I could go either way as I have yet to decide on new wheels, but I'm leaning toward a set of Rota Torque in flat black. I'm currently running on my stock 195/55-16 runflats with 14k miles on them. This is my daily driver, I live in the northwest, and I'm considering a UHP all season tire, I'm also planning on having the JCW suspension installed. So, in terms of performance what size would you go with and why? I'm thinking the slightly larger than stock diameter would be good for my R56.

 

I like the idea of a wider contact patch, but if you are lowering the Mini 215/40R17 will eliminate the rubbing you may get with 215/45R17. If your roads aren't the best, I would suggest the 205/55R16 just to protect your wheels.

Leo Barrios
leo@edgeracing.com
800-489-5353 x211
http://www.edgeracing.com

 

If you think that rubbing is at risk with 215/45-17 (24.7" tire diameter)
Then with 205/55-16 you would be taller at 24.9" tire diameter and even more at risk.

In that case 205/50-16 would be a better choice for less chance of rubbing- due to slight drop with JCW suspension. Tire diameter is 24.1".

215/40-17 is small on tire diameter but also stiffer ride and higher priced due to more performance oriented in tires of that size.

Otherwise the other logical choice is stock 205/45-17 tires.
In UHP All Season tires-

Goodyear eagle F1 All Season $114 each 420 treadwear- a bit stiffer sidewall for better handling but a little rougher ride.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....e1=yes&place=1


Falken Ze-912 $76 each 360 treadwear more comfort for street use.
http://edgeracing.com/tire/5560/

 

I have 205/55-16 on my 2004 MCS and there is no rubbing. However, were I to do it again I would get 205/50-16. The 55 series looks conspicuously high in this size.

 

Yeah . . . what Blazer said.

I just put 205/55/16s on my Clubman because I liked the tires choices better and I wanted to fill the wheel well better. No rubbing with stock suspension, but they look just too darn fat! IMHO, get the 205/50/16s if you go the 16" route.

 

I just put 215/55/16s on my R53 and coming from the stock 195/55/16s they seem to fill the wheel well A LOT more. Hopefully they won't rub.

 

is 205/50/16 the preferred size for 16's if looking for extreme performance or DOT competition tires?

 

thanks for the opinions everyone, I'm considering the Falkens for price, but the Eagle F1's have been on my radar for quite some time now and I'm pretty much used to the rough riding runflats by now anyway and better handling does sound more appealing to me, but are they worth the extra cost? I did read the tirerack winter testing for these and it sounds like they do rather well. Also keep in mind that the R56 seems to have more than it's fair share of wheel gap, like I can fit my whole hand in there! so would the extra size really be an issue with the JCW suspension? considering it only slightly lowers the car. I'm afraid that the 205/50-16 would only create more wheel gap or is that really not a concern? perhaps the 215/45-17 would be the way to go...hmmm...undecided.

 

Thinking about a set of Enkei RPF1's




http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/Wheel...=Black+Painted

 

I run a set of "Nitto Neo Gen's" in a 205/50/16. You might want to check them out. Besides myself, there are several people in my Mini Cooper club that run them and all have had great success with them both as daily drivers as well as on the weekends up in the twisty's !

 

...Have you looked @ Dunlop Direzza Z1's in 17/215/45??

 

So are those what you have in you gallery photos?
I think personally for not having lowered, they look good. They fill the space well.
How do they ride? What kind of tires are they?

 

Yes, the pics with the gunmetal Rota RBs. They are 205/55/16 Bridgestone Potenza RE960AS Pole Positions. They've only been on the car for about ten days, but so far the ride is comfortable and quiet, and the grip is good. I'm not sure if cornering is affected by the sidewall height because I haven't pushed them yet while they're breaking in.

I agree: they do fill the space well without lowering, which is what I was going for. And it could be a visual effect involving the style of wheel -- but they just look fat. Remember, they are 24.9" diameter compared to a 24.1" diameter for the 205/50/16s. I realize it's only about 3/8" extra sidewall, but . . .

Of course, I bought the Rotas for a retro look, and fat tires are a retro look, too.

 

You're right, if you have the retro look in mind a lot of sports cars in the past had beefier wheels that what we see now. IMHO some nowadays get a little too low profile. But hey we all have opinions!
The attached shot is from an old Vette I saw last summer. I actually think the look fits the car.

I have the 15" version of the same Potenzas on my car. They are a nice ride.