: Thinking of changing tire sizes -- tpms question



voltage692
03-14-2011, 02:09 AM
I am thinking of trying to stay with the stock wheels and just go with a wider tire that is only slightly taller.

The stock wheels really aren't that bad, but the tires look a little narrow for my liking.

And I do not like the road noise from the Goodyears. In fact, every Goodyear I have owned seemed to stink. Every Michelin I have owned seemed really good.

It looks like we are on a 7" rim. Am I right about that?

If I go from a 215/55/17 to a 245/50/17, I will only be 1.24% over on diameter, which has got to be ok. But I will gain over an inch in width, and this new size is good for 7" rims.

It would fill the wheel well a little better, and also give a similar effect of adding 15mm spacers. It looks like the clearance would be just fine.

This is the first car I have owned with TPMS. What can I expect when getting the tires changed? Will they try to ding me for new ones even though the car only has 600 miles on it? Or some funky service charge to remount them?

I plan to buy from Tirerack and then install at Discount Tire (this is my normal routine since I can get the road force balancing done at Discount and I just can't find a better price even after shipping costs for Tirerack).

ctdeng0
03-14-2011, 07:46 AM
All current production cars have TPMS so every tire place should be capable of changing tires without damaging the sensors. Cadillac has had TPMS sensors since at least 2005 so this isn't anything new.

I would note that your mileage will go down especially if you do not get low rolling resistant tires.

voltage692
03-14-2011, 10:36 AM
Thanks.

Yes, I do expect to lose some mpg. But for someone that just paid $1800 to paint the plastic on my car, and an extra $4k to get a fully loaded version, a few mpg's don't really matter. I could have bought a lot of electrons and fossils for that $6k.



All current production cars have TPMS so every tire place should be capable of changing tires without damaging the sensors. Cadillac has had TPMS sensors since at least 2005 so this isn't anything new.

I would note that your mileage will go down especially if you do not get low rolling resistant tires.

jeffhre
03-15-2011, 11:49 AM
Thanks.

Yes, I do expect to lose some mpg. But for someone that just paid $1800 to paint the plastic on my car, and an extra $4k to get a fully loaded version, a few mpg's don't really matter. I could have bought a lot of electrons and fossils for that $6k.

Michelin does have some very low rolling resistance tires. Maybe you could find some that fit the Volt and help with extending electric range + mpg.

"I could have bought a lot of electrons and fossils for that $6k." True if cheaper is better, you could convert a junker without an engine with some lead acid batteries. Though, regarding the Volt there's not much point to owning this technology if it eventually comes down to all show and no go.

voltage692
03-15-2011, 03:15 PM
I'll check on the other options for low rolling resistance.

If the car loses 3-5 mpg and I drop from an average of 170mpg to 165mpg, I wouldn't go around saying that it's all show and no go.

All I am saying is that I can afford to lose some mpg based on financials and overall greeness.


Michelin does have some very low rolling resistance tires. Maybe you could find some that fit the Volt and help with extending electric range + mpg.

"I could have bought a lot of electrons and fossils for that $6k." True if cheaper is better, you could convert a junker without an engine with some lead acid batteries. Though, regarding the Volt there's not much point to owning this technology if it eventually comes down to all show and no go.

misslexi
03-15-2011, 06:16 PM
Found this tire calculator a few years back, it'll tell you what to expect in terms of speedo changes.

http://www.dakota-truck.net/TIRECALC/tirecalc.html

jeffhre
03-17-2011, 12:40 PM
I'll check on the other options for low rolling resistance.

If the car loses 3-5 mpg and I drop from an average of 170mpg to 165mpg, I wouldn't go around saying that it's all show and no go.

All I am saying is that I can afford to lose some mpg based on financials and overall greeness.

I don't want to sound hyper critical when no criticism at all is due. This technology just changes the paradigm a bit. And at 170 MPG, you seem to have some leeway until you drop into the expected MPG for cars that must burn gas :)