Fiat 500 Forum banner
21 - 40 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Any of you guys have all-weather tires you like?
I'm in Utah where a year round tire needs to be able to handle snow. I've currently got Big O Euro Tour tires on it and am debating just buying a set of winter tires but would prefer to not have to store/change tires again in the spring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I'm VERY happy with my 205/50 15 Hankook Ventus V2 Concept 2 set that I've had over 5k mi. Better than the stock tires in every way*, including cost, grip, wear, & appearance.

*Except: Range per charge, which is equal even though weight is 1 Lb more.
I just put these tires on my 2015 this weekend (and pulled off the Yokohamas on the front with 10K miles on them) - the ride is much better! I only lost 3 miles of range for my commute for 1/2 tank. America's Tire Black Friday sale gave me another 10% back too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
debating just buying a set of winter tires but would prefer to not have to store/change tires again in the spring.
You're the best person to make that judgement, based on your past experience with winters at your location. If you've used all season tires in the past, think about whether you were in situations where you wished you had snow tires.

You can go to tirerack.com and look at their tests and customer surveys of different tires in the snow.
 

·
Registered
2013 FIAT 500e
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
I just put these tires on my 2015 this weekend (and pulled off the Yokohamas on the front with 10K miles on them) - the ride is much better! I only lost 3 miles of range for my commute for 1/2 tank. America's Tire Black Friday sale gave me another 10% back too.
For ME there was NO difference in range when I switched from the STOCK tires to those Hankooks. I drive mostly city, & averaged almost exactly 1 mile per % on stock tires AND on new tires, and:

During over 2,000 miles of daily driving on the stock tires my trip gauge read 4.6mi/kWh.
During ovrr 1,000 miles of daily driving on the Hankooks my trip guage read 4.6mi/kWh.
(but bear in mind the readout would say 4.6 if the actual value was anywhere from 4.550 to 4.649)

Even more surprising to me was no range difference between a month at 50psi (Hankooks), a month at 44psi (stock or new), & a month at 38psi (stock or new).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Hi everyone,

it's an old thread but I thought I'd report back on my tire purchase. I got the Kumho Ecsta 4x iis, in the 195 size. They replaced the stock tires which were pretty worn.
The takeaway: WOW, THE CAR IS TRANSFORMED! Now, I'm not a tire guru, and so I can't compare to all of the other tires discussed, but I can say with confidence that these tires make the car a whole lot better. So I think it's safe to say any good set of tires is worth getting.
Improvements:
- much more stable, and planted feeling in all driving
- smooth
- great grip and solid feeling in corners
- wet grip is much better - I can't make the front tires spin easily like I could before
- range: I can't tell if there's any difference. My range predictor fluctuates wildly and it's not very good- 60-70 miles, but I drive up a big hill every morning
- the bigger size is nice: the front scrapes a lot less, and it protects the rims too.
 

·
Registered
2013 FIAT 500e
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
I think it's safe to say any good set of tires is worth getting.
It might even be safe to say no tires exist that aren't WAY better than stock.

Thanks for the update. Here's mine: 6.7k miles now on my 205/50 15 Hankook Ventus V2 Concept 2 set, & ALL* of Bomber's comments apply, INCLUDING surprisingly identical range to stock tires.

My best friend also got a set, & neither of us noticed any difference there, or on smoothness or noise. Just much better grip (15% faster dry cornering) & wear (I'm on track for nearly TRIPLE stock range).
 

·
Registered
2013 FIAT 500e
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
My range predictor fluctuates wildly and it's not very good- 60-70 miles, but I drive up a big hill every morning
- the bigger size is nice: the front scrapes a lot less
*ADDENDUM:

- MY range gauge is VERY accurate EXCEPT above about 80% batt, or at either end of a hill or fast highway.

- My 205s' diameter closely matches stock, so the front rubber doesn't scrape any less.
 

·
Registered
2013 FIAT 500e
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Thanks for the report. I'm curious how you tested the range.

Due to their full-depth tread, those brand new Kumhos are actually going about 2 miles further (per 100 odometer miles) than OEM tires that are worn to barely-legal tread depth. If that wasn't accounted for, then it's only about 3 miles of range loss, which can happen with a very slight headwind.

The unworn weight specs are identical, so the new tires are each nearly 2 pounds heavier than worn-out OEMs. By suddenly returning to the original OEM weight, you just added about 8 pounds to the mass which needs to be accelerated rotationally as well as longitudinally. That can hurt range a bit when you're not at a constant speed.

In other words, based on your note I would bet that the range of NEW OEMs & those new Kumhos is virtually identical. I get identical range as OEMs with 205/50 Hankook Ventus V2 Concept 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
I kept a mental log for the first few months of commuting. Not the most scientific approach, but it could have a little to do with the higher rolling resistance of the tires AND my right foot enjoying the new found cornering grip.


Some weeks the range was identical to the OEM's. So it's very possible they are nearly identical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Thanks for the report. I'm curious how you tested the range.

Due to their full-depth tread, those brand new Kumhos are actually going about 2 miles further (per 100 odometer miles) than OEM tires that are worn to barely-legal tread depth. If that wasn't accounted for, then it's only about 3 miles of range loss, which can happen with a very slight headwind.

The unworn weight specs are identical, so the new tires are each nearly 2 pounds heavier than worn-out OEMs. By suddenly returning to the original OEM weight, you just added about 8 pounds to the mass which needs to be accelerated rotationally as well as longitudinally. That can hurt range a bit when you're not at a constant speed.

In other words, based on your note I would bet that the range of NEW OEMs & those new Kumhos is virtually identical. I get identical range as OEMs with 205/50 Hankook Ventus V2 Concept 2.
How are you arriving at 2 mi per 100 and 2 lbs?
 

·
Registered
2013 FIAT 500e
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
OEM diameter spec is 23", times Pi = circumference of 72.26"
OEM diameter with original 11/32 tread worn to 2/32 is 22.44", times Pi = 70.49"
That's 98% (2 miles less, per 100 miles)

"2Lb" I got by weighing a worn-out stock tire, so that number is only as accurate as the tire specs. Regardless of the actual number, a tire definitely loses rotational mass as it wears.
 

·
Registered
2013 FIAT 500e
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
I kept a mental log for the first few months of commuting. Not the most scientific approach, but it could have a little to do with the higher rolling resistance of the tires AND my right foot enjoying the new found cornering grip.


Some weeks the range was identical to the OEM's. So it's very possible they are nearly identical.
Better grip doesn't necessarily mean more rolling resistance. Anyway, higher airspeed, such as a slight headwind or not slowing for corners, is by FAR the biggest range-reducer, so now based on all of the above, a fair range comparison would almost certainly be identical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
OEM diameter spec is 23", times Pi = circumference of 72.26"
OEM diameter with original 11/32 tread worn to 2/32 is 22.44", times Pi = 70.49"
That's 98% (2 miles less, per 100 miles)

"2Lb" I got by weighing a worn-out stock tire, so that number is only as accurate as the tire specs. Regardless of the actual number, a tire definitely loses rotational mass as it wears.
Gotcha, and you could use that geometry if tyres were rigid bodies. In practice you need to think of rolling radius and while tread can have some impact on it, once you consider tread squirm, construction/associated deformation, centripetal forces, load, pressures, etc. you’ll see that it’s minimal.
Fun fact, even a train’s metal wheels running on metallic rails, have a slightly different rolling radius than what you would geometrically measure if that wheel was static and unloaded.

As for the 2lbs, that sounds like a lot to me, but guess you could be right
 

·
Registered
2013 FIAT 500e
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Yes, static unloaded circumference isn't exactly equal to effective rolling circumference, but the point is that both are slightly more on a new tire than when it's worn out.

I read that Subaru requires tires' tread depths are within 2/32-inch of each other, & that Porsche requires 2 tires on the same driven axle have wear within 30% of one another (less than 3/32). They wouldn't need to specify that if it didn't make any difference.

Yes, compared to a few mph of airspeed it is minimal. It's only about 2%. That would be 2 miles per charge, for me. However, that would account for 40% of the guesstimated "about 5 miles per charge" range loss.

As for the 2Lb per tire (8 pounds total), even if that's inaccurately high, that mass at the very outer circumference of the tire is in the position of absolute maximum effect for rotational inertia. Still maybe "minimal". Like maybe only another 2%? ;)
 
21 - 40 of 57 Posts
Top