So I've read around the subject, visited a few retailers website and am now confused.

I know that on my 2013 rapid 1.2 elegance greentech the standard wheels/tyres are 215/45/16 7.0j (5x100) et46 and the suspension is 30mm lower. I'm not sure how much the Dione weights and don't think I can be bothered to take them off and see - but I might have to if no one has the knowledge on here.

I see from the skoda e-shop that rays (from the sport model) are 215/40/17 7.0j - so they will fit but what's the affect on fuel?

I saw on a alloy wheel information site that the monte carlo rapid comes with 18" 7.5j and 215/30/18... And many online wheels retails say 18" fit, one even offered 19"...?

But what are the pros and cons to going bigger?

I realise looks wise they say bigger is better but at what expense.

Do I go the lighter weight avenue, in the hope that the car will be quicker and handle better... I think I saw a video of a rapid on the nurburge (however you spell it) ring that did a good time and was on 15" wheels?!?!

Any advice welcome...

In terms of handling and performance - mass is the key. Unsprung mass (ie the bits that the suspension holds on to the chassis/body - so this includes the brake components - discs and calipers) should be as light as possible and thus have a lower inertia, this enables it to respond to changes in the surface quicker, keeping the tyre in contact with the ground more (and it is only the small patch of tyre in contact with the road that produces grip). Of course lower mass also means quicker acceleration for a given force (Newton's second law). It's all basic physics.

 

Of course, bigger wheels do not necessarily mean lighter - bigger wheels will need to be stronger so could in fact be heavier. 

 

There is also the issue of tyre sidewall flex. Bigger wheels will mean less sidewall profile and these low profile tyres will have less 'give' (they need to be stiffer to support the weight). This tends to result in a harsher ride and can result in a loss of grip as the tyre can 'bounce' over mid-corner undulations (see above) rather than flex to absorb the bump; note that most of the suspension travel in F1 cars is actually from tyre flexing hence they have quite a high tyre profile relative to wheel size.

 

It's all about compromise...

 

as for effect on fuel economy - bigger wheels on road cars tend to hurt economy, probably because with bigger wheels manufacturers tend to fit wider x-section which increases rolling resistance. With 17s on my 1.2 TSI (110) I'm now averaging just shy of 50mpg - with about 52.5 showing on the 'since start' display at the end of my 10 mile daily commute.

So I've read around the subject, visited a few retailers website and am now confused.

I know that on my 2013 rapid 1.2 elegance greentech the standard wheels/tyres are 215/45/16 7.0j (5x100) et46 and the suspension is 30mm lower. I'm not sure how much the Dione weights and don't think I can be bothered to take them off and see - but I might have to if no one has the knowledge on here.

I see from the skoda e-shop that rays (from the sport model) are 215/40/17 7.0j - so they will fit but what's the affect on fuel?

I saw on a alloy wheel information site that the monte carlo rapid comes with 18" 7.5j and 215/30/18... And many online wheels retails say 18" fit, one even offered 19"...?

But what are the pros and cons to going bigger?

I realise looks wise they say bigger is better but at what expense.

Do I go the lighter weight avenue, in the hope that the car will be quicker and handle better... I think I saw a video of a rapid on the nurburge (however you spell it) ring that did a good time and was on 15" wheels?!?!

Any advice welcome...

As far as I know, montecarlo comes with 16" with the 17" as option. The width is the same ,215, so it should have no impact on consumption. No mention of 18" rims on the papers.

Compared to the 15" i use in winter, the 17" give an harsher ride due to the lower sidewalls but the car is obviously more reactive.

As far as I know, montecarlo comes with 16" with the 17" as option. The width is the same ,215, so it should have no impact on consumption. No mention of 18" rims on the papers.

Compared to the 15" i use in winter, the 17" give an harsher ride due to the lower sidewalls but the car is obviously more reactive.

Is there a noticeable difference in fuel consumption between the 15" and the 17".

I read that there is little difference when you go from 17-18".

So confusing

Hard to tell frankly. Winter tires 185/60 15" are thinner but still winter tires, so compared to the 215/40 17", wider but summer, i cannot really find a difference.

Then there is the cold weather in winter and consumption would be higher in any case. Add that I don't use the car daily so i wouldn't notice a difference in consumption, unless it was really big.

Not the right person to answer the question, but i would say is pretty much the same consumption for me.

In terms of handling and performance - mass is the key. Unsprung mass (ie the bits that the suspension holds on to the chassis/body - so this includes the brake components - discs and calipers) should be as light as possible and thus have a lower inertia, this enables it to respond to changes in the surface quicker, keeping the tyre in contact with the ground more (and it is only the small patch of tyre in contact with the road that produces grip). Of course lower mass also means quicker acceleration for a given force (Newton's second law). It's all basic physics.

Of course, bigger wheels do not necessarily mean lighter - bigger wheels will need to be stronger so could in fact be heavier.

There is also the issue of tyre sidewall flex. Bigger wheels will mean less sidewall profile and these low profile tyres will have less 'give' (they need to be stiffer to support the weight). This tends to result in a harsher ride and can result in a loss of grip as the tyre can 'bounce' over mid-corner undulations (see above) rather than flex to absorb the bump; note that most of the suspension travel in F1 cars is actually from tyre flexing hence they have quite a high tyre profile relative to wheel size.

It's all about compromise...

as for effect on fuel economy - bigger wheels on road cars tend to hurt economy, probably because with bigger wheels manufacturers tend to fit wider x-section which increases rolling resistance. With 17s on my 1.2 TSI (110) I'm now averaging just shy of 50mpg - with about 52.5 showing on the 'since start' display at the end of my 10 mile daily commute.

So are there any pros to bigger wheels?

So, do I get smaller lighter alloys?

So are there any pros to bigger wheels?

aesthetics.

 

 - but its what you do with them that counts ;-)

So, do I get smaller lighter alloys?

you need a certain size to fit around the brake components...

 

on from my previous comments about unsprung mass an intertia (can't help it, I'm an engineer), well all's said and done, we're talking about wheels fitted to a ~100BP FWD hatchback and talk of bigger/smaller/lighter wheels when it comes to effects on precision handling are probably a bit academic. Unless you're a soft-handed helmsmith or you're  power-sliding into Tesco's car park/the Nordschleife each week - and if you are then maybe a Skoda Rapid is not for you - the changes are going to be slight, and inperceptable to the vast majority of ordinary drivers.

 

I think your choice of wheels will probably be down to personal taste - bigger wheels (within the realms of good taste) will improve the look of the car, and may make steering response a bit sharper - but this will probably come at the expense of a slight degradation in fuel economy and a slightly harsher ride. There is also the fact that lower-profile tyres tend to be more expensive and bigger rims are easier to damage (see my thread 'One of those days'!)

Edited 2 August, 20169 yr by PerArdua

215/40 17 seem to be about 3 mpg worse than the standard 15's

Someone on here put 18s on a diesel and lost 7 mpg !

Having driven them on 16 and 17, the ride is worse on 17 OEM Conti Premiumcontact and even worse on 17 OEM Dunlop Sportmaxx. Going to 40 profile or lower seems to make a significant difference to comfort.

Edited 2 August, 20169 yr by camelspyyder

I had a choice of a tsi 86 on 16s and a tsi 105 on 17's and I made my choice mostly on looks. So the relatively poor ride and significantly worse fuel consumption are my own fault...

thanks all, i've spent the night google-ing and there seems to be very little difference in price circa £100...between wheel and tyre combos 16-18" (£700-900).

Nice/good quality 16" tyres are £100 per corner...add £10 per extra inch

 

I'm wondering if I could go 18" with a larger sidewall in order to improve comfort then use the MFD to adjust the speedo +/- 5mph...?

One thing I noticed when looking at cars a while back - I was measuring the wheel diameter and width and comparing it with the size of the spare wheel well - if any.

 

And I noticed something interesting - different variations of the same basic car had different wheel sizes.But due to the differing tyre profile used they all measured about 24" in diameter, give or take a few millimetres!

 

And when I looked across different makes/models of car - at least in the Focus/Corsa/Astra/Golf/Rapid/Fabia's that I was looking at - they were almost all about 24"

 

Though I didn't even look at cars with 19" or 20" rims .....

18" wheels are not going to increase comfort, 

you are going to have to have very low profile sidewalls, you can not go bigger by much..

& the setting on the MFD is for the Winter Tyre Warning not the increase in total diameter if you put bigger circumference tyres on.

http://kouki.co.uk/utilities/visual-tyre-size-calculator

so, thinking of going for Team Dynamics Pro Race 1.2 in matt graphite... http://www.rimstock.co.uk/content/pro-race-12 Still don't know what size though!!! My raid is metallic Black...

Edited 2 August, 20169 yr by JonBRapid

Comparing the two sets of wheels we have ( 6Jx15 185/60R15  vs.  7Jx16 215/45R16),

 

15" wheels: definitely more comfortable. better fuel wise.

16" wheels: look better!

 

Attached is the TUV approved sizes and specs for Rapid.

 

Lighter weight wheels are best for suspension performance.

17" wheels look great but would be hell on the roads around me. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you looked in the 'For Sale's' on Briskoda.

Some Mk2 Fabia vRS ex Owners were selling Alloys with 205/40 R17 or 215/40 R17's.

Almost new and much cheapness.

'Borbet' or similar,

i think there were Pro Race 1.2 recently, but not in the fitment you want. EDIT (they are 112 x 5 / Yeti)

 

Not looked to see if sold, but ones come up pretty regularly.

 

EDIT,

SuperTurbo still has the Borbet F Alloys & tyres advertised.

Edited 3 August, 20169 yr by GoneOffSKi

Comparing the two sets of wheels we have ( 6Jx15 185/60R15 vs. 7Jx16 215/45R16),

15" wheels: definitely more comfortable. better fuel wise.

16" wheels: look better!

Attached is the TUV approved sizes and specs for Rapid.

Lighter weight wheels are best for suspension performance.

17" wheels look great but would be hell on the roads around me.

Das ist good I wish I knew a second language! Thank you...

Have you looked in the 'For Sale's' on Briskoda.

Some Mk2 Fabia vRS ex Owners were selling Alloys with 205/40 R17 or 215/40 R17's.

Almost new and much cheapness.

'Borbet' or similar,

i think there were Pro Race 1.2 recently, but not in the fitment you want. EDIT (they are 112 x 5 / Yeti)

Not looked to see if sold, but ones come up pretty regularly.

EDIT,

SuperTurbo still has the Borbet F Alloys & tyres advertised.

Thank you...that's a whole new part of website I never knew existed just messaged superturbo...hoping he's local!

17's are more than fine on our Spaceback SE Sport, the ride is firm but very forgiving

 

I would not over think this on a Rapid.... drop all the technical this and that regarding un spring weight etc,  go for a set of wheels which you like and fit in line with the OEM sizes,

 

So i was all set to get the borbets then had a chat with the guys from Oxford car Audio and together we looked at "will they fit.com" and weren't 100% such they'll fit without poking out to far... It appears my rapid is 30mm lower than most and the borbets with current tyres poke out an extra 10mm and would loose 6mm in height. Hummm, anyone got a set of rays they want to sell

Edited 5 August, 20169 yr by JonBRapid

They fit just fine.

Mk2 Fabia vRS owners are fitting them to lowered hatches and estates.

So I ended up with a set of 'new' 17" Camelot 7.0J with dunlop sportmax tyres...

 

I went with these as they were the same price (there-abouts) with a set of four new tyres and I knew they would fit as they are the factory option wheels.

 

They look a lot bigger being huge five spokes. Haven't noticed any difference in fuel or performance, the low profile tyres are slightly less comfortable but nothing unexpected, just gets me to drive slowly over the bumps!

 

My wife didn't notice either

 

So if anyone is looking for a set of 16" Dione wheels get in touch...

Edited 31 August, 20169 yr by JonBRapid

I would stay away from 30 profile on British roads!  I have genuine Skoda 215/40R17 on my SE and they are low enough to get easily damaged on the country roads around where I live.  Already had to fork out a load of cash as a result of a bent wheel from a main road pot hole!  A little more side wall is usually a little more forgiving on rough roads and protects the rim better against kerbs.  I am now paranoid about damaging my 40's again!  I would prefer a 45 or 50 profile.