Tires & range

[civicwithacord]

Took possession of my 2013 LEAF in April of this year. Noticed the tires are pretty wide, considering that we're trying to squeeze as much range as possible out of them. Has anyone experimented with a more narrow profile? Obviously there are tradeoffs, such as slightly less cornering traction or whatever, but I'd be eager to hear from other drivers who've tried changing them.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Took possession of my 2013 LEAF in April of this year. Noticed the tires are pretty wide, considering that we're trying to squeeze as much range as possible out of them. Has anyone experimented with a more narrow profile? Obviously there are tradeoffs, such as slightly less cornering traction or whatever, but I'd be eager to hear from other drivers who've tried changing them.

The LEAF may look like a small car but it is actually fairly large and is very heavy. Using narrower tires for such a heavy car is not a good idea IMO. If anyone has actually tried it, I can't recall them mentioning it here.

 

[ebill3]

The LEAF may look like a small car but it is actually fairly large and is very heavy. Using narrower tires for such a heavy car is not a good idea IMO. If anyone has actually tried it, I can't recall them mentioning it here.

It is a heavy car. With a curb weight of 3,291 lbs., it is over 900 lbs. heaver than it's Nissan ICE sister - the Versa. There have been a few tire threads, but agree, don't recall anyone going for a smaller footprint.

 

[DeaneG]

People do reduce the tire footprint by increasing the inflation pressure to something less than 44 psi, at the expense of ride quality. It produces a noticeable improvement in efficiency.

 

[smkettner]

IMO ride is better at 44.

 

[LeftieBiker]

I do 40-41 PSI and the car rides and handles fine. I just wish I didn't have to worry about blowouts from the low quality of the tires. Leave it to Nissan to offer no spare on a car with tires that are prone to sidewall damage...

 

[DaveEV]

Using narrower tires for such a heavy car is not a good idea IMO. If anyone has actually tried it, I can't recall them mentioning it here.

The width of a tire doesn't have much to do with it's carrying capacity - after all - look at big-rig tires - pretty narrow.

Bigger issue is finding a suitable tire.

In general, a smaller diameter wheel and narrower/taller tire will be more efficient than a larger diameter wheel and wider/shorter tire.

Unfortunately, many 16" wheels even have issues clearing the front brakes - so that keeps us from trying 15" wheels/tires. Don't know if anyone has tried to see if any 15" wheels would clear the front brakes. So let's check a couple slightly narrower tires.

Two possible sizes in 16"

195/60R16: 1.3% larger
185/65R16: 2.4% larger

Both of these would be suitable sizes if one can find one with a sufficient load rating - the OEM tires are rated 89 which is good for 1279 lbs per tire, so a replacement tire should have at least a 89 load rating. Will use TireRack for searching as they have a very good database:

195/60R16: Only one tire here that is LRR: Yokohama AVID Ascend. 89H service rating.
185/65R16: No tires found.

I tried checking a few other 16" tire sizes and didn't find anything that might be suitable. Lots of 195/55R16 tires, but load rating is too low (typically 87).

So there's basically only one tire that might be a good replacement. I doubt you'd see much of a difference unless the Yokohama AVID Ascend happened to be a very LRR tire, but the Ecopia is already very good with very few tires beating it.

Now if we could go down to a 15" wheel, 195/65R15 is only 0.4% larger than the OEM tire, the load rating is typically 89-91 (same as stock) and there is a ton of choice.

Ideally you'd actually go with a 15" steel wheel, mount "mooneyes" hubcaps on it and then get a tire like the Michelin Energy Saver on it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a good bump in efficiency with that setup - perhaps up to 10%.

 

[garsh]

Now if we could go down to a 15" wheel...

Those front brake calipers are pretty large. I don't think you'll find a 15" wheel with enough room for them.

 

[Berlino]

The OP probably has the MY13 SL with P215/50R17 Michelin Energy Saver Tires as compared the 16" P205's on other LEAFs.

 

[TomT]

That's why many of us bailed out of the Ecrapias early. I went to Michelin MXV4s and have never looked back...

I do 40-41 PSI and the car rides and handles fine. I just wish I didn't have to worry about blowouts from the low quality of the tires. Leave it to Nissan to offer no spare on a car with tires that are prone to sidewall damage...

 

[dgpcolorado]

Using narrower tires for such a heavy car is not a good idea IMO. If anyone has actually tried it, I can't recall them mentioning it here.

The width of a tire doesn't have much to do with it's carrying capacity - after all - look at big-rig tires - pretty narrow...

Oh come now drees, big rigs spread their load over many wheels and tires. Anyway, supporting the load is just part of the tire size question. The rest is cornering and braking. One needs a bigger footprint to safely alter the momentum of a more massive car. Yes, going down one size might not make that much difference but at some point there just isn't enough tire footprint to handle the acceleration vectors on a 1450 kg car (plus passengers) when changing its mv.

 

[TomT]

They also run much higher tire pressures. 100 pounds is not uncommon...

big rigs spread their load over many wheels and tires.