As a beginning disclaimer, I do not have much experience with modifying cars, and what I am about to propose could be a completely bad idea.

I have a 2007 base Fit without any aftermarket suspension or wheel modifications. The tires on it are getting a little old and for me the ground clearance on the car is a little low (especially in the winter), so I was thinking of putting bigger tires on it to increase the ground clearance. I would rather not change the wheels or the suspension, so I am thinking that this is the only other way to increase the ground clearance. (Any other ideas on how to make the car ride higher?) I was thinking of going from the recommended size of P175/65R14 to P175/70R14, which according to http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html would give me a radius (and thus ground clearance) increase of .3 in. I realize that this is not much, but it does not seem like anyone makes a higher sidewalled tire with a tread width of 175. However, I could increase the tread width which would give me more possibilities for the sidewall height, but I am not sure how much wider one can make the tread width than the recommended width. How much can I increase the sidewall height and/or tread width without causing rubbing or other problems? I have seen it mentioned a few times online that increasing the overall radius of the wheel much beyond the intended size can lead to brake failure, which I am assuming is due to increased torque when braking. Can anyone comment on this in the case of the Fit? The Fit sport has a stock overall wheel radius that is greater than that of the base model, but only by .2 in. according to the recommended tire size. Finally, is this something that people do, or is it the case that if I go into a tire shop and ask them to install tires bigger than the recommended size they will look at me like I am crazy? Do people think that the potential increase would be worth the complications (such as speedometer off)?

Any insight/recommendations/opinions would be appreciated.

 

Higher ground clearance will give you more roll... your tires will also flex more which will also increase roll... so no i don't think it's a good idea, but it depends how you drive... if you drive slow it might not change anything (if that's only a small increase there won't really be an issue, maybe go with stiffer sidewalls), as for the speedo i would'nt worry about that, it's only a plus for you!

biggest issue is that your wheels will have more inertia, meaning they'll be tougher to stop and accelerate, you will suffer a little on mpg and brakes

BTW for winter i reccommend that you keep the 175/65R14, as small tires are better on ice

 

You don't want to increase your overall wheel radius because that will throw your odometer off, as well as your driving speed... Why do you want to increase your ground clearance? If you are on stock height, the ground clearance should be more than plenty.

I would not recommend changing tires just to gain that .3", go take a ruler and check out how long exactly is 0.3", that's like nothing. And it will NOT cure your lower ground clearance issues what-so-ever in winter... if is 0.3 feet then yea maybe.


I think you mean narrower tires, it would help dig into the snow easier yes. But dang, 175 is really narrow!

 

@cr4zy3lgato: With respect to the MPG, I was assuming that I would probably lose a little. With the issue of roll, I guess I am not familiar with this. What is roll exactly? I am assuming that this is how much the car will lean to one side when turning? Wouldn't this be an issue with all cars that have higher sidewalled tires? Also when you say "if you drive slow it might not change anything", how would you define "slow"?

@codenamezero: I guess that I am primarily concerned with the ground clearance as it compares to other cars that I am familiar with. For example, when parked next to my brother's 1990 Toyota Corolla, it looks like the Fit must be at least an inch lower. Before I got the Fit, I drove a 1992 Mazda Protege for a while which I think was approximately the same height as the Corolla. (I didn't have the Mazda and the Fit at the same time, so I could not directly compare them.) The Mazda never had trouble with clearance (sometimes plowed through snow drifts), but the Fit has been stuck in snow once since I have had it. The situations were different of course, but it makes me wonder. Also, I recently changed the oil for the first time myself, and it seems that the drain plug is quite difficult to access. I ended-up using the jack to lift the car so that I could get a better angle to break the plug loose.

Finally, I just want to clarify: increasing the sidewall height would not affect the snow performance but increasing the tread width would?

Thanks for the replies!

 

How did you compare your Fit's height? By getting off your car from your seat and it feels lower? Or by actually measuring the distance of the lowest point of your front bumper to the ground? I am currently owning a Yaris (going to give it back to dealer next month when the lease ends), and the Fit is sitting in the garage. By comparing the 2 cars, their actual ground clearance is not that much difference, but the Yaris felt like a half a feet higher because of the seat is much taller...

Honestly I don't think manufacture would design the Fit so low to a point that it is underivable in winter. Next time you pass by another Mazda or Corolla, try to measure their actual height and clearance, i am pretty sure they aren't that much different.

 

I'd go with 175/65x15 tires. There are several good choiv=ces; consult TireRack.com specs, tests, and surveys.

 

Go play with the diameter, you are not gaining much.
http://www.team-integra.net/sections.../tiresizes.asp

 

Different brands of tires in the same size can differ in diameter and width by 0.3".

 

@codenamezero: I have primarily been looking at the distance from the ground to the front bumper as well as the distance between the ground and the point right behind the front wheel where the wheel-well ends. In general, it seems to me that the point behind the front wheel is the lowest visible point on many cars without looking under them. Over vacation the last few days, I parked the Fit near a newer Protege (not on purpose ), and I observed that the front bumper does look a few inches higher on the Protege but the clearance behind the front wheel looks about the same (maybe slightly higher on the Protege). So maybe it is just the very front that is lower on the Fit? I should probably take some measurements at some point to verify my suspicions.

@Texas Coyote: I had noticed that there was some variation in the exact sizes by maker. Maybe I should play with these exact sizes a bit and see what, if anything, I can come up with.

 

The front bumper on the USDM cars sticks out further than cars sold elsewhere and screws up the approach angle. Be glad you have the base mode, the sport model front lips drag badly even on the stock suspension...If there isn't quite what you want in the way of a larger diameter stock size tire you can always get a smaller diameter tire in the next size up..... To be honest about this, there really isn't going to be that much of a change as far as getting an appreciable amount of ground clearance and the stock springs are almost all the way up almost as far as they can go... If you were to put spacers on them the struts and rear shocks wouldn't last but a short time and get pulled apart... If your car has automatic transmission you will suffer much more from the effects of having a taller final drive ratio and the increase in rotating mass so check out the weight of the tires as well as diameter in going larger....

 

Revisiting this topic (this project fell by the wayside for awhile), I have done some more research and some rough measurements.

The clearances are as follows (no passengers):
The front bumper: ~6.5 - 7"
Behind the front wheel-well: ~6.5 - 7"
In front of the back wheel-well: ~7.5"
Behind the back wheel-well: ~10"
(These are very rough measurements.)

The current tires in the back are Michelin Harmony 175/65R14. The current tires in the front are "Prime Well" (or something like that) 175/65R14. Everyone who has looked at the front tires has said that they are cheap crap or something to that effect. These were the tires on the car when I got it used, so I don't know how many miles are on them. A quick measurement shows that the front and back tires are about the same diameter, so I will use 22.9" as the current tire diameter for comparing below.

All of the data below is from Tire Rack except for the radius gain numbers. I am considering the following two tires because they have good ratings and the Pirelli seems to run bigger than average for each size.

Michelin Harmony
175/65R14, 22.9", +.0", 17lbs.
175/70R14, 23.5", +.3", 18lbs.
185/65R14, 23.4", +.25", 17lbs.
185/70R14, 24.1", +.6", 19lbs.
(tire size, total diam, radius gain over 22.9" diam, weight)

Pirelli P4 Four Seasons
175/65R14, 23.3", +.2", 17lbs.
175/70R14, (not made in this size?)
185/65R14, 23.3", +.2", 17lbs.
185/70R14, 24.3", +.7", 19lbs.
(tire size, total diam, radius gain over 22.9" diam, weight)

Simply switching to the Pirelli would give me an additional .2 in. The more I think about it, I agree with the comments that +.3" or less is not going to make much difference. However, the +.7" given by the 185/70R14 Pirelli I think would be a good gain. But is it worth the 2lb. weight and 10mm. width gains? I would welcome the height increase (of course) and the potentially smoother ride, but I do have an auto trans which I gather would lead to more indecisive shifting because of the increased torque? There is also the issue of MPG changes with bigger tires which seems to be debated here in the forums. Some say that there will be better mileage because there are fewer revs per mile. Others say that it will be the same or worse because of the engine having to work harder for each rev. Despite all of the drawbacks, I am still tempted to upsize the tires.

To summarize:

Radius increase
- Pros:
-- Better ground clearance
-- Smoother ride?
-- Fewer revs per mile
- Cons:
-- Increased torque on engine and brakes
-- More roll?

Weight increase
- Pros:
-- None?
- Cons:
-- More rolling resistance

Tread width increase
- Pros:
-- ??
- Cons:
-- Worse traction on ice
-- More rolling resistance

For all of these factors there is the issue of degree. How much more rolling resistance? How much more roll? This is what I am struggling with, and it seems that it is hard to answer without trying it. Although, the more I look at this list, the less this seems like a good idea!

On a side note, it is interesting that the Pirelli 175/65R14 and 185/65R14 have the same total diameter. Maybe it is easier to make them if they are the same? Could the Tire Rack measurements be off?

 

Are you calculating 0.7" gain overall? Note that if the 0.7" is overall, then you need to divide that by 2, because the clearance is only gained on 1 side, and not the side facing the ground... also note that, when your car is on the ground, the side where tire meets the ground is not completely round... so you will need to take off another 0.1-0.2"... in the end, you are gaining maybe 0.2"...

It will not effect of ride quality... You may as well lower the tire pressure by 1 psi or 2 and get tires that have softer sidewall if you want ride quality.

FYI, 2 lbs of unsprung weight per wheel will affect the handling ability and slightly hammer the MPG of your Fit (because by going bigger tires, you will have more rolling resistant), that is a total of 8 lbs of unsprung weight!

Unsprung mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, I don't think it will be worth the trouble. The Fit runs a small engine to begin with, by making the tires 11% heavier and adding more resistance, the Fit won't be as responsive as before... If you want ground clearance so badly maybe get of full coilover and raise it 2"... but by raising it, you will have more turbulence at the bottom and it will be slightly less stable on highway.

I would suggest you just stick with stock size tires, and if you are looking for ride quality, get tires with softer sidewall and try to reduce the pressure by 0.5-1 psi. Also increasing suspension travel (rising it higher) will also improve side quality.

If you want better fuel economy then you should lower your car a little, perhaps 1" to start, increase tire pressure by a little, and get tires that have stiff sidewall...

 

^x2
Moments of inertia is a terrible thing for a car... adding just a few pounds on your wheels compares to having a lot more weight in the car...
not only will you kill your engine, but your brakes will also suffer! so basically, for such a small difference of height it's not worth it!

as for knowing if roll will be that bad, well i already felt that the stock tires were "that bad" you should'nt have wheel hop when you're cornering...

i have a friend who bought 17" fast wheels on his 7th gen civic... and the ground clearance was huge, but the car suffered horribly, in corners it felt like it would topple (i think that the f***ing heavy wheels are the only thing that kept it to the ground) and is direction and suspension took a lot of damage from the wheels being too big & heavy!

edit: btw last summer i upgraded my 14" steelies with 15" very light wheels, with shorter sidewalls and stiffer sidewalls, and the ride was actually more comfy as the suspension was a lot more able to cope with bumps and cracks!

 

Why would you want more ground clearance?
If it is an issue of driving in deep snow truck is your answer. Increasing your clearance will only create problems down the road (literally).
If you have no choice I suggest getting some chains.

 

@oshiri: Regarding the question of why higher ground clearance, I currently live in a somewhat suburban area with close to 100% paved roads and have had some trouble with snow. However, I don't plan on always living where I am now, and the possibility of gravel roads or gravel roads + snow seems like it could be quite changeling to the car as it is now. Now I could get a truck, but I would rather have a single versatile car that can handle most conditions rather than multiple cars/trucks. Further, from my past experience living in more rural areas than I do now, I have driven some small cars that seem to perform better in snow conditions (see my posts above). It could be that my experience of the Fit's handling in snow and other rough road conditions is a result of driving on old, crappy tires rather than a lack of ground clearance, but I will not know the truth here until I replace the tires and put some driving on them. There is also the issue of not being able to directly compare the Fit with the cars that I have driven in the past (they all had to be replaced before the Fit came along). My experience with the Fit plus the very low looking front-end led me to suspect that the ground clearance was lacking. So I may be a bit overly critical of the Fit, but I can only judge from my experience. I should also add that I have not had to use chains or winter tires in the past -- only all-season tires. These are my reasons for wanting more ground clearance.

My general conclusion from this discussion is that I should go with the 175/65R14 and stop asking stupid questions . I admit that I do not have a lot of knowledge about the aspects of cars that are relevant to this discussion, and I am thankful of everyone's patience with my questions.

One final question: putting aside the different sizes, do people like the Michelin Harmony or the Pirelli P4 Four Seasons more? Both of them seem to get good ratings.

 

If you're getting stuck in the snow you're having two problems.

1.) You don't know how to properly drive (no offense, just stating)
2.) Your tyres are garbage. Get some proper snow tyres. They're worth the expense.

 

I have had my fit in up to 6in. of snow and it handled just as any other small front wheel drive car... GREAT!! However, as I meant to communicate if you put larger tires on the Fit you will lose a little of all the great qualities that you bought it for. Not tryin to bash your idea or you I just strongly disagree. Fits were made for aftermarket ricer junkies and peeps who wanted economy... I fit both categories. There are other cars out there that will accomodate what you are looking for a S Outback for example.....

 

I agree with mike410b, you should get yourself a good set of snow tires and call it a day.

 

So JBox, are you currently running WINTER tires? I've been living in Canada for 16 years, and drove over 10 canadian winters, I've seen crazy snow storm and freezing rain, and using just winter tires are fine... I have a feeling that you are running some all-season in winter...

 

One thing that I forgot to mention before was that I calculated the radius gain by (total diam - 22.9)/2 .

I don't have winter tires on the Fit but I didn't have winter tires on the other car that I have been comparing to either. With both the Fit and the Protege, I cannot recall ever having driven them with anything other than all-season tires. It is true that I would probably get better snow performance with winter tires, but there are other practical considerations such as I don't want to have to change the tires with the seasons. I have a somewhat set-and-forget approach to tires and, having had good performance in the past with all-seasons on a small car, it doesn't seem like the Fit should be any different. Maybe this is not a fair comparison? Maybe I have just been lucky in the past? Or maybe I am a worse driver now ? I guess that I was thinking that bigger tires could be a set-and-forget kind of solution to snow and other rough road conditions where more ground clearance would be useful. However, this thread has proven to me that there are many practical considerations that make this likely a bad approach.

Also if you have winter tires, do you just stick them somewhere in the summer or leave them on? Because I don't think I have a good place to store tires in my apartment.