Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am needing to replace my tires. I have a 2000 Insight and one of the belts broke in my left front tire. They are OEM and have 43,000 miles on them so I will probably just replace all 4. I have read the threads regarding different replacement tires. I am debating between the OEM Potenzas and the Sumitomo HTR 200 which is also a highly rated tire for low resistance rolling. I want to maintain my current MPG as much as possible. I would be buying 185/60/14 in the Sumitomo. If the difference is small I may go with them, but I really need more info before I can decide. I would appreciate your help please. Of course any relevant and helpful info will also be appreciated. THanks!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
652 Posts
I have not found rolling resistance numbers for the Bridgestone but I havn't found anything that can beat it in MPG including going to some narrow 145/80 goodyears. Have fun, RIck
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
830 Posts
Yes, if you go for non OEM (like I did, 185/60/14 other brand) you will have to pay more for gas. Of course, less than other cars. But MPG will suffer a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
Well no one has found anything better for mpg than the Potenza's (plus you have to consider that tire in the size was made specifically for the Insight). I think the next best thing you'll find is a 175/65/14 Goodyear Integrity. It's LRR but a little wider, you'd probably be taking a 3-5mpg hit with them. If you still want a 185 size tire the Bridgestone B371 I think it is (Civic Hybrid Tire) is supposed to be pretty LRR as well.

Honest opinion, stick with the Potenza's, you'll be suprised how much nicer new rubber rides. I replaced mine at half the miles you have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I found my own answer to the weight question. The 165/65/14 RE92 weighs 13 lbs., while the 185/60/14 HTR 200 weighs in at 15.9 lbs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
830 Posts
SunsetOrange, I personnaly think that weight and LRR are related.

To be LRR, the sidewalls need to be slim an less weight usually means less rubber (so thinner). The same thing for the belt and tread.

Make sure your tires can be pumped to "44 PSI Cold Pressure" like the OEM. My tires are not OEM, they are 20 pounds, the sidewall is about twice as thick but I put 44 psi and is compensates somewhat for the LRR rating missing. If they are set to lower pressure, the MPG is affected is a bigger way.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
498 Posts
Yves M. said:
To be LRR, the sidewalls need to be slim an less weight usually means less rubber (so thinner). The same thing for the belt and tread.
Yves,

How is sidewall thickness related to rolling resistance? I thought to reduce resistance you make the tire hard (hard rubber, high air pressure). This reduces flexing of the rubber where it "hit's the road".

Thin sidewalls sound counterintuitive, since they would flex more, no?[/quote]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Low rolling resistance tires are firmer, and one would think would have thicker rubber.

However, thicker rubber may mean that less of a steel belt is required - and the steel belt probrably weighs a lot more than the actual rubber does. So perhaps LRR tires may actually weigh less for that reason.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
830 Posts
Our OEM LRR have thinner sidewalls. It takes less energy to flex a thin rubber 1000 times than it takes to flex a thicker rubber 1000 times.

The OEM tire is harder because of the high pressure. It is not related to the sidewall tickness. In both sidewall tickness, a flat tire does not hold the car, the rim touchs the ground. By that I mean that only air is making the harshness at that level. But if you remove the tire from the rim and compare to other brands, you can see the difference.

In the old days of 'conventionnal' tires, the sidewall was similarely thick. But the wires inside the rubber was crossed at an angle. This was harder to flex because of the wires preventing the flexing. It is harder to flex a conventionnal tire. The radial have the wires going in the same direction (from rim to exteriour) and the wires are not preventing flexing as much.

The sole (tread tichness and tire thickness) of the tire is also thinner on the OEM than me current tires. More than 1/4 inch.
It is also harder to flex the sole when it is thicker.

All tires will flex but the OEM are made thinner for ease of flexing, and have higher pressure for less of the flexing.

ADDITION: My current tires weight about 20 pounds which is almost what the OEM tires AND rims used to weight (about 22). Now it is about 31 pounds for one wheel
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Hi SunsetOrange:

___Might I suggest you consider Arizona Rick’s advice and stick with a new set of RE92’s? If you are striving for high fuel economy, you are more then likely not driving into corners at 60 mph + nor attempting hard braking maneuvers from similar velocities. The 2 real advantages to the OEM RE92’s besides allowing incredible fuel economy is that they are very inexpensive and they will last a hell of a long time when driven at 50 + pounds. I have only lost 3/32nds at most on mine after 30,000 miles. In other words, these things are good for maybe 35,000 max if running at std. pressures on a much heavier automobile but I believe Rick Reese’s Insight has > 100,000 miles with the original OEM’s and they are not worn out yet! Hopefully Rick Reese will reply and verify the above statement as he may have replaced them at the 90,000 + mile mark or thereabouts?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:27d91mkk][email protected][/email:27d91mkk]

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
My Ultra High performance 195/55R14 Toyo T1-S tires mounted on OEM rims weight only 26lbs.
My 185/60R13 race compound Toyo RA1 tires on 8 lb VX rims weigh 25 lbs. (But the rotational inertia of these wheels are much lower then OEM so it takes less energy to accelerate even though they weight more then 22 lbs.)

Insight tire sidewalls are thin to save weight and i'm sure less material helps reduced amount of energy lost in flexing rubber.
Since the rim will scrub the curbs before the OEM tire sidewall, there is less risk of sidewall damage (ouch for the rim).
OEM sidewall stiffness comes from high air pressure and the fact that the tire width is narrow relative to the rim width. This vertical sidewall geometry is very stiff.
Wide rims for performance, narrow rims for comfort.
You can slightly reduce the rolling resistance of wider tires by using wider rims, as long as the rims are aerodynamic like the Insight rims.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
830 Posts
Exactly what I wanted to write G.
I did not want to imply that the sidewall thickness was bad. It is very strong (probably because of the wires). It can handle 44 psi while most thicker tires are only rated to 35.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
652 Posts
I have 2 OEM Bridgestones at 104K. I replaced two of the tires due to a bulge in the sidewall of one tire and neither had worn that much. I did rotate the tires once back at 40K miles. Have fun, RIck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
Tires harden as they age.
As they harden the rate at which the tread wears slows down and the amount of grip the tire compound can provide reduces.
Friends don't let friends drive on old tires (5+ years old)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
And you will be amazed how much nicer fresh rubber rides. I replaced my Potenza's at 27K I think it was, and man I'm still lovin the new tires, though I can already tell they are slowly starting their aging process.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top