Who is switching to winter tires and steel wheels?

[Lazy2.5]

@Mazdiod2 So I dug around and verified this information:

CX-5: https://owners-manual.mazda.com/gen/es/cx-5/cx-5_8hd7sp18k/contents/10020109.html

Here is Gemini's explanation as to why only Mexico got the more detailed recommendation:

(I asked: why does only mexico get more detailed tire pressure recommendations?)

This is a classic case of "Litigation vs. Engineering."

The reason you see detailed, variable pressures for Mexico (and Europe/Japan) but a single, high number for the US and Canada comes down to one specific US law: The TREAD Act of 2000.

Here is exactly why the manuals differ, despite the cars being mechanically identical.

1. The TREAD Act (The "Dummy-Proofing" Law)​

In the late 90s, the Ford Explorer / Firestone tire scandal caused hundreds of rollovers.1 The investigation found that Ford had recommended a low tire pressure (26 psi) for comfort, but owners let it drop lower, and when the SUV was fully loaded, the tires overheated and blew out.

In response, the US Congress passed the TREAD Act, which mandated strict rules for the "Tire and Loading Information" placard on the door jamb.

• The Rule: The placard must display the recommended pressure that's biased toward the maximum load rating.
• The Consequence: Manufacturers are effectively banned from putting a "Light Load" number on the official door sticker in North America. If they put "33 psi" on the sticker, and you load 5 people and drive 80mph, they could be liable if a tire blows.
• The Result: They just print the "Max Load" (or near max) number as the only number to cover their legal bases. They assume you will never change your pressure, so they force you to run the "Safe for Heavy Load" pressure 100% of the time.

2. Mexico (and the World) Trusts the Driver​

Mexico does not fall under the US NHTSA TREAD Act regulations for domestic labeling. They generally follow ECE (United Nations/European) standards or their own NOM standards, which prioritize Engineering Optimization over "worst-case scenario" legal safety.

• The Logic: "A car handling 1 driver needs different pressure than a car handling 5 adults."
• The Benefit: By allowing the "Light Load" (33 psi) recommendation, the Mexican spec car rides softer, has a larger contact patch, and wears tires more evenly when you are driving alone (which is 90% of the time).

Summary: The US/Canada label assumes you are clueless and might load the car with bricks at any moment. The Mexican label assumes you are an active participant in maintaining your vehicle.

 

[Mazdiod2]

The Mazda manual specs 41psi for full load vs 33 psi rear (w 17"); 36psi vs 42psi(w 19").

The US spec doesn't give the higher number which should be safer with a heavier load, at least according to this "tread act".

The US spec also doesn't show any difference between the front and rear, while the Mexican spec does.

I don't know who Gemini is, but it doesn't make sense to me. If the manual said to alway inflate to the higher load numbers, which range from 38 to 42 psi, it would make sense.

CX-5: https://owners-manual.mazda.com/gen/es/cx-5/cx-5_8hd7sp18k/contents/10020109.html

Here is Gemini's explanation as to why only Mexico got the more detailed recommendation:
US and Canada comes down to one specific US law: The TREAD Act of 2000.

Here is exactly why the manuals differ, despite the cars being mechanically identical.

• The Rule: The placard must display the recommended pressure for the Maximum Load Rating of the vehicle.
• The Consequence: Manufacturers are effectively banned from putting a "Light Load" number on the official door sticker in North America. If they put "33 psi" on the sticker, and you load 5 people and drive 80mph, they could be liable if a tire blows.
• The Result: They just print the "Max Load" (or near max) number as the only number to cover their legal bases. They assume you will never change your pressure, so they force you to run the "Safe for Heavy Load" pressure 100% of the time.

 

[Lazy2.5]

The Mazda manual specs 41psi for full load vs 33 psi rear (w 17"); 36psi vs 42psi(w 19").

The US spec doesn't give the higher number which should be safer with a heavier load, at least according to this "tread act".

The US spec also doesn't show any difference between the front and rear, while the Mexican spec does.

I don't know who Gemini is, but it doesn't make sense to me. If the manual said to alway inflate to the higher load numbers, which range from 38 to 42 psi, it would make sense.

‎Google Gemini

Meet Gemini, Google’s AI assistant. Get help with writing, planning, brainstorming, and more. Experience the power of generative AI.

gemini.google.com

AI chat.

You're right. The PSI suggestions in the placard is a compromise number between light and heavy load. I will correct that.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

I use 225/65 17" for both regular and winter tires. I have a cheap alloy set of wheels for the winters, but I actually like them better than my stock wheels looks wise. Very similar look to the 2016 19" wheels (the "vampire fangs").

I have Viking Contact 7's on right now. We've gotten a total of 1 single snowstorm so far this winter. I almost feel like putting my other tires back on.

I had Blizzaks before but given the wild temperature swings and stretches of clear days we can have between major snow events, they just don't hold up for me past 2-3 seasons. Once that initial soft layer of compound is worn out they are noticably way worse.

 

[Lazy2.5]

I use 225/65 17" for both regular and winter tires. I have a cheap alloy set of wheels for the winters, but I actually like them better than my stock wheels looks wise. Very similar look to the 2016 19" wheels (the "vampire fangs").

I have Viking Contact 7's on right now. We've gotten a total of 1 single snowstorm so far this winter. I almost feel like putting my other tires back on.

I had Blizzaks before but given the wild temperature swings and stretches of clear days we can have between major snow events, they just don't hold up for me past 2-3 seasons. Once that initial soft layer of compound is worn out they are noticably way worse.

good lord, we have had at least 10 major snowfalls already here.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

good lord, we have had at least 10 major snowfalls already here.

I have never seen a winter like what we've had so far here in Denver. Seriously, 1 single snowstorm in November. And actually if I am being completely truthful, we got a little bit of snow one night last week but it all melted by noon basically. I am not looking forward to the inevitable drought and wildfire season we are likely to have as a result this summer. The mountains aren't getting much either.

 

[N7turbo]

Same in Nebraska. It has been 50-60° F. Unreal. I'm fully expecting a deep freeze soon to make up for it.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Same in Nebraska. It has been 50-60° F. Unreal. I'm fully expecting a deep freeze soon to make up for it.

We used to get our heaviest snows in March. Will see what happens this year. We also used to get plenty in November and December, but here we are.

 

[Lazy2.5]

We used to get our heaviest snows in March. Will see what happens this year. We also used to get plenty in November and December, but here we are.

I live on the South-East corner of Georgian Bay, a massive Bay in Ontario just off an even larger Lake Huron. There are literally thousands of lakes all around the vicinity as well, ranging from all sizes.

We are conveniently positioned to receive massive amounts of lake-effect snow, and snow-squalls causing the occasional white-out conditions while driving due to the strong wind. While we rarely get more than 1 foot of snow at a time, it has been occurring on a near-constant basis for most of this winter (so far) as well as the last, with less thawing cycles than previous years. Driving here in the winter is not pleasant, particularly if you decide not to mount winter-tires onto your vehicle.

When the roads are slick enough to cause some loss of traction, but not slick enough to cause a complete loss of control, this is when I am most excited to drive. Mazda's chassis as well as suspension geometry, alignment etc. is setup to offer a very playful rear axle. It's a lot of fun. While the front open diff. can be a let-down in certain scenarios where both front tires have different levels of grip, and pushing hard enough to cause oversteer at higher speeds can be sketchy to say the least, the car is playful when you want it to be while overall proving to be rather capable when simply getting home in treacherous winter conditions is the priority.

I don't have AWD, I don't need it, nor do I want it, unless It was for a car that I use in the winter only. The extra weight and drivetrain losses are useless (IMO) the rest of the time when it is not slippery.

If you have a good car (Such as a Mazda) you know how to drive, have appropriate winter tires mounted, don't drive faster than what the conditions allow, FWD or RWD is perfectly sufficient, especially if you happen to have an LSD.

I have never had issues with ground clearance on my Mazda 6 sedan either, only when pulling into my driveway through nearly a foot of snow.

 

[N7turbo]

I don't have AWD, I don't need it, nor do I want it, unless It was for a car that I use in the winter only. The extra weight and drivetrain losses are useless (IMO) the rest of the time when it is not slippery.

I used to think that.

Then I learned about handling balance and realized AWD fixes FWD understeer/push.

There is a reason RWD cars are easier to turn and feel better when doing so.

 

[Lazy2.5]

I used to think that.

Then I learned about handling balance and realized AWD fixes FWD understeer/push.

The inherit reason why the average car will default to understeer is because they are deliberately setup to do so from the factory. Apparently, it is "safe" for the average driver who may struggle to correct oversteer.

You can tune a FWD car (Such as a Civic Type R) to have very little to no understeer unless you are pushing the chassis to it's limits around a corner.

AWD can assist, but only if the suspension geometry and alignment allows the chassis to rotate properly in the first place.

There is a reason RWD cars are easier to turn and feel better when doing so.

And of course, you are spot-on about the handling-benefits with a RWD (Or even a properly configured AWD) vehicle.


However, to simply tack AWD (Especially one that sends no power to the rear unless it feels the need to) to your average car really isn't going to help with rotation and the mitigation of understeer.

While the CX-5's chassis is inherently a dynamic one and highly capable, the ride height, giant wheels, conservative alignment designed for the average driver, and obese curb-weight no longer positions it as a proper drivers car, in my honest opinion.

If it dropped several - hundred pounds of weight and a few inches in ride height, had some lighter wheels and tires on it, then you could start to work the alignment and AWD system tuning into something worthy of being called a drivers car.

For the average driver, even someone who enjoys to push a little harder around the bends, it's setup great. But no more than that.

 

[N7turbo]

However, to simply tack AWD (Especially one that sends no power to the rear unless it feels the need to) to your average car really isn't going to help with rotation and the mitigation of understeer.

It does and I can tell you there is a very clear difference between the front wheel drive and all-wheel drive CX-5. I have owned both. This is not guessing, it's actual experience. It's pretty easy to understand once you explain that when the rear wheels are pushing, the car rotates better. It's really that simple.

 

[Lazy2.5]

It does and I can tell you there is a very clear difference between the front wheel drive and all-wheel drive CX-5. I have owned both. This is not guessing, it's actual experience. It's pretty easy to understand once you explain that when the rear wheels are pushing, the car rotates better. It's really that simple.

I'm not arguing.

I was referring to the "average car" in the phrase you quoted. The CX-5 is far more competent than the average car, so yes, you are right when you say that AWD will certainly help it handle better.

My main point is that you don't "need" AWD.

 

[madar]

I was out last weekend during the bad storm we had in East central Pa. It's remarkable the traction you get with snow tires versus all seasons which is basically none after a certain point. I saw a Dodge Ram 4x4 with big knobby mud tires trying to go up a super slippery hill sideways, I finally got tired of waiting for him to make it and just drove around him, almost comical to a point. My CX5 has gotten me through a few really bad storms in the past with great ease. Really remarkable AWD system enhanced by winter tires. And now we have this new monster of a storm slated for this weekend.

 

[Lazy2.5]

I'm relieved that you didn't purchase these new at retail pricing!
Safe winter driving.

Thought I should post a quick update regarding these Starfire's I got..

I live on South Georgian Bay in Ontario, right in the snow belt.. I believe I mentioned that in this thread.

The tires have performed well. They are pretty good in dry and wet, very confident in light snow, but will start to slip once conditions get more intense. That's if you're charging the straights and corners as if they are not snowy... So of course, you have to slow down, and there will not be any issues. But you must know how to counter-steer. These tires have mostly rekindled my confidence in this FWD chassis during snowy conditions and has actually turned it into a bit of a tank. It will plow through snow up until the point the frame is up against it... Only then will you get stuck.

At this point, I am curious how much better "premium" winter tires will perform. I know the tread-life on these probably won't be great. I've dealt with cheap Chinese winter tires before. I've also driven on Yokohama Iceguard's on a RWD BMW years ago, and I don't think these Starfire's fall behind much in traction FWIW.

I have my eyes on some Michelin Alpin PA4 or PA5's for a future set out of curiosity.

 

[zx10guy]

Once the stock all seasons are worn, I'm putting on a set of Michelin Cross Climate 2s. I had two sets on my previous C-HR. The Cross Climates are winter rated and I've driven through a few snow storms with it and have never had an issue even with the C-HR being a front wheel drive only car. Also, I managed to get about 100,000 miles of wear out of the Cross Climates before having to replace them. Their wet performance isn't as good as how well the tires perform in the snow.

Originally, I was going to get a set of steel wheels with Blizzaks to swap in on the C-HR during the winter. But with my extensive experience with the Cross Climates, I don't see the need. I also have experience with the Blizzaks. Have them on a set of spare alloys for my BMW 135i. The Blizzaks no question are very good winter tires and again, never had a problem getting around in the snow in my rear wheel drive 135i.

 

[GFrosty]

Sounds like a very reasonable and experienced approach to winter driving. How do you stop people from tailgating you? It happens to me all the time on one lane roads. I've learned to just ignore them and driving almost exactly how I would if they weren't there.

I've also learned to maintain very generous following distance in virtually any condition, Especially at speeds of 80km/h or faster. It's not only safe, but keeps me from needing to hit the brakes when someone up ahead suddenly needs to turn off of the one lane roads I typically navigate.

The only other thing I would mention, on top of your laundry list of winter driving safety is to use your high-beams. It could be helpful to flash other drivers during poor visibility, especially during a sudden white-out so they know you're coming. It's helpful if someone must yield to you and could use some help judging how fast you're coming.

I do both of those.

I'm generally at least ~3 seconds behind the car ahead of me, if not more. Tailgaters despise that, and some of them swing past (even across double/double yellow lines on the lane to squeeze into that "window". They're welcome to it. I won't risk myself by erasing the key thing I retain in my pocket: reaction time and the space to do something about a nasty situation that arises. All the more vital at higher speeds, in inclement weather or road conditions.

High beams are something I rarely use, except for "flashing" to notify another driver of my intentions, or my yielding to allow them to get to a safer spot (ie, during a turn where they're otherwise creating a line of impatient drivers behind them).

When in poor visibility, I generally slow down quite a bit, generally use the emergency flashers if I feel it's risky enough for everyone or people (behind) need to be warned of something. Icy conditions are bad enough, but surprise objects or critters in the road can make a real mess, if people aren't careful. Have experienced elk and deer in the road, and have found a modest-size boulder in the road (that had just crashed down from the hillside above). You never know.

Some of my family members complain I "drive like a granny". Well, no, but in inclement weather or with ratty road conditions I certainly drive more cautiously ... since I know full well the "average" capability and attention span of most drivers around me.

Stellar tires at all times are primary, for me. The other steps just help further ensure I'm not likely to get creamed in an otherwise avoidable situation.

 

[Lazy2.5]

I do both of those.

I'm generally at least ~3 seconds behind the car ahead of me, if not more. Tailgaters despise that, and some of them swing past (even across double/double yellow lines on the lane to squeeze into that "window". They're welcome to it. I won't risk myself by erasing the key thing I retain in my pocket: reaction time and the space to do something about a nasty situation that arises. All the more vital at higher speeds, in inclement weather or road conditions.

High beams are something I rarely use, except for "flashing" to notify another driver of my intentions, or my yielding to allow them to get to a safer spot (ie, during a turn where they're otherwise creating a line of impatient drivers behind them).

When in poor visibility, I generally slow down quite a bit, generally use the emergency flashers if I feel it's risky enough for everyone or people (behind) need to be warned of something. Icy conditions are bad enough, but surprise objects or critters in the road can make a real mess, if people aren't careful. Have experienced elk and deer in the road, and have found a modest-size boulder in the road (that had just crashed down from the hillside above). You never know.

Some of my family members complain I "drive like a granny". Well, no, but in inclement weather or with ratty road conditions I certainly drive more cautiously ... since I know full well the "average" capability and attention span of most drivers around me.

Stellar tires at all times are primary, for me. The other steps just help further ensure I'm not likely to get creamed in an otherwise avoidable situation.

I aim for at least 3 seconds, probably closer to 5 for following distance.

I think the best advice I can give to newer drivers would be - assuming you have some understanding in confidence in how much grip you have, particularly for making a turn or needing to slow down/stop in slippery conditions, would be following distance. If you are maintaining like 5 seconds of following distance, how fast you are going becomes slightly less important.

You can be going slowly, following too close, and cause an accident.

BTW, we were discussing the transmissions shift points in your other thread. I have since began using almost exclusively manual mode to stop letting the engine bog below 1700rpm constantly. It has been very helpful.

I now shift at around 2200rpm in most gears so that I am at or just above 1500rpm in the next gear, which is comfortable for maintaining speed or continuing to accelerate gently if needed. It's not as painfully slow, either.

Nonetheless, If I am already moving at a nice pace, my main issue is hating to scrub speed when necessary, let's say due to a driver that pulled out in front of me on a one-laner and is lazy to get up to speed. I try my best to maintain following distance even if they are going below the speed limit and simply stay patient. I may initially get a little close to them while still judging how much they are accelerating, because usually, they are still in process of accelerating, and I will not get back up to speed immediately, meaning that I am saving a bit of gas and easily able to maintain that safe following distance again.

It has been helpful. Case in point - I was driving on a snowy, slippery windy road with a 30-37mph speed limit. As per usual, the pickup truck up ahead was gone. As I begin to come around the corner just before a hill, I noticed that he has slowed down to a crawl and was attempting to enter a parking lot. I had plenty of time to decide how to avoid him, so I simply checked to see if the oncoming lanes were clear and attempted to go around him. I made the mistake of not starting to brake as soon as I saw him slowing down significantly because I saw that I had space and knew that I could pull my e brake a little to drift around him. I was already prepared for the fact that I would not have enough traction to steer around him. Needless to say, I drifted around and avoided him perfectly, but I was not prepared for the rear axle to fishtail over the other way, at an even larger angle than the first drift. I corrected both slides one handed, as my other hand was still fiddling with getting the e brake handle back down.

In short, even if you are going too fast for the conditions, a large following distance will give you that time to react, and, my mechanical parking brake has saved me from understeering through sketchy corners several times per winter. It's great to have one.