If maximizing fuel economy is so important, why do so many new vehicles come standard with such enormous (and enormously heavy) “rims”?
Including what are marketed as economy cars?
Even the Toyota Prius – which is marketed as the most economy-minded new car you can buy – comes standard with 17 inch wheels. Most trims comes standard with 19 inch wheels. No Corvette made until the mid-1980s came with wheels that were larger than 16 inches.
Economy cars once-upon-a-time came standard with 13 or 14 inch wheels – because wheels that size were light and reduced rolling resistance. Oversize “rims” increase weight and rolling resistance, thus reducing the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.
This is a big part of the reason why the economy cars of more-than-30-years ago commonly achieved better fuel economy than the economy cars of today – even though none of them had the efficiency advantages that are common today, such as electronically controlled fuel management systems and transmissions with multiple overdrive gears, to reduce engine RPM (and so, fuel consumption) at highway speeds.
A 1985 Honda CRX, for instance, had a carburetor – which was not capable of continuously fine-tuning the air-fuel ratio to optimize fuel efficiency under all conditions because a carburetor is a mechanical fuel-delivery device that cannot do that. It is calibrated to operate as efficiently as it can within certain specific conditions. Put another way, a carburetor is a compromise. It can be adjusted, but it cannot self-adjust. The ability to continuously adjust the air-fuel ratio to optimize efficiency under all conditions is the main reason why electronically controlled fuel injection replaced carburetors.
Anyhow, the original CRX was not fuel injected. But it was very light and part of that was due to it riding on a set of 13 inch wheels fitted with 155 SR-13 tires. Which is among the reasons why it was capable of delivering almost 50 MPG on the highway.
Contrast this efficiency with that of the 2025 Prius hybrid I recently test drove. It is capable of 57 MPG on the highway, which is excellent economy – for a modern economy car. But note that it takes hybrid technology to get there. The ’85 CRX didn’t need to shut its engine down as often as possible to achieve near-hybrid fuel efficiency. It’s engine was always on – whenever the car was being driven. Let that sink in.
The ’25 Prius could do much better than 57 MPG, if among other things it were not made less efficient than it could be on account of the “rims” it’s shod with, which are four inches taller – and much wider – than the wheels that came with the ’85 CRX. And those “seventeens” are the Toyota’s standard-sized wheels (and tires).
Getting a sense of how much that costs – in terms of efficiency – is easy. Equipped with its standard-sized 17 inch “rims,” the 2025 Prius averages the already mentioned 57 MPG. But equipped with the two-inch-taller 19 inch wheels that are optional, the same Prius averages 52 MPG. That’s a difference of 5 MPG just on account of going up two wheel sizes, from 17s to 19s.
Gnomesayin’?
What would the difference be if it were possible to go down two (or three) sizes, to 15 or even 14 inch wheels? Such an experiment would be interesting.
Possibly, there’d be a gain of 5 MPG, which would mean a new Prius – all else being the same – might and likely would exceed 60 MPG.
You’d think that would be a desirable thing in a car marketed to be – chiefly – economical.
Yet for reasons that make one’s teeth ache, the Prius comes standard with “rims” that dramatically reduce its potential economy and most trims comes with even larger “rims” that reduce it even more.
Here it’s worth pointing out out that “rims” impose a massive decrease in fuel economy vs. the miserable “gains” achieved in all new vehicles that have engines that automatically shut off at every red light via ASS, or automatic start-stop “technology.” Which is nothing more “technological” than shutting off the engine at every red light – and triggering an automatic re-start when the light goes green and the driver takes his foot off the brake pedal.
ASS “saves” perhaps 1 MPG. Put another way, it increase overall mileage by perhaps 1 MPG, which is so small a difference it hardly makes a difference. But 5 MPG is a big difference, especially if the car is supposed to be “economical.”
How much less gas would other vehicles use if they were not shod with “rims”? Especially “rims” that are literally steamroller-sized, as in 20 inches (and more) tall such as are commonly fitted to new SUVs and pick-ups?
Many crossovers also have “rims” in that size range. Minivans have 18 inch wheels. Is it any wonder their mileage is terrible, relative to what similar vehicles commonly achieved 30-plus years ago when they rode on 15 or 16 inch wheels?
So what is the deal with these “rims”? Well, they are fashionable. They became so beginning back in the late ’90s when rap culture became mainstream culture. One of the aesthetics of rap culture being – you guessed it – huge “rims.” 
At first, one only saw such “rims” added to cars that did not come with them from the factory. But that look became fashionable and soon such “rims” became standard equipment on pretty much every car made – even cars like the Prius.
Which is kind of like ordering a Big Mac and fries to go along with your Diet Coke.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
I think the main reason stock rims grew in size, was to make up for the vehicle’s massive “girth” (because “saaaaaaaaaafety”). 14’s and 15’s look out of place on vehicles with ludicrously high “belt lines” and slit windows (again, “saaaaaaaaaaafety”).
My 2007 Civic Si has 17″ rims, perhaps on account of the low-profile tires. LibertyX: I like the sunroofs on my Si, and my wife’s 1999 Civic Ex coupe. The 1999: 26 years old, sunroof has never leaked. We live in Oklahoma, land of mondo thunderstorms.
Another idiotic/expensive fade I detest is sunroofs, can’t get
some vehicles without one. Manufactures, write this down –
cutting holes in roofs causes leaks.
I had a EK (1996-2000) Civic hatchback and it came stock with cheap to replace 13-inch steel wheels and tires. I upgraded it with some Civic Si wheels to 15 inchers, which were considered BIG in 1998.
A Mk. IV Supra, one of the hottest cars of the 1990s, came with 17s and those were considered BIG!
I just wonder if the car companies and their customers are compensating for a perceived inadequacy.
100% agreed. Wheels are too big. I bought a used Cayenne as a road trip vehicle, since they’re so damn comfy and I can tow a trailer up to my cabin up a mountain without issue.
It came with 21″ wheels with 295 profile tires on them. I replaced those with 19″ wheels with 265 profile tires. My round trip (390 mile) weekend trips went from averaging 21 mpg to averaging 23 mpg. That’s almost a 10% difference, and also, my tire selection got better and cheaper. These wheels are lighter too, and have more sidewall, so bumpy roads are more comfortable.
bah! I meant width, not profile. The wheels were too big and too wide.
Thanks to government crash “standards”, the average new car weighs about 500 pounds more than a car in the 80’s or 90’s.
Every new car is a “fattie”! It’s absolutely insane.
Carburetors can actually be auto adjusted with an electronic feedback unit that adds of decreases vacuum air to the intake system. You need to install an O2 sensor and it will then determine how much of a vacuum “leak” to add or subtract (using a modern idle air control valve) to get to the magic stoichiometric ratio for E10 gasoline of 14.4:1. It’s an elegantly simple device.
This guy created it for his 40 mpg Ford 302. He shows the device at about minute 4:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xHQWu2ZzPc
“The ability to continuously adjust the air-fuel ratio to optimize efficiency under all conditions is the main reason why electronically controlled fuel injection replaced carburetors.”
An analog knob that you can twist to fine tune the A/F ratio on a carburetor by adjusting the opening of the jets – next to an A/F gauge – might work. I wonder why that was never a thing, pre-computer?
It actually was a thing on some cars. No AFR gage, but some were adjustable for altitude and for octane. My hazy memory says MG did this but I’m likely wrong. And the OLD cars, like the 24 Ford model T I once restored had manual mixture and advance levers on the steering column.
‘manual mixture and advance levers on the steering column’ — Ernie
‘Like mixing spoons,’ her ninth husband mansplained futilely to ditzy Zsa Zsa Gabor, who was still baffled by the ‘pernundle’ column shift on her Cadillac convertible.
By comparison, adjusting the horizontal and vertical CRT scan on one’s black ‘n white TeeVee set was a piece of cake — unless mysterious outside forces took control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CtjhWhw2I8
And another thing:
Perhaps the reason why All Wheel Drive is so common today is because today’s steam roller-like wheels and tires have lousy snow traction without it.
Cars like the VW Beetle and VW Rabbit were known to have excellent traction in snow—Remember the “How does the snowplow driver get to the snowplow?” commercials? That was not only because their engines were over the driving wheels (and in the case of the Rabbit, the car had front wheel drive) but also because they had skinny wheels and tires that cut down through snow like a pizza cutter instead of rolling on top of it like a steam roller.
Absolutely, Bryce –
I can attest to this from personal experience, having owned two old Beetles. The things may have had marginal heaters but they were almost unstoppable in snow.
But the air cooled VW was rather dicey on ice. Rear weight bias being the culprit. Needed attention and skill.
How would AWD help a poor traction tire in cold weather/slippery conditions?
Instead of spinning one or two wheels on FWD or RWD, low profile, AWD summer rubber will spin on all 4 wheels just the same.
“All wheel drive” is just another result of the “safety cult” marketing – just like the Jab™.
Tire compound (and size – like a narrow one in deep snow) is all that matters in the end.
“How would AWD help a poor traction tire in cold weather/slippery conditions?”
Hilarious when folks make a comment like this.
Guessing you don’t live anywhere near snow. At a bare minumum haven’t driven AWD in snow.
Aside from the 2013 WRX i drove in 8 WNY winters with a set of Blizzaks – which made it unstoppable in snow, and the 2021 Tacoma I replaced it with, that also has Blizzaks, I have limited driving experience in snow.
The Blizzaks being so capable, I almost never need to use 4WD in the Tacoma.
WRX handled and drove like total trash with summer tires anytime the temp dropped below 40.
So I’m confused – you clearly have both snow and AWD experience.
Why the AWD hate?
Agree Blizzaks or winter tires are icing on the cake but you’re not getting up my mountain road without AWD or 4WD in the winter with or without winter tires. Need all 4 wheels driving to get there. I make it a game to see how far I can get in 2WD.
I don’t hate AWD.
I hate myopians who run 45 series A/S or summer rubber on their AWD crossover and think they somehow have a traction advantage over a proper tire for the situation at hand. Just like 4WD pickup trucks. They too became inexplicably oversold. Meanwhile, plenty of AWD vehicles litter the side of the road during big snowfalls.
I drove company FWD cars for years (Tauruses and Impalas – when they had normal size tires) and NEVER got stuck in snow.
The Rust Belt once survived with the majority being giant RWD cars and pickups with only rear snow tires and trunks/beds full of cinderblocks and sand tubes.
Life didn’t stop when it snowed. People just drove for conditions.
Yet today, rubber compounds are amazing and a full set of modern snow tires on a RWD or FWD easily outperform an AWD vehicle on all-seasons. Car and Driver have been proving that with tests for over 25 years (long before Brock Yates died and they started to suck.)
If you live in an area where AWD is necessary (like your mountain home), that’s great, but in reality AWD and 4WD still have a limited use case.
Suburbia doesn’t need 4WD/AWD, whereas a near vertical stone driveway or slimy boat launch does.
Use the right tool for the job is my point. And for the VAST MAJORITY of the motoring public, AWD and 4WD is a waste of money and added maintenance expense.
Strangely – i think we are pretty much in agreement. I guess I just took your original comment out of context that you were somehow anti AWD completely. My fault! Sorry!
And just to clarify – I get your point about summer tires below 40. If you have rubber that isn’t capable of developing any grip AWD won’t solve that problem but it certainly won’t be better on a 2WD.
wheel weight is a big issue, I’m pretty sure my fuel economy on my truck dropped 1-2 mpg fitting some heavy mud terrain tires. They are still the stock size through at 31″, just thicker sidewalls and deeper tread on 15″ rims. On my secondary SUV, I damaged the rim because its so big and the tire is relatively low profile in comparison. I’m too used to just riding up next to or over curbs with the thicker tires
Yes, weight is a big deal. Since I drive 50k miles a year, I need the best advantages I can get. Noise and fuel efficiency are my priorities choosing a wheel and tire.
Handling and “traction” are secondary.
Gee, I remember when 15 inch wheels were an upgrade. My 1968 Olds Delta 88 had 14 inchers standard with drum brakes and 15 inchers optional with disk brakes (to clear the calipers).
My Ford Tempos all had 13 inch wheels. You could get a set of four new tires for around $175.
Before I bought the Pathfinder, I researched what to buy. The Pathfinder was it, 16 inch wheels, the report I read back in 2012 was the 17 inch rims did not ride as well.
Do regular maintenance, turns out, a vehicle goes a long ways.
Rim bling happened, it’s kind of a mystery.
The trend of the Sheeple is to be ‘ghetto’ or ‘gangsta’. The ghetto wheels are the same as wearing pants half pulled down, it’s just pure ignorance in the name of ‘style’.
Because of the increase min unsprung weight, I see all manner of accelerated wear and tear on steering and suspension parts on average size vehicles. There has been a notable increase in the use of aluminum for wheels, control arms and even steering knuckles, which bear the lateral, longitudinal & vertical forces of the car on the road. Huge wide tires may increase dry-road traction, but also have greater weight, drag, & tendencies to hydroplane. They are also more susceptible to needing and fracturing in any collision, including low-speed curbing.
Steering systems have to be more powerful to overcome the extra effort required to control all of this drag & friction, as well as be lighter. Electric steering racks are now almost exclusively replacing hydraulic ones, and are phenomenally more expensive.
The increased wear & damage is making repairs in these areas more frequent & very costly. A bad wheel hub/bearing will often cost an entire steering knuckle if the knuckle is made of aluminum as well.
One of my customers put factory magnesium wheels from a 1985 CRX on her 91 Civic and improved the handling 100%, even though both had the same size wheels and tires.
The current fashion trend in automobiles is actually a detriment to their handling and fuel economy, necessitating the ridiculous stretches being utilized in current over-complicated & increasingly unreliable engine and transmission developments.
I have to stop here, because I could go on for months about the unnecessary over-complication of present-day automobiles, and the causes thereof.
Eric can testify to that, and that’s what he gets paid to do.
I will just keep servicing the garbage until they all becomes completely unserviceable, which should only be about another decade or two, tops.
Hi Graves!
Yup. And I don’t think we have ten years. We’ll be seeing 25 inch “rims” soon, if this trend continues…
I recently switched my 2006 Honda Pilot standard wheels from 16 to 17″ wheels. The 17’s are about 2-3 lbs heavier than the 16″ wheels. The tires are about 1-2 lbs heavier. I paid a gas mileage penalty of about 0.5 to 1 mpg in a car that gets about 18 mpg overall. The weight is one thing. I made sure that the contact patch remained the same to keep similar handling characteristics.
I agree that you shouldn’t need aircraft type brakes to stop a car from 70 mph. A car with a braking distance of around 200 feet is adequate. Any more is slightly more dangerous for someone like me.
This 20 year rush to bigger wheels has been because of styling only. The effects on styling are dubious.
FMVSS standards have a much more deleterious effect on everything automotive.
The current Pilot has a choice of 18″ or 20″ wheels only. I will no longer service them as they have become over-sized monstrosities on the worst Honda platform ever built since the Prelude and the Passport.
I haven’t liked the Pilot since the second generation was introduced. With its blocky styling and reduced glass area, driving one of those is no fun. I like mine. To compensate for the poor levels of tire noise entering the cabin, I put quieter tires in and also huge amounts of sound insulation – mass loaded vinyl and the rubberized crap that dynamat sells. It helped.
The tires I’m running are Cooper Endeavor Plus 235/65/17 tires. Stock is 235/70/16. I switched to 17″s to get a wider variety of tires and possibly more responsive steering out of the deal.
Again, the current pilots are no good. Too many gizmos and yes, the wheels and tires too large.
Our 2011 Pilot just turned over 205,000 miles, had 25,000 when we bought it from a relative. It’s the most reliable vehicle I’ve ever owned. It’s been well taken care of. We’ve taken several cross country trips in it when the kids were young. To us, it’s like a station wagon of the 70’s.
Nice- I have a colleague. He has a 2015. Although he had a 2015, he has sunk a whole lot of money into the thing. I think it has about 200k plus on it by now.
The things have a lot of room and are reliable if you take care of them.
I’m glad you are having a good experience with yours. I bought mine for about $4600 during the middle of the ongoing car shortage back in 2022. It had 200k miles. I have put quite a bit of money in it, but it is where I want it. It now has almost 280k on the clock. I’m pretty much sure that gen2 pilots have decent road manners.
My only beef with them is the outward visibility issue. I hope you don’t have the same issue.
It becomes at this point a chicken/ egg sort of question. What came first, a need for larger diameter brake rotors or larger wheel diameter allowing for rotors that are larger than those that were found on actual Trans Am race cars in the late 60’s?
If this trend does not stop how long will it be before someone tries to fit the wheels off of a Conestoga Wagon onto a Civic?
True, Landru –
And the whole brake thing is another case of gratuitous over-capacity. My ’76 Trans-Am has disc/drum brakes and they are entirely adequate for normal driving. Of course, were I to drive my Trans-Am like a Trans-Am race car, its brakes would not be adequate. But that’s the point. Most of us just drive A to B and even those of us – like me – who drive faster than most – do not need race car brakes to avoid not having adequate brakes.
Just as most people don’t need 300-plus horsepower – because they do not use it.
Hi Eric. I was tempted to mention the really good old days when you could get a Hemi Road Runner with drum brakes and bias tires but felt that would have been overkill.
… or a 400 c.i. GTO with 9.5-inch drum brakes and bias-ply tires.
Not recommended — I am lucky to be here.
After my buddy with the 69 Camaro blew his factory DZ 302, he picked up a LS6 454 with a solid lifter circle track cam, and I helped him put it in. Had a Doug Nash 5 spd. It had drum brakes, fairly small ones on all 4 wheels. I drove it once, scariest damn thing I ever drove. All over the road accelerating, and trying to stop.
Another point Eric is than on the First Generation Camaro if I remember correctly the JL8 was the four wheel disk brake option that was intended mainly for road racing and priced to match. So if you retrofitted rear disk brakes (and a different proportioning valve) onto your Trans Am you might be ready for more spirited driving. As for not needing 300 horse power, I used to get my firewood with a Dodge Ram with the slant six and a four speed and still could drive the speed limit and stop just fine.
I was thinking about that myself. I don’t understand the hype behind rear wheel disc brakes since the braking is done like 80 percent on the front. I do prefer discs for maintenance. Drums are a PITA. Otherwise, people don’t need a car that can bring it to a stop at 70 mph in 100 feet.
My 49 Ford F1 has chrome reverse rims and 235/75R15 radials, with the 76 year old factory manual drum brakes. They stop it very well and work fine in modern traffic.
The stop feel and technique are, however quite different from power disk brakes. If you need to lock them or brake hard they take a lot more leg strength and it takes a notable fraction of a second longer to do it.
And the Armstrong steering I upgraded to a Toyota power box long ago, while I drove the truck all over the country when I was in my 20s, I found wrestling with a steering wheel at low speeds to be less fun as the years have gone on.
I commented in another story about the excellent brakes in my stock ‘79 Gran Prix. Also the 14” stock steel wheels worked just fine. The one upgrade was a top quality set of brake pads I won’t mention brand name but Eric look up “titanium” pads from the company that starts with B and ends in x for your Firebird – you’ll thank me later.
The wheel weight of modern monster wheels is disturbing. I was shocked how much the daughters Acura MDX wheel/tire combo weighed. Us oldsters will remember when “unsprung weight” was to be minimized for better performance of the suspension, your shocks or struts now deal with dampening that huge moving mass of wheel and tire over every bump and dip. No wonder stuff wears out so fast.
‘So what is the deal with these “rims”? Well, they are fashionable.’ — eric
Just as lifted trucks became fashionable around the same time.
So inevitably, monkey-see monkey-do automakers started producing Peterbilt and Kenworth wannabes with hoods and bed walls six feet off the ground.
I am actually more tempted to mock and badger these hapless pickup fashion victims than to make sheep noises at fear-wracked mask wearers.
Well, I gotta keep rockin’ while I still can
Got a two-pack habit and a motel tan
When my boots hit the boards I’m a brand new man
With my back to the riser, I make my stand
— Steve Earle, Guitar Town