Rep Power: 0

There are constant questions about 205/40-17 tires for the 7th gen Civics, even though that size is nowhere to be found on the list of recommended sizes on the Tire Calculator

The reason there is so much confusion about this is because 205/40-17 was always the traditional "Honda Civic" size when people upgraded to 17's on the PREVIOUS GENERATION CIVICS.

Remember, most of the older Civics (especially the 5th generation) ran either 13 or 14 inch donuts, and the 15's were the "big" wheel on the 1999-2000 Si models!

205/40-17 was correct if you wanted minimal speedometer error & the ability to lower your 5th or 6th generation Civic.

There are A LOT of local wheel/tire installers and a few online sellers that haven't realized that the 7th generation has a larger wheelwell and the standard tires are 14 & 15 inches with a wider tread & a larger O.D. than the previous Civics that are out there.

This is not a flame thread of anyone who DOES run 205/40-17's -- many people love the look of the really low sidewall and live in an area where potholes are not a big problem. Just wanted to explain why this particular size keeps getting recommended for our cars even though it is not shown as one of the official "plus sizes" for a 7th gen.

Thanks

 
Rep Power: 0

I have never been able to get the tire calc working for some reason, so I dont know what it says about the recommended size. But I have talked to several stores and they all recommended 215/45/17 for the 7thgen because according to them, that size matches stock the most. But with a size like that, you wont be getting the low-profile look. So maybe 205/45/17 is a good compromise. As you said 205/40/17 was good for previous gens, but I think thats too small for this gen.

 
Rep Power: 0

from what i've heard, many shops and companies tell me to get 215/45/17's. but i like the look of 205/40

 
Rep Power: 321

Yeah, I had previously heard that about the 205/40/17 also. When I was upgrading to 17's I specifically said i would like 215/45/17 and untill they found out it was a 2002 they all responded with "um thats a little big for a civic"...I needed protection from potholes and stuff. The only problem is, now that im looking to lower, i seem to have run into a few things aka RUBBING. Not sure what to do now.

 
Rep Power: 0

I'll be the first to recommend against it.

First of all, it screws up the speedometer on an EX/Si more than it does a DX/HX/LX because of the diameter of the wheel from the side. It's smaller than both stock sizes - and so many people wonder why 17s "look too small."

Second, 205 sucks. I don't see why someone would want a 205 on a wheel with at least 7 inches of width when a 205 can fit on a stock 15x6 with no problem. Personally I would try to take as much advantage of the width with a wider tire. The only reason I see people using 205s is because it won't rub the rear fender depending on one's rear camber preference (for instance, if they want close to 0 degree camber, a 215 will rub the fender well on a slammed Civic). The only said remedy for this was to get a 40 profile with a 215 or a 205-45 but I'd like to see some camber degree #s first or at least some pictures.

Third, 40 series tires are loud as hell thanks to the tire being closer to the wheel. They are susceptible to potholes that can potentially bend your wheel (and would suck even more if your wheel is out of production or unable to find used). One may argue that a lower profile tire is better for handling, and while that is true, it does not beat the additional traction a wider tire offers.

This is why I vote against 205-40-17. But I will say it does have it's advatages, however... I wouldn't take them for the risks they offer. If you aren't worried about bad roads, then 40 can be fine in some places, but overall you can't find a FAIRLY comfortable tire in that size.

 
Rep Power: 0

They have no idea what they're talking about. 215-45-17 is just a lil' bigger in diameter than a 185-65-15. I'm sure the tire does look a lil' thick but it's really an optical illusion. It's not like a 17 inch wheel = the diameter of the stock wheel with the stock tire on it.

 
Rep Power: 404

also because it is cheaper...

 
Rep Power: 321

They didnt realize it was a 2002, since on <2000 models you couldnt fit 215/45/17.

 
Rep Power: 0

Understood.

 
Rep Power: 363

hmm.. what's the best size to fit a 15" rim? ;P

 
Rep Power: 311

I run 205/40/17's and love the look and handling. Obviously the ride is going to be a little rougher, but thats the trade off of just about any low profile tire. 215/45/17's look thick to me now when I see them. Regarding the speedo being off, at first I was concerned about it, but its not a big deal. Its 4% off of stock, which in the end doesnt seem to make much of a difference. For example, at 100mph I'm really only doing 96mph. At 50mph, I'm going 48mph. In real traffic conditions, like cruising in commuter traffic at a pace of 70-80mph, its all the same.

 
Rep Power: 0

195 or 205-60-15.

 
Rep Power: 0

I'm sorry but I'm going to partially disagree.

@ 60MPH you're really going 57 MPH.

@ 80MPH you're really going 74MPH.

@130MPH you're really going 117MPH.

It gets much worse the faster you go on that size.

 
Rep Power: 321

Therefore it puts more miles on your car (right?). so That SUX.

 
Rep Power: 311

Your math is wrong..

60 x .04 = 2.4 slower, or 57.6. Rounded off its 58mph. Not a big deal.

80 x .04 = 3.2 slower, or 76.8. Rounded off its 77mph.

130 x .04 = 5.2 slower, or 124.8. Rounded off its 125mph.

Like I said, I was concerned about this myself but I soon found out it doesnt make much difference.

2K2EXCOUPE, the mileage is clocked off the tranny I think, so it doesnt matter what size your tires are.

 
Rep Power: 321

Mileage does depend on what size tires you have on there...compared to stock different tire size matters.

 
Rep Power: 0

I stand corrected.

But, 2k2EXCOUPE is right. It's not clocked off the tranny, it's clocked off the engine through the front wheels. Since your miles per hour are faster than normal, your miles on the odometer add up quicker.

 
Rep Power: 311

Heh.. actually your wrong again. Remember my speedo is SLOWER than normal, so my miles will NOT add up quicker..

Just how certain are you about the speed being based off the engine speed? That doesnt make sense.. care to explain? I mean the engine rpms run up and down, and there are no speed sensors on our front wheels.

 
Rep Power: 0

Unless they've changed the way they are making cars, the speedometer cable runs from the tranny. But that cable is dumb -- it was calibrated at the factory to know that a certain number of revolutions of the factory sized tire means the car is traveling at 30 MPH, 60 MPH, etc.

So the overall size of the wheel/tire combination WILL have an effect as shown by the Tire Calculator here on the site.

flotsamm, unfortunately you do have it backwards. Your speedometer reads slower than normal, but here is the result:

>You are driving down the road -- cruise control is set @ 60 MPH, but you know your car is only going 57.6 MPH. But wait! Since you know that your speedometer error is 4%, you now want to make the CAR travel @ 60 MPH because everybody is blowing you off the road . What do you do?
>In order to make the car travel 60 MPH like you actually want to, the smaller diameter tires must revolve more times and your speedometer has to read ~62.5 MPH

That's what everyone is talking about--if your car truly travels at 60 MPH, then you can see that the mileage would add up 4% faster with the 205's...
I hope this helps!

 
Rep Power: 311

Ahh crap your right! But again I must say, when I'm doing my daily commute and cruising with everyone else doing 70mph, my speedo is at 70 also.. maybe its my tire brand dunno. In the end, when it comes down to selling it, if the odometer reads 100K versus 104K miles, its not gonna matter to me or most potential buyers. Or even 50K versus 52K, its not anything to really worry about IMHO.

Regarding the clocking of miles, I dont think we use a cable anymore(old skewl technology) but instead its all computer controlled from a sensor in the tranny. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks. This brings up another question that I dont know the answer to:

If the miles are indeed clocked from the tranny, is my odometer really off because my tire size is different?

One of these days I'm gonna have to drive my wifes car to work and clock the miles, then compare it to my car. That'll explain the above question! Grrr.

 
Rep Power: 0

No matter what the method that is being used to clock the speed & miles, the speedometer & odometer were calibrated together at the factory, remember? So it's like you said in your earlier "math correction" post to SlammedBlueEM2: when you are on your commute and the speedo says 70 MPH, your car is actually traveling a little over 67 MPH (I guarantee it ). That's the whole purpose of the fabulous tire calc and its recommended "plus one" "plus two" etc. sizes for the 7th gen Civic...

But! As you also correctly noted in that same post: "not a big deal" as long as you know what the percentage of error is. That just means you can set the cruise on 72 or 73 and not get a speeding ticket

And you are right that it is nothing to stress over...how many prospective buyers are really gonna think about the 4% extra miles when they go to buy it?

 
Rep Power: 0

hey sorry to go off ur topic for a bit here but i have a question.... sum1 said he loves the look and handling of 205\40\17... so does that mean that this size is bext for handling? if not, which is the best? i couldnt care less about looks cuz imma be autocrossing my civic

 
Rep Power: 381

For autocross you want the WIDEST and STICKIEST tires you can get to fit on the wheel and in your wheelwell. of course if you have very stiff shocks you could have the tires stick out beyond the wheelwells. you also want a tire designed for cornering. Also, Having a shorter total diamiter wheel/tire combo will help in acceleration. (Just like they were talking about earlier in the thread)

For autocross I run a set of Falken Azenis sports 205/50R15. My friend with a 3rd gen civic runs 215/50HR13 (Sumitomo HTZ50 Discontinued)and Some national champs that ran with us at the last event were runing 225/50YR16 on a 4th gen civic (Kumho Ecsta MX). All of these tires are National level tires. the sizes are hard to compair because of where and how each company mesures them. (Azenis 205's are more like most companys 215's) the compound is also important. (The Sumitomos were the softest) where the Falkens and the Kuhmos are just about the same except under braking (the Kuhmos get slick). all of these tires are legal for STS, if you run Stock you can use even stickyer tires such as Hoosier and Victoracers.

 
Rep Power: 0

Sorry, another off topic question. I noticed yall talkin bout tires and such. If im lowered one inch on front and rear, will I be able to fit 18's still? Or no? If I can, whats the best size tire to get? Cause right now I'm shopping for wheels. Thanks.

 
Rep Power: 0

Ah, let me refer you once again to the tire calculator link back in my very first post. It contains the recommended 16, 17, 18, & 19 inch tire sizes to fit our 7th Generation Civics.

With just a 1 inch drop you should not have problems if you stick to a 7" or 7.5" wide wheel with the correct offset. Two beautiful Civics with 18's that come to mind are Slystad810 & Xtreme2k2Civic (and they are dropped lower than 1 inch )


Okay.....if you haven't gone to the tire calculator yet, the two 18 inch sizes are 215/35-18 and 215/40-18

 
Rep Power: 0

thanks!

 
Rep Power: 417

ya i always thought 205-40-17 was just WAY too thin.. it looks like the car is on stilts(sp?)... 215-45-17 kinda looked too thick tho, i think 205-45-17 is perfect...
blah and 215-40-18s is just too thick and 215-35-18 is too thin. 225-35-18 sounds just perfect only thing is you might have problems with it rubbing.