Will Continental Purecontact 195/65R15 fit a C?

I'd like to go to wider wheels and tires, and the reviews of the Purecontact with Ecoplus are great. I'd prefer 195/60/15, but the smallest it comes in is 195/65/15.

Another thread says this is ok on a liftback, but will it work on a C?

Thanks.

 

Thanks Otbiker. I guess 195/60/15 will be the way to go (probably with Procontact w Ecoplus, since Purecontact doesn't come in a 60).

 

Thanks mahout!

Looks like I should (if I want wider wheels & tires) stay with a 60R tire--which Procontact, though unfortunately not Purecontact, offers. As for weight, the wheel I have in mind is an Enkei RPS 15x7, which at 9.5 lbs is probably around five lbs lighter than my stock alloys (I'm guessing--no one seems to know exactly). The Procontact at 18 lbs apparently is about a pound heavier than my Turanza EL400s, so I should still lose about 4 lbs / wheel in un-sprung weight. (What I'm looking for (following Ryephile the Technophile, who also was going to 195/60/15 for his C) is better adhesion, plus I think a little better ride.)

 

Thanks again mahout.

Yes, I had looked at Tire Rack's results for combined road manners and dry/wet track, and for dry/wet track alone, in three tire categories, before settling on Procontact.

In Standard Touring tires, the Procontact was equaled (7.2) only by the Defender in combined. It apparently was very nearly equal in dry track to both the Defender and Assurance, and clearly superior to them in wet track and snow (and superior to the Avid Ascend in all three). In Eco-focused All-season, it led its competitors--EP 422, Assurance, & Avid Ascent--in all three categories: combined, dry track, and (markedly) in wet track. In Eco-friendly All-season, it was neck and neck with the Hydroedge in combined (6.71 to 6.73); was "right on its heels" in dry track; and in wet track had "clear leadership." So both its road manners and track times are at or near the top in tests for all three categories (Standard Touring, Eco-focused All-season, and Eco-friendly All-season.

I think comparing the effects of wheel weight & tire weight involves at least two issues--unsprung weight as well as the rotational energy that you address. For unsprung weight, the combination I have in mind saves four pounds per wheel-tire unit, which should help both with both ride and adhesion. As for rotational energy, by your x4 formula I'll come out even, since the Procontact is only a pound heavier than my stock 165/65/15 EL400s, which, times four, equals my wheel + tire saving. And I can't think that the extra pound in four tires would in any case (i.e., even without the 5-lbs-lighter wheels I plan) be significant for vehicle acceleration and braking, compared to total vehicle weight. Total additional effective rotational mass by your formula here would be 16 lbs, or .0064 of the empty vehicle weight of 2,500 lbs, so it seems unlikely to be important

As far as sidewall height, it's about the same that I have (175/65/15 compared to 195/60/15).

I agree that the lighter wheels aren't "cost-effective" for the street (e.g., in gas savings); but if I were going for sheer cost-effectiveness, I'd take the bus.