100% stock 2011 honda fit sport. tires on there atm are the stock dunlops 185/55/16 and time to be replaced. ive decided to get a set of Kumho Ecsta PA31 http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....del=Ecsta+PA31 looks like should be a great tire with a great warranty also and ranked 3rd in high performance all season tire. http://www.tirerack.com/tires/survey...earDiameter=17 wasnt specifically looking for high performance tires. was looking for decent all season tires with good snow/ice traction and these are what i kept coming back to and i think the more expensive and supposedly better Kumho Escta 4x tires arent as good as the pa31's especially in snow and ice. only thing im still uncertain about is which size i should get. stock size or a little bigger. lil bigger would give a lil more traction ( more rubber on the ground ) would fill out the wheel well a lil more ( make look a lil better ) but would also decrease mpg because more rubber on road so more drag and also since more rubber on road maybe more road noise?? not sure about that last one tho.

this tire comes in ALOT of sizes. ive read 205's will fits the 11 fit is that the biggest w/o rubbing issues? the sizes offered in 16" are
185/55R16 83V
195/55R16 87V
195/60R16 89V
205/50R16 91V
205/55R16 91V
215/55R16 97V
215/60R16 95V
225/50R16 92V
225/55R16 99V
235/60R16 100V
245/50R16 97V

which size will fit stock 2011 honda fit sport with no rubbing issues? and which would recommend get? and other pro's or con's of getting lil bigger or just stick with OM size?

will be ordering later tonight. installed friday or saturday tire rack has warehouse close so tires will take 1 day to get here

 

are u lowered?

 

100% stock sport edition ( just tinted windows )

 

ended up getting the 205/50/16 will be here today. but getting installed tomorrow ( work late today )

 

I put 205/50x16 on my 2011 Fit Sport manual last fall. I went with Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 3s. Clearance is fine, and the overall diameter is less than 0.5% larger than stock, meaning that my speedometer is still accurate. These tires have amazing dry and wet traction. The downside is that my fuel economy dropped by nearly 5mpg. YMMV of course.

 

Is it common for the 205/50/16 to have less mpg's than the 185/55/16? I've read that an older tire will actually get better mpg's than a newer tire mainly from the friction. My main goal is to get a smoother, quieter ride with the fit even if I sacrifice a few mpg's. I usually average about 38 mpg mixed and getting 33 mpg even if a better ride would be unacceptable.

 

I'm honestly unsure what caused the dive in fuel economy. The 205/50x16 must be heavier, even more so since it still has nearly all of its tread. It also has high rolling resistance, which is probably what gives it such excellent traction.

I think you're probably right that old tires get better fuel economy. I have a friend who has a 2009 Fit auto, and her fuel economy dropped by a few MPG when she replaced her factory tires with Kumho Ecsta tires in the same size.