I'll need to replace the stock Dunlops on my 2012 Fit Sport Auto within the next 6 months and have been doing a lot of research trying to decide what I want to replace them with. I thought I had decided on a set of Kumho 205/50/R16's until I read several reviews that suggested that the wet and snow traction just isn't nearly as good as something like the Continental DWS. We don't get a lot of snow here in Alabama, but we do get a fair amount of rain, so it is a consideration.

I'm contemplating the Continental DWS in the 195/50/R16 size. It would only be about 1 to 2% smaller diameter from the stock tires (23.7" versus 24.2" per tire rack), but the revolutions per mile are almost identical (863 versus 864). I'm guessing this is because the taller narrower Dunlop flexes more at the contact point of the ground to be able to maintain the same relative contact patch area. So, even though the diameters are different, once the weight of the car is placed on them the distance from the center of the wheel to the ground is basically the same. Also, the Continental is a little lighter than the stock dunlop (17 versus 18lbs also per tire rack).

Other than tiny difference in the amount the tire fills up the wheel well it seems like this tire would be a win win. I'm just thinking out loud here, but any opinions?

-Dustin

 

195/50 will mkae ur speed off by 1.5 to be correct but owell who cares lol heheh
i just pick up 205/55/16 DW 3 days ago THEY R THE SHITTT in rain and very comfeeee

 

I thought that too, but if the listed revolutions per mile are correct, the speedometer reading wouldn't be off at all.

-Dustin

 

205/50/16 i got oops lol hmm good question but i think the diameter is what changes it not the revs per mile

 

That is the same tire I want, but I might go with the general to save some bucks.
195/50r16 is 23.7" OD and 17 lbs, so less mass and OD than stock will not hurt your acceleration and mileage. I keep seeing complaints about how 205s ruin the fuel economy so I won't make that mistake.

 

205 im stil getinng 27-29 city heavey foot freeway well i took a quick drive otherday got 36 mpg for a 11 milews drive

 

i'm thinkin to get 195 50 also ... don't want to sacrifice mileage ... but as long as the overall weight is similar , it should be fine , right ?

 

I finally was able to order these this morning from Tire Rack. Hopefully I'll be able to get them put on next week and I'll let you guys know how they work out. If I can figure out a way to post pictures I'll try to do that too.

-Dustin

 

I just got them installed yesterday. First impressions are that they're noticably quieter than the stock Dunlops and also ride much smoother. Small bumps in the road that would have resulted in a jarring thud with the Dunlops are now more of a gentle bump. I haven't really pushed it in the corners yet, but will soon. It's also too soon to determine if my gas mileage has been affected.

-Dustin

 

The DWS 205/50/16's are the closest to OEM diameter. It's not a big deal though, your spedo will only be off by 1.5%

I don't think the tirerack revs/mile data is correct. Two different websites I checked showed different rev/mile.
Details for Continental ExtremeContact DWS | Guthriesville Tire & Service Glenmoore, PA

http://www.1010tires.com/Tools/Tire-...5R16/205-50R16

Some are reporting no fuel economy loss at all... you gotta look at all the posts/threads.

Even at a 1%-2% drop the DWS's are still superior in every way over the OEM's...

 

i ran my DWS from september to early april and they are very good tires for what they are. driving in snow was no issue too, just as long as it wasnt' too deep. too deep as in deeper than 3-4inches.

i would definitely be getting them on my future dd's tires.

 

yesterday had a great run last night in the canyon

 

You know they got drones patrolling them canyons lol
ticket is in the mail

 

At 12am if they were ucan hear them if there hovering

 

I've gone through a couple of tanks of gas now and, as far as I can tell, my gas mileage is about the same. I've checked the revs/mile difference by using a stopwatch to clock my one mile time on the stock Dunlops versus the new tires and also verified it with the odometer reading from my driveway to the parking lot at work. It looks like you guys are correct about the revs/mile not being correct on Tirerack's website. I calculated about a 2% difference from stock.

-Dustin

 

I've been driving around for about 2 weeks now with the new tires and still like them. They do have a LOT more grip than the Dunlops, especially in the rain. My gas mileage does not seem to have dropped. I really like the aggressive looking tread pattern, but other than looking slightly wider, they are noticably smaller in diameter. I'm kind of wishing I had just gone with the Kumho Ecsta 4X in the 205/50/R16 size and used the money I would have saved to get a Progress Rear Sway Bar. Oh well, I'll run these until I wear them out and then maybe try the Kumho's next.

-Dustin

 

Glad you like the new tires

I wish I could see pics of a GE with that size tire and Swift springs.I may go to that size for clearance and no rubbing with a +40et wheel

I have no rubbing under any conditions with the stock sport wheels and my 205/50/16 Ecsta 4X but that is with a +53 offset

 

I don't know if it will help you any Zilla since I'm at stock height, but I'll do my best to post some pics in the next few days of mine. I wanted to wash my Fit before I took pics, but just haven't gotten a chance yet.

-Dustin

 

^^^ that would be cool and I can still get a idea of the look.

 

Diameters:
185/55/16 => 609.9 mm (24.0 inch) stock size on 2009 Fit Sport
195/50/16 => 601.4 mm (23.7 inch) 98.6% of stock size
205/50/16 => 611.4 mm (24.1 inch) 100.2% of stock size

BTW, I put on DWS 205/50/R16 last winter. Decent snow traction and very good wet traction.