Who is switching to winter tires and steel wheels?

[Lazy2.5]

yep,it will eat the tire's center faster so....your call
family member running 35psi in a camry-i thought to much but doorjam says it...it did wear the center a little faster...dunno

I don't think so. Especially if you are following door-jamb rec.

Refer to the screenshot in the quoted post below. Mazda says to increase your tire pressure by 4PSI over cold rec. in the door jamb.

It's in the owner's manual under Winter Driving, here's a screenshot from the PDF manual:

View attachment 378987

@FerrariF1 @banjos-n-beer @stickerbush @nickswhip24 @mheebs

Indeed, I figured I would come back to update you guys with some findings on winter tire PSI on my Mazda 6.

A little background:

Mazda 6, FWD, 2.5 NA. 3200LB car. Chassis is for larger cars (Shared with the CX-9) and longer than the CX-5, but otherwise should be pretty much the same. I don't have AWD, so my car will be more nose heavier than you guys with your primarily AWD CX-5's. Otherwise, it's a relevant comparison.

I am a "spirited" driver around the corners and tend to lean on my chassis to the point of oversteer all the time, particularly in slippery conditions. I am particular about the PSI I set my tires to, in order to get the appropriate handling balance I look for.


I started playing around with 2-4PSI more than door jamb rec. of 36psi for my 225/55R17 tires. Inflated to 38/39PSI, while driving at speed on smooth roads, felt fine. However, i notice that the front tires felt quite over-inflated over bad roads and when attempting to cut through slush/snow around lower-speed corners.

I then did some research about tire pressure for the rear-axle, because I often drive with the rear completely unloaded. I decided to try dropping it to 35psi.

So, if you drive over bad roads, i'm not sure if you're going to want to follow the +4psi bump.

I am currently experimenting with the rear tire pressures being set lower than the front in an attempt to optimize rear-axle rotation while cornering, especially in slippery conditions. If anyone is curious, I will post an update soon. (For reference, the Honda Accord sport, similar weight distribution and overall curb weight, suggests 35psi front, 33psi rear.)

 

[N7turbo]

Ever since the rubber got cold here my ride has gotten a lot harder. My tires are not going above 34 psi on these horrible streets. But they are also not snow tires so any recommendation to increase them can be ignored.

 

[Lazy2.5]

Ever since the rubber got cold here my ride has gotten a lot harder. My tires are not going above 34 psi on these horrible streets. But they are also not snow tires so any recommendation to increase them can be ignored.

Don't you have like 19's or 20's? Why didn't you go for 18's or even 17's if your roads are so bad?

Would've been lighter too.

 

[N7turbo]

Don't you have like 19's or 20's? Why didn't you go for 18's or even 17's if your roads are so bad?

Would've been lighter too.

They would have been a little lighter but these are already 6.5 lbs lighter than stock so the change in steering lightness was huge. But yeah, it would have given me more tire. But I could only afford one set and nothing beats how killer this thing looks and handles compared to every other CX-5 on the road. It brings me happiness looking at it.

 

[Lazy2.5]

They would have been a little lighter but these are already 6.5 lbs lighter than stock so the change in steering lightness was huge. But yeah, it would have given me more tire. But I could only afford one set and nothing beats how killer this thing looks and handles compared to every other CX-5 on the road. It brings me happiness looking at it.

View attachment 379732

are those 20's

I would have went for a size or two smaller, but looks good. I like that you didn't go for dark wheels.

I'm seeing a near 10lb decrease in weight per wheel, going from OEM 17x7.5 to the fast fc04 wheels i showed you in another thread (17x8).

if you really want to save a bit of extra unsprung mass and improve ride quality, big flashy wheels obviously won't do that lol.

 

[N7turbo]

Everything is a compromise.

 

[Lazy2.5]

Everything is a compromise.

Big wheels for flashy looks is not compromise. That's a sacrifice

 

[leeharvey418]

Big wheels for flashy looks is not compromise. That's a sacrifice

A good engineer acknowledges that aesthetics helps to move product. It may not be the most functional design option, but sometimes your priority is keeping yourself in beer and cigarettes.

 

[N7turbo]

Big wheels for flashy looks is not compromise. That's a sacrifice

Everything is a compromise.

Coming from stock, I lost 6.5 lbs per corner for a total of 26lbs of wheel+tire weight. At the same time, I gained better looks, better fitment, a wheel design that was easier to clean (yes that was part of the decision), and better handling. I gave up nothing but money and the choice to maximize some other aspect (even lighter, more tire to wheel ratio, etc). But I prioritized handling and looks because I believed this platform has untapped potential in both areas. You may have other priorities.

But we're getting off-topic. These are not "winter tires" however they are "DWS" (Dry, Wet, Snow) capable in the Ultra High Performance All Season category. For those that don't know,

When these tires are new, all 3 letters are visible. The first to go as tread depth decreases is the S, indicating they will start to lose snow traction first as the tread blocks aren't as deep. Somewhere during the mid-life of the tire, the W will start to wear through. Towards the end of the life of the tire, only the D will be visible and they will only be great at dry traction.

This will be practically forever for me as this car only sees 4000 miles per year.

 

[nickswhip24]

I don't think so. Especially if you are following door-jamb rec.

Refer to the screenshot in the quoted post below. Mazda says to increase your tire pressure by 4PSI over cold rec. in the door jamb.


@FerrariF1 @banjos-n-beer @stickerbush @nickswhip24 @mheebs

Indeed, I figured I would come back to update you guys with some findings on winter tire PSI on my Mazda 6.

A little background:

Mazda 6, FWD, 2.5 NA. 3200LB car. Chassis is for larger cars (Shared with the CX-9) and longer than the CX-5, but otherwise should be pretty much the same. I don't have AWD, so my car will be more nose heavier than you guys with your primarily AWD CX-5's. Otherwise, it's a relevant comparison.

I am a "spirited" driver around the corners and tend to lean on my chassis to the point of oversteer all the time, particularly in slippery conditions. I am particular about the PSI I set my tires to, in order to get the appropriate handling balance I look for.


I started playing around with 2-4PSI more than door jamb rec. of 36psi for my 225/55R17 tires. Inflated to 38/39PSI, while driving at speed on smooth roads, felt fine. However, i notice that the front tires felt quite over-inflated over bad roads and when attempting to cut through slush/snow around lower-speed corners.

I then did some research about tire pressure for the rear-axle, because I often drive with the rear completely unloaded. I decided to try dropping it to 35psi.

So, if you drive over bad roads, i'm not sure if you're going to want to follow the +4psi bump.

I am currently experimenting with the rear tire pressures being set lower than the front in an attempt to optimize rear-axle rotation while cornering, especially in slippery conditions. If anyone is curious, I will post an update soon. (For reference, the Honda Accord sport, similar weight distribution and overall curb weight, suggests 35psi front, 33psi rear.)

interesting but if tires are run a few pounds low in snow shouldn't you get more grip-running 32 on all 4..seems great...also some tire shops use nitrogen to fill ..think that changes things

 

[Lazy2.5]

Everything is a compromise.

Coming from stock, I lost 6.5 lbs per corner for a total of 26lbs of wheel+tire weight. At the same time, I gained better looks, better fitment, a wheel design that was easier to clean (yes that was part of the decision), and better handling. I gave up nothing but money and the choice to maximize some other aspect (even lighter, more tire to wheel ratio, etc). But I prioritized handling and looks because I believed this platform has untapped potential in both areas. You may have other priorities.

But we're getting off-topic. These are not "winter tires" however they are "DWS" (Dry, Wet, Snow) capable in the Ultra High Performance All Season category. For those that don't know,

View attachment 379747

When these tires are new, all 3 letters are visible. The first to go as tread depth decreases is the S, indicating they will start to lose snow traction first as the tread blocks aren't as deep. Somewhere during the mid-life of the tire, the W will start to wear through. Towards the end of the life of the tire, only the D will be visible and they will only be great at dry traction.

This will be practically forever for me as this car only sees 4000 miles per year.

Yes well, at the end of the day, we have different priorities, and I respect that.

My priority is to keep the hub of my wheel within OEM specifications. I thought about going up to 18's, but I don't wanna mess up these nice alloy wheels over bad roads and I like the way OEM 225/55R17 feels on my car. Lightweight, stiff and durable are all important too. Only then do I think about what the wheels actually look like. But even then, I went for what's on sale and lighter.

If I could lower my car I would, but OEM suspension is simply a better fit for the roads I drive on. Only then, I would begin to think about "fitment" from an aesthetic perspective, assuming it's within OEM range.

Oh, and I wanted an 8" wheel, so that I can get a tighter fit with a 225 section tire for better cornering response or even go up to 235 if I wanted.

 

[Lazy2.5]

interesting but if tires are run a few pounds low in snow shouldn't you get more grip-running 32 on all 4..seems great...also some tire shops use nitrogen to fill ..think that changes things

32PSI is too low, especially for cold weather with soft winter tire compound. You would probably get too much sidewall flex instead of actually improving grip.

There is a significant difference in weight between the front and rear axle on a FWD chassis, even if it has AWD tacked on like a CX-5.

This means that, going 2-3PSI less on the rear axle should equate to a similar tire response between the two axles, assuming you don't have something heavy in the back.

 

[RedBaron]

These are not "winter tires" however they are "DWS" (Dry, Wet, Snow) capable in the Ultra High Performance All Season category.

I have those on my CX-50. Much improved ride and noise over the factory tires.

 

[Lazy2.5]

I also forgot to comment on your DWS tires.

I had some truecontact DWS on my Mazda 6.

the DWS thing with the s rubbing off seemed pretty accurate. The S started to come off at around 4/32nds or less.

Decent tires overall, but the ones I got had an old DOT from 2018, and did not hold up well to spirited cornering before beginning to crack all over.

 

[Mazdiod2]

32PSI is too low, especially for cold weather with soft winter tire compound. You would probably get too much sidewall flex instead of actually improving grip.

There is a significant difference in weight between the front and rear axle on a FWD chassis, even if it has AWD tacked on like a CX-5.

This means that, going 2-3PSI less on the rear axle should equate to a similar tire response between the two axles, assuming you don't have something heavy in the back.

A mazda sedan maybe, but I read this on reddit :
"the Owner’s Manual, almost 50/50, front 2,304 lbs and rear 2,348 lbs. Gross weight. I don’t know Curb, I think total curb is like 3,800 lbs"

So this might be why the manual specifies the same inflation for the front as the rear.
The windows and the hatch might add some weight.