Can I install size tire 235/65r17 on crv '07

Don't sweat the "extra stress" or any of that BS. I have two identical tires on our '09s--the Kumho Solus TA11. Our blue CR-V has the stock 225/65R17, and I put the 235/65R17 on mine. Keep in mind that your speedometer with the stock size is reading too high (about 2.5 MPH high at 70MPH). The 235/65R17 actually corrects your speedometer to within about 1/2 MPH at highway speeds. No difference in ride quality, and the slightly larger tire looks fine and doesn't rub. It pays to shop around. I've ordered from Tire Rack, but their prices have kind of inflated over the past year and the deals aren't as good as they used to be.

Warning, though--Toyo makes garbage. I lived with a set of Toyo Extensa on my '97 for a few years. Extremely poor traction, to the point that it was very dangerous to drive. (They would slip and slide even on wet roads, and break loose at less than half throttle; winters were nearly impossible.) Ride quality was like running on concrete donuts. What a huge difference when I put some Kumho tires on it. Nice and grippy, and soaks up the potholes and cold patches on our poor roads in the area. I treat Toyo like Michelin--none will ever come near a car I own as long as I'm alive.

I was a diehard Yokohama fan, but have had five sets of Kumho tires on various cars in recent years and they are every bit as good, IMHO, at a better price point.

ArcticDriver said:

Some people pay close attention to their engine and feel its performance through the accelerator pedal. Those of us who do this have a tendency to notice.

Manufacturers recommend not increasing tire size more than 3% and like you stated, the OP increase is only 1.8% diameter. It is also 4.4% wider and these increased dimensions will likely result in greater wheel weight.

As for your personal choice to increase tire size by 8% and 10%, what inadequecy are you trying to overcome in your CRV?

Click to expand...

Nothing but personal preference. Went from good in the snow to unstoppable in 14" of it. I could have went more towards OEM size but I got a deal on Jeep wheels and AT tires on them so I put them on to see what I thought. Other than being fairly worn tires thing did much better in the snow and I liked the look better. Put new Discover AT3 4S and now it takes several inches of snow before it notices.

I live in a rural area, enjoy back roads and just like seeing what it can do. And it looks much better IMO with the set up. And my V doesn't really care that much except from a dead stop which it can still break them loose on dry pavement but not even a full rotation.


FYI I pay very close attention, I know if anything is out of wack in the slightest. Can tell when the ECM optimizes for driving conditions. I did have 18" alloys with tires that we're slightly larger than OEM but almost twice as wide. Got same MPG as stock steels and All Seasons, was an all around improvement yet we're taller and way wider.

Something as tiny difference has this guy wants to do you would NEVER notice a difference in feel. Notice a change in outside temperature effecting performance long before that difference in tire size.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Interesting. Some very varied responses and experiences here, and all food for thought. Back in the day, all my vehicles were larger, heavier, and had much higher horsepower. All those things made tire size a simple matter of choice. As well, the price of gas made mileage considerations trivial. But, in those days, I never would have dreamed I'd someday be driving a vehicle this light, with this small an engine or small amount of horsepower, etc. Yet here I am. Most all of us want to come up with the best combination of factors to give us the result we want, whether it's fuel mileage, efficiency, looks, or whatever. We want optimum performance in the ways that matter to us individually. In that respect, I have found a few things wanting in my CR-V. Like the battery. Every CR-V ever made, so far, has a size 51 battery. Coming from my old F250 4X4 with a 460 big block, which has the largest battery made for a 4-wheeler, I look at my CR-V battery and am underwhelmed, especially when I consider the huge increase in the amount of onboard electronics compared to the truck. Of course, the 460 requires a lot more juice to turn it over than the tiny 2.4L, so there's that. But I can leave my truck sitting for a month and it will crank right up. I can't do that with the CR-V. It's kind of unnerving and makes me fell somewhat insecure, since I am now retired and sometimes don't drive for days at a time, as there is no need. My CR-V battery went south after 7 days. So I am upgrading to a size 24 battery, which should hopefully make a big difference.

All that said, I hate dealing with tire issues, and especially don't like it on the side of the road in the middle of someplace else, with a doughnut for a spare. So the main thing I am looking for in tires is durability, followed closely by longevity. Of course, size is a consideration when it comes to performance - traction in all conditions, as well as noise (an issue with CR-Vs). But I am of the opinion that it's a matter of choice, and had little to do with those things. Did Honda decide to go for the stock size based on those issues? I suspect it has more to do with weight (both sprung and un-sprung), suspension, handling and rolling resistance (fuel mileage). Still, stock tire size has increased over the years on CR-Vs. I do think that it is an important consideration, but I also think there is some wiggle room, in general terms. For me, my experience so far with my 255/55/R18's tells me they are too big, too wide, too heavy, and too noisy, and thus they have a negative effect on everything. So when I buy new tires I will be going smaller, though maybe not all the way to stock size. Still thinking on that.