TGS tyre specs: Manual vs Auto
- Philip Chidlow
- Over 2k
- Posts: 11594
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:08 pm
- Location: Chelmsford, Essex
- x 25
TGS tyre specs: Manual vs Auto
I have a question: Why, in the original specification were 165/70 R14s OK for the manual 16TGS but the automatic version is listed as being shod with 155R14 (80s)? The 155R14 80s on my 16TGS auto are noisy Nankangs and I want Michelins/Klebers and they don't do them in that size anymore.
Could I fit 165/70 R14s OK? I can get those for £38 a corner fitted, all in.
Could I fit 165/70 R14s OK? I can get those for £38 a corner fitted, all in.
• 1992 Citroen BX TZD Turbo Hurricane
• 2006 Xsara Picasso 1.6 16v
• 2006 Xsara Picasso 1.6 16v
-
- Over 2k
- Posts: 6417
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
- Location: Fareham, Hants
- My Cars: Too many to list
- x 88
- Contact:
Can't see why they'd make a difference TBH....unless its to do with rolling resistance? Can't see how they'd be all that different though.
I know my old 16TRS auto had 175's on it and was fine.
It might be because the auto's were proving thirsty as far as fuel consumpsion figures go, so they tried to fit tyres with less rolling resistance to bring it up a bit?
I know my old 16TRS auto had 175's on it and was fine.
It might be because the auto's were proving thirsty as far as fuel consumpsion figures go, so they tried to fit tyres with less rolling resistance to bring it up a bit?
One third of a three-spoke BX columnist team for the Citroenian magazine.
CCC BX registrar: The national BX register - click to submit a car!
1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga)
1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)
CCC BX registrar: The national BX register - click to submit a car!
1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga)
1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)
- Philip Chidlow
- Over 2k
- Posts: 11594
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:08 pm
- Location: Chelmsford, Essex
- x 25
Well, it might work (although I imagine the difference between 155 Nankang Tractor Tread specials and Micheilin 165's would be negligible I'd have thought!).Kitch wrote: It might be because the auto's were proving thirsty as far as fuel consumpsion figures go, so they tried to fit tyres with less rolling resistance to bring it up a bit?
I got 35-36mpg from the 16TGS auto on a 119 mile trip on Saturday. Not too bad I thought seeing as most was at 70-80 mph or accelerating to get there...
• 1992 Citroen BX TZD Turbo Hurricane
• 2006 Xsara Picasso 1.6 16v
• 2006 Xsara Picasso 1.6 16v
-
- Over 2k
- Posts: 6417
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
- Location: Fareham, Hants
- My Cars: Too many to list
- x 88
- Contact:
Thats brilliant economy.....every 16 I've owned or known someone who's owned it has proved thirsty....even more so than the 19's. The auto I had took the piss....20mpg if you're lucky. I thought it was a fault, but the engine was sweet as a nut, had just passed an MOT and the carb wasn't, even a year old.
Maybe it was the tyres?
Maybe it was the tyres?
One third of a three-spoke BX columnist team for the Citroenian magazine.
CCC BX registrar: The national BX register - click to submit a car!
1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga)
1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)
CCC BX registrar: The national BX register - click to submit a car!
1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga)
1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)
At the end of the 'Struts' section of the manual is the official fitment chart.
http://www.rwbsmith.plus.com/citroen2/Struts/struts.pdf
I think that in about 87 Citroen got the taxation class of a small engined car down by fitting it with even smaller tyres. Don't think it was the 16.
http://www.rwbsmith.plus.com/citroen2/Struts/struts.pdf
I think that in about 87 Citroen got the taxation class of a small engined car down by fitting it with even smaller tyres. Don't think it was the 16.
- MULLEY
- Over 2k
- Posts: 8406
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:10 pm
- Location: Derbyshire
- My Cars: 1999 Xsara LX 2.0HDI (90) Hatch - Fern
2002 C5 2.0 HDI (110) Estate - Jasmine - SORN
2011 Mini Cooper D Clubman - SOLD
2016 Mercedes A180D Sport - Auto refinement
1992 TZD Turbo - Bluebell - SORN
1992 TZD Turbo Estate - SORN
1991 Gti 16V - Blaze - crash damaged, will get repaired - SORN
1990 Gti 8Valve SOLD - looks like it's been scrapped
2002 Mini Cooper S - SOLD - i miss this car
1992 TXD - Scrapped in March 2014
1988 CX 25 GTI Turbo2 - SORN
1996 - AX Memphis 1.5D - Dream - SORN - x 8
- stuart_hedges
- 1K Away
- Posts: 1679
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:35 am
- Location: Surrey
My auto has 175 Michelins...I was wondering why the auto spec has only 155....Most people would not believe me but I was considering putting 155's on when my current tyres need replacing....
I always thought of citroens being stable in corners even with slim tyres..because of the good suspension. I remember my GS had 145's...
I always thought of citroens being stable in corners even with slim tyres..because of the good suspension. I remember my GS had 145's...
former BX 16 TGS Meteor Auto owner. No space or time to do own repairs. My BX is now owned by another member of this forum.
- Philip Chidlow
- Over 2k
- Posts: 11594
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:08 pm
- Location: Chelmsford, Essex
- x 25
- MULLEY
- Over 2k
- Posts: 8406
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:10 pm
- Location: Derbyshire
- My Cars: 1999 Xsara LX 2.0HDI (90) Hatch - Fern
2002 C5 2.0 HDI (110) Estate - Jasmine - SORN
2011 Mini Cooper D Clubman - SOLD
2016 Mercedes A180D Sport - Auto refinement
1992 TZD Turbo - Bluebell - SORN
1992 TZD Turbo Estate - SORN
1991 Gti 16V - Blaze - crash damaged, will get repaired - SORN
1990 Gti 8Valve SOLD - looks like it's been scrapped
2002 Mini Cooper S - SOLD - i miss this car
1992 TXD - Scrapped in March 2014
1988 CX 25 GTI Turbo2 - SORN
1996 - AX Memphis 1.5D - Dream - SORN - x 8
i dont think it makes that much of a difference, i personally prefer the lower profile tyre as it should have more grip. Infact why not just fit some 185/60's, thats whats on my TZD?????
I think mine originally had 165/70 or 75's on, absolutely lethal in the wet, probably didnt help that the make of tyres were budget offerings though, perhaps good tyres in that size may have been better??
I think mine originally had 165/70 or 75's on, absolutely lethal in the wet, probably didnt help that the make of tyres were budget offerings though, perhaps good tyres in that size may have been better??
I will have a look and let you know, 175/70 or 80 ?.
Mulley, there is one situation where slimmer tyres are better and that is on snow. ... me being from the Alps have experienced it a few times. (of course it depends on the brand as well)
Mulley, there is one situation where slimmer tyres are better and that is on snow. ... me being from the Alps have experienced it a few times. (of course it depends on the brand as well)
former BX 16 TGS Meteor Auto owner. No space or time to do own repairs. My BX is now owned by another member of this forum.
I think the grip is largely dependant on the area in contact with the road as well as the rubber used. In the dry the pattern would seem to be immaterial as Grand Prix cars use slicks but in the wet things are rather different.
The tyre structure is important for keeping the tread in contact with the road and the lower the sidewall the better the tread is controlled (within limits)
However nothing is simple - and in the wet the pressure of the contact with the road becomes important as well it seems - so a bigger tyre with more contact area is more prone to aquaplaning whereas a skinny tyre will cut through the water.
The other thing to be considered is the behaviour of the contact area under sideways force. We've all seen radial tyres parked partly on a kerb - with the unsupported bit sitting relatively straight. Imagine a car going round a corner - and - yes it leans - and - eventually - that lean is transmitted to the tyre - and - in the extreme the inside edge will start to lift - and then you get a rather exciting breakaway.
Originally radial tyres had an aspect ratio (tread width to wall height) of 80%. Many modern 'liquorice' tyres are about 40 or 45% - and while giving a sharper response as the small walls don't absorb much steering movement, they are even less able to keep the tread in contact with the road under cornering forces than a tyre with a higher aspect ratio - so if you do overcook your cornering the thing will let go more suddenly.
So within reason more tread in contact with the road is a good idea - and this comes from width and length - which is dependant on the circumfrence of the TYRE. When playing around with different sizes the overall diameter is something to be considered and also affects the speedo accuracy. What I suggest you should be looking at is a combination of wheel diameter, tread width and aspect ratio which gives virtually the same circumfrence - and so avoids speedo problems and also arch fouling by the tread (not walls necessarily) as well as maintaining the steering geometry (Watch the offsets of replacement rims)
The tyre structure is important for keeping the tread in contact with the road and the lower the sidewall the better the tread is controlled (within limits)
However nothing is simple - and in the wet the pressure of the contact with the road becomes important as well it seems - so a bigger tyre with more contact area is more prone to aquaplaning whereas a skinny tyre will cut through the water.
The other thing to be considered is the behaviour of the contact area under sideways force. We've all seen radial tyres parked partly on a kerb - with the unsupported bit sitting relatively straight. Imagine a car going round a corner - and - yes it leans - and - eventually - that lean is transmitted to the tyre - and - in the extreme the inside edge will start to lift - and then you get a rather exciting breakaway.
Originally radial tyres had an aspect ratio (tread width to wall height) of 80%. Many modern 'liquorice' tyres are about 40 or 45% - and while giving a sharper response as the small walls don't absorb much steering movement, they are even less able to keep the tread in contact with the road under cornering forces than a tyre with a higher aspect ratio - so if you do overcook your cornering the thing will let go more suddenly.
So within reason more tread in contact with the road is a good idea - and this comes from width and length - which is dependant on the circumfrence of the TYRE. When playing around with different sizes the overall diameter is something to be considered and also affects the speedo accuracy. What I suggest you should be looking at is a combination of wheel diameter, tread width and aspect ratio which gives virtually the same circumfrence - and so avoids speedo problems and also arch fouling by the tread (not walls necessarily) as well as maintaining the steering geometry (Watch the offsets of replacement rims)
- MULLEY
- Over 2k
- Posts: 8406
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:10 pm
- Location: Derbyshire
- My Cars: 1999 Xsara LX 2.0HDI (90) Hatch - Fern
2002 C5 2.0 HDI (110) Estate - Jasmine - SORN
2011 Mini Cooper D Clubman - SOLD
2016 Mercedes A180D Sport - Auto refinement
1992 TZD Turbo - Bluebell - SORN
1992 TZD Turbo Estate - SORN
1991 Gti 16V - Blaze - crash damaged, will get repaired - SORN
1990 Gti 8Valve SOLD - looks like it's been scrapped
2002 Mini Cooper S - SOLD - i miss this car
1992 TXD - Scrapped in March 2014
1988 CX 25 GTI Turbo2 - SORN
1996 - AX Memphis 1.5D - Dream - SORN - x 8
cacaolat, i totally agree with you regarding tyre width in the snow, my little polo was ace in the snow, narrow tyres are just the job.
I am currently running 185/60 Winter Tyres & have found them to be very good, so they will be even better than thin summer tyres in the snow as the compounds are totally different.
I am currently running 185/60 Winter Tyres & have found them to be very good, so they will be even better than thin summer tyres in the snow as the compounds are totally different.