Suzuki Forums banner

101 - 120 of 148 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
I had crabbing on my racing car and it was the fact that the steering - the Ackerman geometry - wasn't properly set out. I can't believe Suzuki would make such a basic error, but what's the explanation otherwise. ( reference Ackermann steering geometry - Wikipedia)

Last week I did a quick near-full-lock reverse off the road into my drive and there was a big "bang" and shudder from the front - haven't experienced that before. Must try reverse doughnuts in a car park sometime! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
Crabbing is an issue associated with steering geometry and tyre stiffness. The fact that it occurs when cold only and at very low speeds would tend to discount factors such as traction control. The Ignis turning circle is particularly small - around 9m - much less than say a Ford Fiesta at over 10.5m. It's quite difficult to design a steering system with such a range of movement and manufacturers need to juggle parameters for the best overall result. This may result in restricting the turning circle to minimise crabbing. Crabbing potential is aggravated by fuel efficient tyres which have ridgid walls to reduce rolling resistance. Some car manufacturers have been forced by the Motor Ombudsman to resolve crabbing issues by retrofitting alternative tyres.

Suzuki have denied an issue with crabbing on the Ignis and the dealer response is often "they all do it - it's a characteristic". However Suzuki have been working on the issue e.g. in early 2019 Technical Service Bulletin Q-ATK-004 covers the issue of the Ignis CV joints being filled with grease which becomes too viscous at low temperatures resulting in noise when approaching full lock. The solution is to replace with a less temperature sensitive greases . I guess that any car manufacturer would want to steer clear of any remedy which involved replacing tyres - which could prove to be a massive cost.

The sad fact that like the suspension issue - Suzuki failed to spot a problem during exhaustive testing prior to the launch of the car. If they had spotted the problem - we know that one remedy would have been to fit alternative tyres.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Here is a close up of the 195/55 16 MICHELIN CrossClimate + on the 5” rim. It’s the rear tyre and doesn’t look any more oversized than nearly every off road type vehicle I’ve seen. If anything, it looks better and more ‘normal’ than the skinny originals. As for coming off the beading, that’s far less likely than the recent trend of skinny tyres on wide rims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Read this thread with interest, just a little too late. I recently took the ‘brave’ choice and had MICHELIN CrossClimate + fitted all round. Having done the research and a fan of both winter and all season tyres, I decided to try them in a larger size. Went for 195/55H16 @ Kwikfit. £370 for 4 including free winter kit. It wasn’t without problems (having taken my money they initially wouldn’t fit different sizes until I pointed out a conversation with their manager). So far there is no fouling or crabbing and I’m pretty impressed with the handing. They are quieter than the Bridgestones (which surprised me) but not as economical (1 mpg worse). Not had bad weather yet, but always carry snow socks as backup anyway. If only it could solve the rear shocks problem when loaded, may look at that when service due (suspension retrofit) but mines 2wd hybrid so may not be an option.
You have reduced the sidewall by 0.3" it seems when compared to a 175 65.
Is there clearance for 195 65 16 which would be 0.8" more sidewall than you now have.
195 65 gives 0.5" more sidewall than the 175 65.
A 185 65 would only be 0.2" more sidewall than stock but a wider tyre nonetheless which I approve of.
I'd like to go 185 70 which would give 0.6 more sidewall thus more clearance. Question is would this size clear.
185 is about as wide as I would go on my 5J rims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
You have reduced the sidewall by 0.3" it seems when compared to a 175 65.
Is there clearance for 195 65 16 which would be 0.8" more sidewall than you now have.
195 65 gives 0.5" more sidewall than the 175 65.
A 185 65 would only be 0.2" more sidewall than stock but a wider tyre nonetheless which I approve of.
I'd like to go 185 70 which would give 0.6 more sidewall thus more clearance. Question is would this size clear.
185 is about as wide as I would go on my 5J rims.
It’s a bit academic - 185 70 16 isn’t an available tyre size in Europe. Such a tyre size would increase the overall diameter by around 2 inches. As well as possible fouling issues - such a tyre would affect gearing and result in the speedo under-reading significantly - it’s not legal for a speedo to display speeds lower than actual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
Check your speedo, most over read from factory, I gained 45mm with my tyre swap in the GV, and my speedo is now only reading 3 kph higher than actual compared to the 6 kph originally.
185/70/16 is not a valid tyre size according to any of my books.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
You have reduced the sidewall by 0.3" it seems when compared to a 175 65.
Is there clearance for 195 65 16 which would be 0.8" more sidewall than you now have.
195 65 gives 0.5" more sidewall than the 175 65.
A 185 65 would only be 0.2" more sidewall than stock but a wider tyre nonetheless which I approve of.
I'd like to go 185 70 which would give 0.6 more sidewall thus more clearance. Question is would this size clear.
185 is about as wide as I would go on my 5J rims.
Not sure why you're comparing with a 175/65 - the standard tyre is 175/60 - isn't it logical to compare to the standard? Image from previous page:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
The only listed 185 wide tyre for an Ignis is 185/55

View attachment 95425
In this tabulation a 185 / 55 tyre is fitted to wider rim (5.5J) for some markets. 185 55 16 is an ideal replacement for the original 175 60 16 and on the original 5J rim. There’s not a big difference in overall diameter, the speedo will read marginally high (which is fine under the regulations) and it’s within the recommended width for a 5J wheel. Furthermore it’s a far more readily available size so there’s a good choice and will be cheaper brand for brand that the original fitment size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
"and it’s within the recommended width for a 5J wheel"

My concern is whether Insurance companies would take that view or, more likely, suggest that it was a deviation from the manufacturer's specification. I'm sure that it's "technically" fine but I'd have to check my handbook to see what Suzuki actually recommend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
"and it’s within the recommended width for a 5J wheel"

My concern is whether Insurance companies would take that view or, more likely, suggest that it was a deviation from the manufacturer's specification. I'm sure that it's "technically" fine but I'd have to check my handbook to see what Suzuki actually recommend.
I'm talking from a technical / safety viewpoint. Insurance companies would be interested in any deviation from the manufacturers specification (Suzuki specify an OE tyre size, but not a brand of tyre). Depending on the insurance company, they may simply record the deviation - in other cases, they may require further information, certification, increase the premium or refuse to cover. I suspect that most insurance companies would be fine with the change. However, non-disclosure may well result in an insurance company refusing to pay an accident claim or imposing some other type of sanction.
 
101 - 120 of 148 Posts
Top