I replaced my standard 17's on my 250 AWD within 1000 miles, upgrading to 19 inch Toyo's. I would like to give the 17's to a friend who needs to replace tires on his Nissan Maxima. His tires are 225/50/17.

My OEMs are Bridgestone Potenza 225/45/17's. I also have ASA AMG replica wheels that I bought for them from Tirerack, so he wouldn't have the Lexus rims to deal with.

Is the width diff between a 45 and 50 enough of a difference to cause a problem?

 

That's not really the width, its more of the profile of the tire, It will give him a bit of a lower profile, It shouldn't be a problem at all..

 

The "45" and "50" designations have nothing to do with the width of the tire. They indicate the height of the sidewall (aka 'profile') as a percentage of the width of the tire.

So a 225/45 has a 101.25mm profile. A 225/50 has a 112.5mm profile.

 

The difference in profile means that the circumference of the tire is smaller, and will cause his speedometer reading to be inaccurate - in this case too high.

 

hes gonna have a little more wheel gap on the 225/45/17 than the 225/50/17

I really hate RE92 potenzas they were dreadful tires, but if they are free to a friend then cant beat barely used free tires even if they are bad

 

I agree with 4Teh. I hate the RE92s too. They are probably some of the worst tires ever produced by Bridgestone. I would only use them if they were free (as in your friend's case perhaps) and if I was strapped for cash.

I also think the 225/45/17s would look awkward on a Maxima, which has a larger wheel well. The OE tires on the Maxima are 225/55/17, which is 2 inches larger in overall diameter than the IS 250s 225/45. I wouldn't do it if I was your friend.

 

I'm not a big fan of any Bridgestone tire I've owned. My Audi came from the factory with RE040 Potenzas, a tire dubbed the "bubble-tenza" by the folks on Audiworld thanks to it's propensity for sidewall damage in hitting even the most minor pothole. They were so bad that someone started and prevailed in a class action lawsuit against Audi, and I actually got a few hundred dollars towards replacement tires as part of the settlement. My second Bridgestone set was the S03 Pole Position, a tire with a great reputation - that I absolutely hated. Handling wasn't too bad, but once they had a few miles on them they started tramlining horribly. I used to dread driving on grooved pavement - the steering wheel would nearly be ripped from my hands. Replacing them with Goodyear GS-D3s was the best thing I ever did for that car.

 

Blow-tenza

 

Bridgestone shot themselves in the foot with the RE-92. They never should have stuck the Potenza label, which used to correspond to their high performance tires, on crap like the RE-92's. Absolute junk, although I will say, for an all-season, they were relatively decent in the snow.

 

thing is most people dont have the knowledge to judge good or bad tires, many many people at the tireshop when getting a replacement are like "I'll just have what was on it before" Tire companies know this and charge outrageous prices for OEM tires which are junk in the first place. Its OEM from the dealer because its lower in cost to them but higher in cost when you want a replacement. Huge profit margin I bet.

If you look at OEM tire ratings at tirerack man do they suck *** vs non OEM tires. Michelin MMVX4 Energy suck, Continentals that came on my dads 2000 740 as OEM suck, RE92s of course suck

my prelude had 205/50/16 stock RE92s (when worn I was terrified driving on these), looking at replacement prices the tires were more expensive than the 215/35/18 tires which I eventually bought when I got new wheels.