I regret putting on 18's.

[J_D]

While its not an absolute in all possible conditions or scenerios, narrow tires generally aid in traversing snow better than wider ones. The primary reason is that they exert higher pressure per square inch on the road surface, allowing them to cut through loose or deep snow more effectively to reach firmer ground below, which improves traction and reduces the tendency to float or hydroplane on slush.

That said, the advantage isn't absolute and can vary by conditions—such as packed snow versus ice, where wider tires might offer a slight edge in braking due to a larger contact patch.

But, recent real-world tests have also shown that the performance difference between narrow and wide winter tires is often minimal, and the quality of the tire (e.g., tread design and compound) matters more than width alone.

I am giving the guy the benefit of the doubt here. Besides. Who the hell want to pay for a "god spec" winter only tire. Seems like a giant waste of money to me.

Is this an AI response

Sponsored

 

[HondaHoon]

Common misconception

Is this a YouTube video ?

 

[J_D]

So that's a yes to AI response lol

 

[02SilverSiHB]

I ordered a set of Enkei TSV in storm gray (18x8.5 +38) with a performance winter tire (Michelin Alpin 5, 235/40) and was pretty stoked to put them on. I wanted to see a silver wheel on the red, and was looking forward to some more sidewall in the winter, also everyone is constantly talking about the "god spec" 18x10+40 I thought the wheel I picked would be a good glimpse into what that would look like for when I got that in the summer.

I put them on, and they aren't bad, but something about them didn't sit right with me. From the side the 18 just doesn't fill up the wheel well like the 19s did which seems obvious but it's more dramatic than I thought it would be. The best way I can describe it is that it looks like a tuned civic, not a CTR. I thought it was the 235/40 tire that just didn't look as thick, but even from a purely side view they just don't look 'right'. I asked some older muscle car guys at work and they all agreed.

I'll keep these for the winter and then probably sell them, run a 19" for the summer and the stock wheels in the winter.

My point is before you buy the 18" try to see them in person as you might also think they just don't fit the fenders/design of the car.

Edited to note the side view is the issue, not tire width.

Side looks fine imo. I had a set of those, but mostly for winter/all season tires during off season

 

[HorizonsEdge]

I hated the stock tires. I replaced them with Conti extreme contact 2's 265/35/19 and everything improved for me; YMMV.

I needed a winter set for a area that can get a rare big snowfall but typically we get a few inches and its plowed away pretty quickly. eg; last season my driveway required plowing 3 times.

With these considerations I went Enkei TS-7 18x9.5+45 with DWS06+ 265/40/18. They don't look GREAT but they look fine and they perform. Sure I haven't seen snow and don't expect to for a while but the ride is fantastic and the performance is just fine.

Behold my phat tire phenom LOL

 

[TypeRD]

I think some of you are missing the point. It's not the tire width that I'm regretting. It's the diameter of the wheel.

18x10 or 18x8.5 is still an 18" circle tucked into your wheel well.

The ratio of the tire does make for a taller sidewall but that happens no matter what you do on an 18". The god spec tires noted above have a larger sidewall compared to the ties I put on. From the side I think the car looks worse on 18's.

Yes. Visually, 18’s can look a bit small, especially if they’re a bright color like silver. In black and darker colors, you don’t see as much contrast between the wheel and tire, so it sort of hides the aforementioned effect. I’ve seen pics of other peoples’ cars and felt the same way. Some seem a bit better than others. It really depends on color and style.

 

[Spart]

To OP: honestly those look great for a winter setup. You wouldn't want 8.5" wide wheels for summers anyway, too narrow.

Common misconception

That video gets paraded around as if it's the end of the debate.

The YouTube channel that put it together is pretty excellent and they should know better, but they failed to test hydroplane resistance.

Narrower tires virtually always have better hydroplane resistance than wider ones, and that's why I went narrower with my winter set. 225/40R18s to be precise.

 

[MooMoo]

I personally like how 18s look better. Like a meatier tire smaller rim.

The reason to run 18s though is cheaper tires and more tire choice in different widths.

Also your pictures look great

 

[jedi03]

I also appreciate a different view...am waiting on my 18x9.5 +45 volk order...lol

 

[specced]

18s look good when its fitted right. a 9.5/10 width. 38-45 offset with a 265 or 275/35 tire.

 

[MR_O’s_DE5]

I love My 18’s

 

[lilDumpsterRat]

That was part of the calculation. I'm not going to drive the car hard in winter, or much at all, but I might need it on occasion so I went with a wheel/tire combo from tirerack that I thought would look good, and saved some money on the tire.

I think you're over thinking it. If you didn't mention it I would never think the 18's on your red type r look bad from the side. I think they look good. I understand what you mean, yes the wheel wells are so big , if you like that real flush look , the 18's dont fill it out as well..but I really dont in any universe think your wheels dont look good also on the type r. This is also bc you have the tire filling up the gap as well, and i bet it rides slightly more comfortable too with that.

but it's easily reversible and if you aren't happy with it by all means, but I dont think anyone looking at it would think what youre saying without you first asking them specifically about it. i also know what you mean about the tuned civic, lol that's a subtle funny thing, but again, I think it's really a minor minor difference.

 

[zumbooruk]

While its not an absolute in all possible conditions or scenerios, narrow tires generally aid in traversing snow better than wider ones. The primary reason is that they exert higher pressure per square inch on the road surface, allowing them to cut through loose or deep snow more effectively to reach firmer ground below, which improves traction and reduces the tendency to float or hydroplane on slush.

I have not driven much on snow or ice (not much of that stuff in SoCal), so I do not have any practical experience, but I am very good at theory. ["In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not"]

While I believe that the conclusion above is correct, it is not because narrow tires exert higher pressure per square inch on the road.

The pressure per square inch on the road surface is the same (or nearly the same) for both narrow and wide contact patches, since the contact patch area is the same, only the contact patch shape is different.

The contact patch area is the same because the car weight (force on the tire) is same, inflation pressure (force in the tire resisting deformation) is the same, resulting in the same deformation under the car's weight, and therefore total area of contact patch is the same, i.e. the "square inch on the road surface" is the same.

Even though the contact patch area (and pressure on the road) is the same, the narrow tire contact patch is a longer thinner ellipse and, as mentioned above, it slices through loose snow to the firmer ground below (like a thin sharp blade)

While this is better for loose deep snow, ice actually favors the wider tire due to more lateral engagement.

 

[zumbooruk]

Is this an AI response

If it is then the AI was wrong, as it often is... see above

My thesis (1994) was about "artificial neural networks"

at the time I said that AI is definitely artificial and definitely not intelligent.

I still stand by that.

AI models are essentially statistical models.

There is neither "thinking" nor "reasoning"

 

[optronix]

If it is then the AI was wrong, as it often is... see above

My thesis (1994) was about "artificial neural networks"

at the time I said that AI is definitely artificial and definitely not intelligent.

I still stand by that.

AI models are essentially statistical models.

There is neither "thinking" nor "reasoning"

Anything from 1994 would not be remotely relevant today. Not worth discussing in detail in this thread, but suffice it to say that AI is a very effective tool but it is "reflective"; i.e., you get out what you put in. It is very important to nail down context to get a relevant response. Right this moment, "casual use" people tend to like using it as a means to validate a preconceived concept, and it's very good at finding obscure information that makes a loose point "correct". Basically if someone said something somewhere and an AI model was trained on it, it will "speak its truth" unless something else contradicts it, whether in another source it's trained on or through intelligent prompting.

So if you trust the source, then you can trust the response. Models have gotten better about citing their sources, but you'll notice they still pull from Reddit and forums like this one pretty frequently too.

Look into Retrieval Augmented Generation, or better yet "context engineering" for more information. AI is the future, you can fight it all you want but it's just the latest way we use computers to help us build things. Better start getting used to it.

That said, an easy tell is openAI in particular really likes to use "solid" dashes in its generated responses:

conditions—such

Sponsored