215s or 235s...fuel and comfort

[2into1]

This choice often gets referred to in threads but I still think questions remain....

There are 2 official 17" tyre choices for Cali's : the 215x60x17s run at 10 psi higher than the 235x55x17, which are rumoured to have higher fuel consumption (probably due to the wider contact patch AND the squishier pressures).

Is anyone who has tried both sizes able to comment on the ride benefits of the 235s and the fuel consumption and possibly tyre noise increase that accompanies them?

 

[clarinetbcn]

This choice often gets referred to in threads but I still think questions remain....

There are 2 official 17" tyre choices for Cali's : the 215x60x17s run at 10 psi higher than the 235x55x17, which are rumoured to have higher fuel consumption (probably due to the wider contact patch AND the squishier pressures).

Is anyone who has tried both sizes able to comment on the ride benefits of the 235s and the fuel consumption and possibly tyre noise increase that accompanies them?

@Amarillo switched from 215x65x16s to 235x55x17s and did notice a sizable increase in consumption...it's interesting to note that a wider footprint leads to shorter longitudinal footprint, so you can actually have less rubber contact with the road by switching to a wider tire (Google "Does a wider tire give more traction?") If the wider tires use lower pressure, they can give more contact and comfort, at the expense of mpg and temperature due to flex in sidewalls, which influences longevity in Kms. That said, temperature due to flex will be lower for the higher pressure high profile tire on long straight roads, and lower for low profile low pressure tires while banging through curvy roads at an entertainingly fun speed, but...which of these two scenarios are you more likely to engage in with your 3T California?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Much more comfortable with the 235's (did 22k on 215's) and a lot less rattles. Fuel? Only done 1500 miles with 235's since new so difficult to comment, especially as I changed from a DSG to manual at the same time, but I feel there must be a price. Road noise? Slightly less. Overall? I would not go back to 215's.

 

[Amarillo]

@Amarillo switched from 215x65x16s to 235x55x17s and did notice a sizable increase in consumption...it's interesting to note that a wider footprint leads to shorter longitudinal footprint, so you can actually have less rubber contact with the road by switching to a wider tire (Google "Does a wider tire give more traction?") If the wider tires use lower pressure, they can give more contact and confort, at the expense of mpg.

Average 35.2 mpg over 28,451 km on 215x65x16.



Average 31.6 mpg over 19,525 km on 235x55x17.



There may be other factors at play here, such as more city driving, and certainly since we bought a small city car in July 2019 for local trips there has been a notable uptick in fuel consumption.

All measurements are based on brim to brim refuels, and distances taken from the odometer and converted to Km. I also have a record of MPG taken from the trip computer 2 each refuel before reset.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Good data Amarillo. My van (2015 T5 SE 180) came with 235s and I've stuck with that width, but seeing your figures I would have looked at maybe changing to 215s.

 

[Jabberwocky]

@Amarillo switched from 215x65x16s to 235x55x17s and did notice a sizable increase in consumption...it's interesting to note that a wider footprint leads to shorter longitudinal footprint, so you can actually have less rubber contact with the road by switching to a wider tire (Google "Does a wider tire give more traction?") If the wider tires use lower pressure, they can give more contact and comfort, at the expense of mpg and temperature due to flex in sidewalls, which influences longevity in Kms. That said, temperature due to flex will be lower for the higher pressure high profile tire on long straight roads, and lower for low profile low pressure tires while banging through curvy roads at an entertainingly fun speed, but...which of these two scenarios are you more likely to engage in with your 3T California?

If I had less rubber in contact with the road with 235's when compared with 215's as suggested could be the case then I would expect a higher mpg not a lower. Maybe I missed something.

 

[clarinetbcn]

If I had less rubber in contact with the road with 235's when compared with 215's as suggested could be the case then I would expect a higher mpg not a lower. Maybe I missed something.

As mentioned above, lower air pressure of 235's causes higher rolling resistance and heat, while increasing footprint and comfort.

 

[Velma's Dad]

It's complicated... they will be different characteristics generally, different diameters, aspect ratios (215x65 16in vs 235x55 17in). Tyrewall stiffnesses will be different. Doubtless some difference in handling although narrower tyres don't necessarily perform worse.

 

[Borris]

This choice often gets referred to in threads but I still think questions remain....

There are 2 official 17" tyre choices for Cali's : the 215x60x17s run at 10 psi higher than the 235x55x17, which are rumoured to have higher fuel consumption (probably due to the wider contact patch AND the squishier pressures).

Is anyone who has tried both sizes able to comment on the ride benefits of the 235s and the fuel consumption and possibly tyre noise increase that accompanies them?

I had both sizes on my Californias. I can't say that I've ever noticed much if any difference in fuel consumption although I'm not someone that watches the figures that closely. What I have noticed is that the 235s do seem to give a more comfortable and less crashy ride.

Having said that I'd be happy with either.

 

[clarinetbcn]

Edit to post #2: It's interesting to note that, at the same pressure, a wider footprint leads to shorter longitudinal footprint, so you can actually have less rubber contact with the road by switching to a wider tire (Google "Does a wider tire give more traction?")

 

[2into1]

My T6 like many was on Continental tyres (215s) which were rated 107/109 load. That's much higher than needed and I wonder if that extra load rating caused an even harsher ride (vs say a 215 with a 102 rating)?

 

[T6 CFO]

I’m a believer that unless there is a good reason to change sticking to the factory build and set up is the best option.

Mine is a heavier 4Motion and came with the 235’s.
Moving to 215’s may give an improvement of a few MPG but at the cost of comfort. Less comfort means a harsher ride and presumably more wear elsewhere reducing the savings on fuel.

I’m going for CrossClimate tyres so 235’s for me.

With the lighter Beach there may be more scope for the 215’s or where your circumstances require a switch to winters when 215’s may be a better choice for biting through the snow or fitting chains.

My point is that it’s horses for courses and things can’t be taken in isolation.

Default position IMHO, as in lowering as well, is leave well alone unless you have a good reason to change.


Mike

 

[Amarillo]

I had both sizes on my Californias. I can't say that I've ever noticed much if any difference in fuel consumption although I'm not someone that watches the figures that closely. What I have noticed is that the 235s do seem to give a more comfortable and less crashy ride.

Having said that I'd be happy with either.

It would be wrong to take my observations as conclusive proof.

When my tyres next need changing, I'll revert to the original wheels with replacement 215x65x16 tyres. If my fuel consumption recovers to ~35 mpg I'll be convinced. Don't hold your breath waiting. My first set of tyres lasted 40,000 miles. My current set have only done a measly 12,000.

 

[Calimili]

When I bought my Cali last year in Germany, the VW website would provide the WLTP figures for consumption and CO2 emissions. with the 235 the consumption figures were higher than 215.

 

[vwsween]

Used both on a 174 t5. The 215 gave 35.6 ave over 4000 miles and the 235 gave 34.2 over 1500 miles. But that reduction is worth it for better ride.

 

[westfalia]

My T6 like many was on Continental tyres (215s) which were rated 107/109 load. That's much higher than needed and I wonder if that extra load rating caused an even harsher ride (vs say a 215 with a 102 rating)?

I got new Nokian winters 102 and after having the 107-109 its like
being on a magic carpet ride. Nice and cushty.

 

[2into1]

I got new Nokian winters 102 and after having the 107-109 its like
being on a magic carpet ride. Nice and cushty.

Same tyre size @westfalia?

 

[Trebor]

This choice often gets referred to in threads but I still think questions remain....

There are 2 official 17" tyre choices for Cali's : the 215x60x17s run at 10 psi higher than the 235x55x17, which are rumoured to have higher fuel consumption (probably due to the wider contact patch AND the squishier pressures).

Is anyone who has tried both sizes able to comment on the ride benefits of the 235s and the fuel consumption and possibly tyre noise increase that accompanies them?

Have had 235 Goodyear Vector and 215 Dunlop WinterSport . No difference in handling better coasting and 4 mpg more with 215 ‘S .

 

[2into1]

It would be wrong to take my observations as conclusive proof.

When my tyres next need changing, I'll revert to the original wheels with replacement 215x65x16 tyres. If my fuel consumption recovers to ~35 mpg I'll be convinced. Don't hold your breath waiting. My first set of tyres lasted 40,000 miles. My current set have only done a measly 12,000.

The Cali world awaits!

 

[2into1]

I’m a believer that unless there is a good reason to change sticking to the factory build and set up is the best option.

Mine is a heavier 4Motion and came with the 235’s.
Moving to 215’s may give an improvement of a few MPG but at the cost of comfort. Less comfort means a harsher ride and presumably more wear elsewhere reducing the savings on fuel.

I’m going for CrossClimate tyres so 235’s for me.

With the lighter Beach there may be more scope for the 215’s or where your circumstances require a switch to winters when 215’s may be a better choice for biting through the snow or fitting chains.

My point is that it’s horses for courses and things can’t be taken in isolation.

Default position IMHO, as in lowering as well, is leave well alone unless you have a good reason to change.


Mike

I don't know if we ever got to the bottom of which vans came with which tyres. I don't think it was a simple as Beaches got 215s and Oceans got 235s. Even within the Oceans, I think there was some variability. My 150 T6 Ocean had 215s. Perhaps all the 204s / 199s had 235s?

 

[westfalia]

Same tyre size @westfalia?

215´s

 

[Jabberwocky]

I don't know if we ever got to the bottom of which vans came with which tyres. I don't think it was a simple as Beaches got 215s and Oceans got 235s. Even within the Oceans, I think there was some variability. My 150 T6 Ocean had 215s. Perhaps all the 204s / 199s had 235s?

I have had two Oceans from new. One with each size of tyre. 215's are std with 235's as option.
EDIT: Both were 150's

 

[B J G]

I don't know if we ever got to the bottom of which vans came with which tyres. I don't think it was a simple as Beaches got 215s and Oceans got 235s. Even within the Oceans, I think there was some variability. My 150 T6 Ocean had 215s. Perhaps all the 204s / 199s had 235s?

204 4M DSG HAD to have 235's fitted as part of the spec. option was the all season version or 18" wheels.

When selecting a tyre whether 215 or 235 it's always best to check the fuel consumption rating, go for an A or B. Cheap brands come at the cost of higher fuel consumption and usually D or E rated.
Merely saying changing from 215 to 235 gives higher fuel usage needs to have reference to the quoted tyre fuel useage rating.

 

[Legin]

204 4M DSG HAD to have 235's fitted as part of the spec. option was the all season version or 18" wheels.

When selecting a tyre whether 215 or 235 it's always best to check the fuel consumption rating, go for an A or B. Cheap brands come at the cost of higher fuel consumption and usually D or E rated.
Merely saying changing from 215 to 235 gives higher fuel usage needs to have reference to the quoted tyre fuel useage rating.

A to E represents about 5% performance delta I believe, for the same tyre size and category.

 

[2into1]

Merely saying changing from 215 to 235 gives higher fuel usage needs to have reference to the quoted tyre fuel useage rating.

Are you sure that's right? I thought the fuel consumption rating was RELATIVE to the tyre size.... So a very wide tyre can be an A, just as a skinny tyre can have an E rating.
We all know the ultra low fuel attempts use bike size (narrow) tyres.....probably for that reason.

Bringing that back to our closer options, a B rated 215 would use less fuel than a B rated 235.

I'm not looking for a fight on this... I collected my 235s today (from 215s), based on the feedback here. I'll report my 'ride' and fuel consumption feeling in an appropriate time.