A/S in 245/45/17 on my wifes old Passat, and it handled the snow really well for a FWD slushbox.

 

The break point is this. If the DWS is sufficiently better in the snow at any similar tread depth to the RE92, then I'll be in good shape. It may be wider, but width doesn't always dictate snow performance (a 205 summer tire won't be better in the snow than a 255 all-season). Afterall, they do sell cars that are lighter than mine, that have wider tires. I think the G35X and a bunch of Audi/VW's come with tires in the 235/245 range.

 

I think it's funny when people bash the RE92. It's an amazing tire for your average driver. Drive within its limits, and you'll never be left for wanting. They last forever, are audible at break-away, and are great in the snow (above ~50% tread depth at least).

 

So long as the 245 DWS matches par with the 225 RE92, then I'll be happy. If it's better, which it well could be, then I'll be even better.

 

I'm also curious if anyone has driven a car with that tire size, and what it felt like. I hear mixed reviews about the sidewall stiffness of the DWS, and I'd be pissed off if I ended up with deadfish steering because of sloppy sidewalls.

See, that's what I'm not sure about. 245's aren't THAT wide. We ran a pair of Pilot A/S in 245/45/17 on my wifes old Passat, and it handled the snow really well for a FWD slushbox.

 

The break point is this. If the DWS is sufficiently better in the snow at any similar tread depth to the RE92, then I'll be in good shape. It may be wider, but width doesn't always dictate snow performance (a 205 summer tire won't be better in the snow than a 255 all-season). Afterall, they do sell cars that are lighter than mine, that have wider tires. I think the G35X and a bunch of Audi/VW's come with tires in the 235/245 range.

 

^ Ah, I see where you're coming from, now.

 

I agree, 245s aren't THAT wide, and indeed, many modern vehicles of our size/weight range are now equipped, stock, with 235- to 245-width tires.

 

But just as you said, different tires perform differently - even sticking within one "genre" of tire, let's say, that of the "high" to "ultra-high performance all-seasons," width isn't the only thing that matter, and traction between, say, the Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 versus a similarly sized Falken ZIEX ZE912 would show drastic differences in wintry-weather performance.

 

Indeed, this is a hard one to call, particularly given what you've cited is your "margin" of:

 

So long as the 245 DWS matches par with the 225 RE92, then I'll be happy. If it's better, which it well could be, then I'll be even better.

 

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, then. Hopefully, you'll come away satisfied: the Contis are *very* popular choice of Subaru enthusiasts up here in NE-Ohio and in other snowy areas. Hopefully, their capabilities will more than make up for the width/weight ratio.

 

I think it's funny when people bash the RE92. It's an amazing tire for your average driver. Drive within its limits, and you'll never be left for wanting. They last forever, are audible at break-away, and are great in the snow (above ~50% tread depth at least).

I was on mine for one winter - I didn't have any problems. I switched-out my set as two were tar-damaged during the subsequent summer.

 

My wife's WRX's set was never replaced, but I did switch her out to a set of half-depth Falken 512s (which replaced the RE92s above) during the fourth and last winter that the RE92s would have faced, as they were down to approx. 3/32 tread, and I didn't feel that was good for anyone's safety.

 

You've hit precisely onto the crux of the issue with the RE92s - that too many of us in the Subaru community expected more of them (unfairly so, I think) as we are "driving enthusiasts." To the average drivers, they should never really present with any problems, even in emergency situations, and I think that my wife's experience with them (I quote "This Subaru is the best winter car I've ever had!") testifies well to that.

 

I'm also curious if anyone has driven a car with that tire size, and what it felt like. I hear mixed reviews about the sidewall stiffness of the DWS, and I'd be pissed off if I ended up with deadfish steering because of sloppy sidewalls.

^ Sloppy sidewalls only accentuated by the rim width...I agree, this is something to debate and research, prior to your purchase.

 

I'm currently running 225s (Hankook RS-2s) on an 8-inch wide rim (Prodrive PFF-7s) for my "summer" setup, and I'm literally addicted to that razor-wire-direct feel, when it comes to turn-in.

 

Granted, there's absolutely no rim protection! :lol:

Good. I'll probably go 245/50/17 when tire time comes around, then.

 

I know skinny tires are better in the snow, but skinny tires aren't better in other situations. They just have to be better than RE92's in the snow, which (with full depth RE92's) is actually not such an easy task. The RE92 is an awesome tire. It's a shame they get such a bad wrap.

 

What also matters is the sidewall length of the tire, on this case 245mmx0.50 = 122.5mm...

 

As a comparison, our stock RE92's are 215mmx.045=96.75mm

 

I use 235mmx0.40 on my 18x8 and they fit right on it... So the taller the tire you got, the narrower you could choose the wheel. Also the same rational when you see those SUV's or pickup trucks, with 265,275 or even 285 tires on 6.5 or 7 wheels...

 

The tire would look like this when mounted on the wheel:

 

\___/ as opposed to |__| for a regular perfectly fitted tire!

 

 

Post pics of your set up when done!

 

 

 

Flavio Zanetti

Boston, MA

My OE tires are 225/55's (123.75 sidewall), almost dead on for the 245/50. That is why I am considering that size.

I cannot fully describe here how squishy that handling is going to be, zero turn in feel at all. Tires that wide + coilovers = you might as well be driving on Krispy Kremes.

 

stock tire size on a .5" wider wheel FTW!

 

You have defended your tire size choice this whole time when other members told you it wasn't going to work out well, so lets take a quick look at the Pros and Cons here:

 

Cons:

Squishy bouncy ride

the opposite of sidewall stiffness (DWS aren't known for it to start with)

Horrible turn in

Not the best snow set-up

 

 

 

Pros:

Overall height is the same

 

Yeah sounds like you have a pretty tough decision ahead of you.

My argument is that, ultimately, I'm not changing much over OEM. I'm going 20mm wider on the tire and 12.8mm wider on the rim. It would be like running a 232 width tire on my current setup.

 

Sidewall height is the same as I have now, and from what I've read the DWS has a stiffer sidewall than the RE92. So, really, all of the cons are what already exist with the RE92's. Overall ride quality is actually pretty good with my setup.

 

To the people that say a 245/50/17 will be "sloppy", have you actually driven a tire in that size?

Heck, I thought 225/45 was floppy on the factory 7-inch wide rims.....

 

The problem, BAC, like Blue GT pointed out, is that your wants and needs and the tire size you're looking at is, at first glance, absolutely contradictory and illogical. It's hard to look past that - as my post history here shows, it took me several interactions with you, to figure that (the following) out.

 

However, the caveat, your qualifier of "better than the stock RE92s." That throws a wrench into all of this.

 

It brings in an extra "WTF" factor that just makes this one very, very hard to call.

 

Divorced of that qualifier, it becomes easy.

 

Like Blue GT said, if you wanted sharp turn-in and better overall response, you'd do what he said.

 

If you wanted better winter traction, you'd go narrower.

 

But with your qualifier - well....I guess all that any of us can wish you is the best of luck, that things will hold in your favor.

Will a 245/50 on a 7.5" rim have any worse turn-in or overall responsiveness than a 225/55 on a 7" rim? That is really the bottom line, and why I was wondering about anyone who had driven that particular size. Either way, I will have that much sidewall.

 

It'll be some time before I actually buy tires, and I'll run my 225/55's RE92's on the new wheels for as long as they last.

Will a 245/50 on a 7.5" rim have any worse turn-in or overall responsiveness than a 225/55 on a 7" rim? That is really the bottom line, and why I was wondering about anyone who had driven that particular size.

 

I think it'll also have to do with the specific tire, as well as things like inflation pressure - not to mention any subjectives.

 

Hopefully, someone will have run the *specific* combo that you're looking at...here in the BL/BP world, though, it's definitely less-likely, are the folks on SF.org of any help?

Why post asking for input if you clearly don't car what anybody's response is?

 

I cannot be any more clear than this YES THAT SETUP WILL HAVE A WORSE TURN IN FEEL

I'm going to go ahead and look into the future:

Youre going to buy 245s for your BBS, mount and install and come back here and tell us how much better they are at everything than the RE92s. Your going to say your turn in is crisp, snow traction is unbelievable and overall grip is to die for.

 

Good luck, god bless and enjoy the wider tires, at least you'll be able to say your rocking 245s.

I DO care what peoples responses are, but I'm looking for actual usage responses. Not ideas or estimations.

 

You say it'll have worse turn-in feel, but you don't say why or your experience. The 245/50/17 is barely different (in terms of sidewall height) than the 225/55's I have. That means your con's list comes down to snow traction due to width. Squishy bouncy ride is a product of sidewall height and sidewall stiffness, as is turn-in. The 245/50 has the same sidewall height as the 225/55, so unless the DWS has a softer sidewall than the RE92, how could it be any squishier or bouncier, or worse turn-in feeling than the RE92?

 

I understand the benefit of narrow tires for snow traction, but I also understand that there are DOZENS of lighter cars with wider tires that car companies expect people to drive in the snow.

 

The DWS has a higher load rating AND speed rating (a 99W vs. a 95V). Seems like the sidewalls almost HAVE to be stiffer than the standard RE92's.

 

I probably will end up getting them, but I'm not above posting that I was wrong.

I DO care what peoples responses are, but I'm looking for actual usage responses. Not ideas or estimations.

 

You say it'll have worse turn-in feel, but you don't say why or your experience. The 245/50/17 is barely different (in terms of sidewall height) than the 225/55's I have. That means your con's list comes down to snow traction due to width. Squishy bouncy ride is a product of sidewall height and sidewall stiffness, as is turn-in. The 245/50 has the same sidewall height as the 225/55, so unless the DWS has a softer sidewall than the RE92, how could it be any squishier or bouncier, or worse turn-in feeling than the RE92?

 

I understand the benefit of narrow tires for snow traction, but I also understand that there are DOZENS of lighter cars with wider tires that car companies expect people to drive in the snow.

 

The DWS has a higher load rating AND speed rating (a 99W vs. a 95V). Seems like the sidewalls almost HAVE to be stiffer than the standard RE92's.

 

I probably will end up getting them, but I'm not above posting that I was wrong.

 

What did you end up with for tires? Interested to hear what you chose and how they performed. I elected not to put 235s on my 7.5" rims because I was not sure they would work as well as they would on a 8" wide wheel.

 

I think what folks were trying to state here is not so much that the sidewall height would be out but that the shape/orientation of the sidewall would not be ideal with 245s on a 7.5" rim. That's where the poorer turn in response was going to become a factor. For the most part, tires are designed to have a vertical sidewall as a starting position and handle deflection from there. If you start out /_\ the tire won't handle as well as a setup like |_|.

I went 225/55/17 since I needed tires and didn't have the wheels yet. As you know, I'm looking for a set of 17x8 wheels, and ill carry my current tires over. When I need tires again, ill go 245/50's.