Subaru XV Crosstrek Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I keep going back and forth between the 215 and 235 ko2's. Part of me wants the more rugged look of the 235, but then I keep thinking about rubbing and Mpg loss.

Getting a 1.5" lift and my wheels will be pretty light at 14 lbs each, so on the plus side I can get away with the 4 lbs increase between the 235 and 215.

Does anyone have experience with both of these tires in terms of mpg difference between the 2? And also how noticeable is the difference in look between the 2? What about driving in pavement?

235 are cheaper than the 215 and look better.

215 will match oem size, better mpg (how much?), won't rub at all, probably better while driving on pavement.

Anyone with side by side pics? Hard to search when there's a minimum of 4 letters/numbers (can't search for ko2, 215, 235).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
I keep going back and forth between the 215 and 235 ko2's. Part of me wants the more rugged look of the 235, but then I keep thinking about rubbing and Mpg loss.

Getting a 1.5" lift and my wheels will be pretty light at 14 lbs each, so on the plus side I can get away with the 4 lbs increase between the 235 and 215.

Does anyone have experience with both of these tires in terms of mpg difference between the 2? And also how noticeable is the difference in look between the 2? What about driving in pavement?

235 are cheaper than the 215 and look better.

215 will match oem size, better mpg (how much?), won't rub at all, probably better while driving on pavement.

Anyone with side by side pics? Hard to search when there's a minimum of 4 letters/numbers (can't search for ko2, 215, 235).

pretty sure tire weight is more detrimental to performance than wheel weight, and wouldn't the 215s also go on the same wheels? if you go for "The Look" what will you do for a spare?

personally I went for even lighter 215s but if I had went with KOs I would have done like my buddy Rick.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZBVBNT57u1WCZAJuNNNYww
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Spare isn't really an issue. I can't remember the last time I changed a flat. I have free towing with one of my cc so if it happens, I'm covered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I keep going back and forth between the 215 and 235 ko2's. Part of me wants the more rugged look of the 235, but then I keep thinking about rubbing and Mpg loss.

Getting a 1.5" lift and my wheels will be pretty light at 14 lbs each, so on the plus side I can get away with the 4 lbs increase between the 235 and 215.

Does anyone have experience with both of these tires in terms of mpg difference between the 2? And also how noticeable is the difference in look between the 2? What about driving in pavement?

235 are cheaper than the 215 and look better.

215 will match oem size, better mpg (how much?), won't rub at all, probably better while driving on pavement.

Anyone with side by side pics? Hard to search when there's a minimum of 4 letters/numbers (can't search for ko2, 215, 235).
what wheels are you planning on? that's lighter than the wheels I've researched.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
pretty sure tire weight is more detrimental to performance than wheel weight, ....
Nope, unsprung weight is unsprung weight regardless if it is tire, rim caliper, disc or any other bit not carried by the springs. This site is Mustang focused but does a decent job of discussing the issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
I chose the 215/75/15s. KM2s. No rubbing. I can load the car down or hit pot holes at speed and not worry about that. No noticeable power loss.


cRs4dLt9QcKRbk4ZDGMFgg.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
Nope, unsprung weight is unsprung weight regardless if it is tire, rim caliper, disc or any other bit not carried by the springs. This site is Mustang focused but does a decent job of discussing the issue.
nope.

"Also, the weight of the tires and where that weight is relative to the center of the wheel, is also important. We’ll talk more about that when we talk about sizing. For now, just understand that the further the weight is from the center of the wheel, the more it matters."

Wheel Tech, Part I: Wheel Weight Slows You Down | Tuner University
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
nope.

"Also, the weight of the tires and where that weight is relative to the center of the wheel, is also important. We’ll talk more about that when we talk about sizing. For now, just understand that the further the weight is from the center of the wheel, the more it matters."

Wheel Tech, Part I: Wheel Weight Slows You Down | Tuner University
And yet in the very next paragraph:
"Now, the wheel is also one other special type of weight, which is UNsprung weight. On your car, there are two types of weight. One is sprung (or held up by the springs), the other is unsprung weight. Which, in most cars includes things like the brakes, the control arms, the wheels, tires, and so forth."

And a little later:
"The bottom line is, the lighter your wheels (preferably with the majority of their weight focused at the center of the wheel), the easier your suspension can keep the tires planted firmly on the ground."

Your selection talks not to unsprung weight but rotational weight. Both are valid, but i specified unsprung. A bottom line that I think we both agree on is that lighter is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
And yet in the very next paragraph:
"Now, the wheel is also one other special type of weight, which is UNsprung weight. On your car, there are two types of weight. One is sprung (or held up by the springs), the other is unsprung weight. Which, in most cars includes things like the brakes, the control arms, the wheels, tires, and so forth."

And a little later:
"The bottom line is, the lighter your wheels (preferably with the majority of their weight focused at the center of the wheel), the easier your suspension can keep the tires planted firmly on the ground."

Your selection talks not to unsprung weight but rotational weight. Both are valid, but i specified unsprung. A bottom line that I think we both agree on is that lighter is better.

tire weight is more important but they both matter. ask any bicycle racer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
I just went with the 235s. It does seems a little bit slower getting going but not by a whole lot. The extra half inch of clearance is worth it for me. Depends if youre offroading!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Why don't you guys ever think about the KM2 instead of the KO2? Why screw around with an all terrain when you can have a mud terrain?
Here are three quick reasons:
  • Overall diameter: 28.8" (KO2) vs. 29.1" (KM2) - The KO2s already rub in certain conditions with a 1.5" lift, KM2s would be even worse.
  • Weight: 36 lbs (KO2) vs. 40 lbs (KM2) - Saving 16 lbs of weight.
  • Tread width: 7.7" (KO2) versus 7.4" (KM2) - Greater contact patch.
Could also consider KM3s but compared to the KO2s they are 0.1" taller, 12 lbs heavier, and have a 7.9" tread width.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
I'd say that the .3 inches divided in half for the radius really doesn't make a difference.
4 lbs? Who cares? My Jeep has 100 lbs per corner.
Again. .3 inches of contact patch? lol

I'd argue that they look 10 times as baddass and perform in snow and gravel much better than an AT. I know this from running both on several different vehicles and not from asking folks on the internet. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
I'd say that the .3 inches divided in half for the radius really doesn't make a difference.
If 235 KO2s rub then having a larger tire is only going to make it worse. In my experience the rub that happens now is very light and only happens sporadically and hasn't improved in the 30K+ miles I've put on them.

4 lbs? Who cares? My Jeep has 100 lbs per corner.
There are numerous folks who already cry and whine about how "under powered" the Crosstrek is. Carrying around 16 more pounds will only make things worse. Will also decrease MPG which the OP was concerned about.

Again. .3 inches of contact patch? lol
Yeah a reach but still a difference. Some people may care some may not.

I know this from running both on several different vehicles and not from asking folks on the internet.
How many miles did you log on each? Would love to see your treadlife results. Which was quieter on the road?

Also while you're here perhaps you can also provide some insight into the OPs original questions of "Does anyone have experience with both of these tires in terms of mpg difference between the 2? And also how noticeable is the difference in look between the 2? What about driving in pavement?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
What I know about ATs or MTs on a Crosstrek is that they're noisy as hell. I've had both. Both are farely crappy when it comes to handling corners. Both are really crappy at handling corners in the rain. I keep mine in a pile in the garage for when I want to play in the dirt or snow. (which is often, but it takes about 13 minutes to swap them onto the car)

I purposely did not get the 235s and went with 215/75/15s which are the same diameter as the stock wheels and tires. Below I'll post a pic of the stock 225/55/17s, (sold) my MTs and the street set I usually have on, which are 235/55/18s. My mileage is actually better with the MTs because of that slim patch you talk about. Rolling resistance and all. . .

But yeah, I can get over 30 mpg with the mud terrains no problem. It's not very often I get 30 mpg with the street tires. Again, rolling resistance.

As for cool factor, I'll add a pic or two of them on the car.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to be a dick, if we were in the same room, this would just be a conversation. :)
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 20 Posts
About this Discussion
19 Replies
9 Participants
Zap
Subaru XV Crosstrek Forums
At Subaru XV Forum you'll find fellow Subaru XV Enthusiasts to help perfect that Subaru Crosstrek Build, or share all kinds of information about this Subaru from its specs to its design.
Full Forum Listing
Top