Max performance tires compared in photos

Check out the pics below. These are all top rated max performance tires. Very revealing:

#1


What you see here, is that the 275 Michelin (left) is about 3mm narrower than the 265 Continental (right)


#2


The 265 Continental (left) is 10mm narrower than the 255 Yokohama (right)


#3


Finally, the 275 Michelin (left) is a full 13mm narrower than the 255 Yokohama (right)

I knew there are variations in sizes but for a 275 of one brand to be 13mm NARROWER than a 255 of another brand is quite surprising to me. This can be quite an issue with tight/aggressive fitments, rubbing, etc. Guess you really can't compare between tire brands. And then when you consider aspect ratio, this may affect overall diameter also.

Wow cool, thanks so much for sharing. I guess I have no choice but to stay with Michelins (vs trying out AD08R's) because I'm close to rubbing already.

Tire Rack has the details in its specificatons. The tested wheel size is shown. If running the tire on a wider or narrower wheel, the tire will be very slightly wider or narrower.

Wow...very helpful. This could be a great sticky if everyone would contribute who either owns multiple sets of tires or takes pics when they buy new ones.

Also, do you know the actual tire type and sizes used? (i.e. was the Michelin a 275/35 or 275/30...?). It will be interesting what the specs out on say Tirerack.com say.

Brian0473 wrote

Wow...very helpful. This could be a great sticky if everyone would contribute who either owns multiple sets of tires or takes pics when they buy new ones.

Also, do you know the actual tire type and sizes used? (i.e. was the Michelin a 275/35 or 275/30...?). It will be interesting what the specs out on say Tirerack.com say.

The Michelin is a 275/40/20 Latitude Sport which is an SUV load rated version of the PS2 from my old Porsche Cayenne

The Continental is a 265/35/19 Contisport which is OEM stock from my 2011 M3 ZCP

The Yokohama is a 255/35/20 Advan Sport which in the OEM tire on my 2014 Audi S6.

I recently purchased a new Audi S6. I had the stock tires removed and replaced with OEM sized winter tires prior to delivery. When I looked at the width of the Yokohamas, I had to do a double take on the size because they seemed so wide. Indeed, my comparative measurements of all these unmounted tires lying on a flat surface confirmed my initial impression.

IMHO measurements are meaningless if tires are not mounted. Also 265, 275 and so on, refers to the maximum width of a tire cross section when mounted on a recommended rim and not the tread width, which is not standardized.

But the photos are really showing the difference in cross section widths. If you go out to tirerack you can see these listed for every tire they sell. A quick look showed the opposite of the photos so this is interesting. I agree on the mounted vs. not mounted point.

Somewhat misleading since wheel widths are not shown, and those make a big difference in section width measurements. I can promise you that a 275/35-19 Michelin PSS is definitely wider than a 265/35-19 Continental DW when both are mounted on the same 9.5" wheel (recently evaluated this when buying PSS').

Here's one of my examples (I have many of these I've evaluated) -- this is a 245/40-18 BFG Rival, both tires shown are identical. Guess the difference.

CSBM5 wrote

Somewhat misleading since wheel widths are not shown, and those make a big difference in section width measurements. I can promise you that a 275/35-19 Michelin PSS is definitely wider than a 265/35-19 Continental DW when both are mounted on the same 9.5" wheel (recently evaluated this when buying PSS').

Here's one of my examples (I have many of these I've evaluated) -- this is a 245/40-18 BFG Rival, both tires shown are identical. Guess the difference. :)

They were mounted on wheels with different widths? How bout telling us

Yep, of course. The one on the left is on a 8.5" wheel and the one on the right is on a 9.5" wheel.

CSBM5 wrote

Somewhat misleading since wheel widths are not shown, and those make a big difference in section width measurements. I can promise you that a 275/35-19 Michelin PSS is definitely wider than a 265/35-19 Continental DW when both are mounted on the same 9.5" wheel (recently evaluated this when buying PSS').

Have any pictures of this as I'm very curious since I will be getting 275/35 PSS...even compared to OEM PS2 sizes as well.

dereksM3 wrote

Have any pictures of this as I'm very curious since I will be getting 275/35 PSS...even compared to OEM PS2 sizes as well.

No, sorry, didn't take pics at the tire shop. I do have a pic of the 265/35-19 DW vs this 245/40-18 Rival both on 9.5" wheels though. The 265 DW was only 8mm wider than the 245 Rival when both are on a 9.5" wheel.

CSBM5 wrote

Somewhat misleading since wheel widths are not shown, and those make a big difference in section width measurements. I can promise you that a 275/35-19 Michelin PSS is definitely wider than a 265/35-19 Continental DW when both are mounted on the same 9.5" wheel (recently evaluated this when buying PSS').

Here's one of my examples (I have many of these I've evaluated) -- this is a 245/40-18 BFG Rival, both tires shown are identical. Guess the difference.

There are no wheel widths. These are all UNMOUNTED TIRES. There is usually a recommended range of wheel widths for a given tire.

LarThaL wrote

There are no wheel widths. These are all UNMOUNTED TIRES. There is usually a recommended range of wheel widths for a given tire.

Ah, that makes sense now. You really can't compare unmounted tires since due to substantial differences in sidewall design, trying to measure section width, unmounted and uninflated, is pointless. You will find wide variation in unmounted section widths depending on the specific tire type...many years ago I was comparing unmounted Hoosier A6 versus BFG R1, for example, and made conclusions based on that, but they were completely invalid once I compared them mounted on the same wheel width and inflated.

Regards,
Chuck

CSBM5 wrote

Ah, that makes sense now. You really can't compare unmounted tires since due to substantial differences in sidewall design, trying to measure section width, unmounted and uninflated, is pointless. You will find wide variation in unmounted section widths depending on the specific tire type...many years ago I was comparing unmounted Hoosier A6 versus BFG R1, for example, and made conclusions based on that, but they were completely invalid once I compared them mounted on the same wheel width and inflated.

Regards,
Chuck

What he said.

CSBM5 wrote

Ah, that makes sense now. You really can't compare unmounted tires since due to substantial differences in sidewall design, trying to measure section width, unmounted and uninflated, is pointless. You will find wide variation in unmounted section widths depending on the specific tire type...many years ago I was comparing unmounted Hoosier A6 versus BFG R1, for example, and made conclusions based on that, but they were completely invalid once I compared them mounted on the same wheel width and inflated.

Regards,
Chuck

But still....you wouldn't expect a 275 to be that much narrower than a 255. This is, in essense a 33mm "error".

FWIW, if I measure the unmounted treads, the 275 Michelin has a 267mm tread. The 265 Continental has a 270mm tread (although the tread is slightly more worn) and the 255 Yokohama (new) has a 274mm tread

My original sizes: 245/30/19 265/30/19
I think my spacers are F-12mm to 15mm
R -18mm
I have always gone PS2s.
What pilot sport or other tires do you all love ?
What sizes ?
Thx

I don't think those are accurate measurements, you are measuring the side wall bulge which has little impact on what actually touches the ground.

What you need to measure is the contact patch, the width of the tire that actually touches the ground. By measuring the contact patch you eliminate things like rim protectors that make the side walls budge out further. Also stating just the brand of tire is useless as different models will have different variances. You should state the full tire size and model of tire.

tdott wrote

I don't think those are accurate measurements, you are measuring the side wall bulge which has little impact on what actually touches the ground.

What you need to measure is the contact patch, the width of the tire that actually touches the ground. By measuring the contact patch you eliminate things like rim protectors that make the side walls budge out further. Also stating just the brand of tire is useless as different models will have different variances. You should state the full tire size and model of tire.

These were tread measurements done in a consistent manner between tires. Nothing to do with sidewall bulge, etc.

Again, I am not surprised that there is variation. It is the degree of variation that surprises me.

LarThaL wrote

These were tread measurements done in a consistent manner between tires. Nothing to do with sidewall bulge, etc.

Again, I am not surprised that there is variation. It is the degree of variation that surprises me.

Excuse the bad paint drawing, arrows are not exact just to give an idea of what I mean.

The amount of wide wall bulge or distance from the actual contact area differs between tires.

pbonsalb wrote

Tire Rack has the details in its specificatons. The tested wheel size is shown. If running the tire on a wider or narrower wheel, the tire will be very slightly wider or narrower.

I love tire rack's thoroughness with the tire specs.