Welcome to the official website / forum site for Suzuki Swift Sport Owners Club (SSSOC).

Forum Navigation
Forum breadcrumbs - You are here:ForumZC33: General DiscussionTyres
You need to log in to create posts and topics.


I say stick with the stock 195/45 Continental Sport Contact 5's. They are actually a very good sports tyre. Going for a similar spec tyre in 205/45 on the stock rim size will unlikely give you more grip. In most cases, the extra rubber adds un-sprung weight to each corner of the car. Not only that, but the weight is added at the circumference of the wheel - just where you don't want extra weight. Plus the weight squares with speed - as you accelerate, etc. Lastly, the extra width of the tyres rubber adds some lateral flexibility to the tyre on the rim. A 195 will 'give' less during hard cornering, whereas the 205 with extra rubber will be allowed to 'pull and push' more freely when it comes to lateral cornering loads.

The end result is a car that will be a little less sharp at the steering wheel. The suspension will be slightly slower to react - due to increased weight. It will accelerate slightly slower and will require more braking effort to shed speed. Some feel and responsiveness will be lost, agility will suffer as well.

Even if a particular setup does happen to have more grip. This could also spoil your enjoyment of the car. What makes the Swift Sport fun is the ability to get into the handling dynamic of the car at sane speeds. The stock car will slide about all day long with very progressive and safe loss of grip. If the car has more grip - potentially, you're moving the handling envelope of the car to higher speeds. Which may be too fast to enjoy on the public road. A car that is 'all grip' and no flair - is actually less interesting to drive.

Put it this way. For every lateral millimetre of tyre width the stock ZC33S puts on the tarmac - there is only 1.25 Kg of weight in the car for each of those millimetres to manage. Basically, 195 x 4 = 780 millimetres of lateral grip. Then 975 Kg of the cars weight divided into 780mm of rubber = 1.25 Kg per millimetre.

Naturally, there are many other factors involved as regards grip. This is just one facet of a cars overall grip out of many. But I'm sure you all get the picture. Compare this with other highly regarded performance hot hatchbacks...

FK8 Civic Type-R: 245 section tyres - 1380 Kg kerb weight - 1.4 Kg per millimetre
Hyundai i30N: 235 section tyres - 1509 Kg kerb weight - 1.6 Kg per millimetre

Both of the cars above are very well sorted handling cars - and yet each millimetre of rubber width put onto the tarmac has to manage more weight than a stock ZC33S has to manage.

As mentioned, this is not an exact science. There is a lot more to car handling and grip dynamics than just this. But on this basic level - the point I'm making is that 195's are plenty wide enough for a car weighing 975 Kg.

Personally, the only time I would consider going wider - was if the consideration was to put it on track. In that case, I would put smaller wheels on it and wider tyres - but go for a semi-slick track tyres with very stiff sidewalls. Because ideally, to go fast on track you don't want to be pulling off heroic slides around every corner. Ideally you want it to stick and get through the corner quickly. That is when wider rubber makes sense to me.

Nikos has reacted to this post.

I would usually stick to the tyre size used by Suzuki as that will have been the correct fitment for car's set up and use. For road use, the only situation where I would compromise on this is cost. Sometimes manufacturers fit a really odd ball size which is either difficult to source and/or more costly.
What is often overlooked is that if a different size is fitted to standard then your insurance company should be told (It's a modification). Shouldn't cost extra.

I didn't mention that I want to change my tire size, I just wanted to explore the different brand options and if someone has any experience. Options are (as of time of writting):

Michelin PS4 (great but very expensive)
Continental SC5 (seems really good but it seems to wear quickly)
Goodyear Eagle F1 GSD3 (too old...)
Falken Ziex ZE310 (new, good reviews but not as sporty feeling)
Hankook Ventus V12 evo2 (Hankook seems to go premium, few reviews...)
Kleber Dynaxer UHP (few reviews, Michelin owned brand)
Yokohama Advan Fleva V701

Just visiting from tbe ZC32 camp!

I have the Hankook Ventus. They are perfectly ok and a good bit cheaper than the Conti's but now that I have had a set I can say that I would not buy them again.

The Hankooks definitely are not quite as 'sharp' and responsive as the Conti's. The car has lost a little bit of the steering turn in feel. Ultimate grip is probably the same but they just don't feel as nice.

Where the Hankooks gain however is in poor conditions - November when it is only 2 or 3 degrees and the roads are slimy (may not be relevant in Greece Niko!) the Hankooks have loads more grip than the Conti's.

Everything is a compromise....

I'll need a new set of tyres by the end of November ish, I plan to grit my teeth and go for the PS4's now they are available in our size.

Nikos has reacted to this post.

@Bill Thanks for the insight Bill! I really like the Contis, their grip is great and especially on the brakes. Their wear seem to be relatively high but I got the car used and the previous owner hasn’t swapped the tires so the fronts were much worse than the rears (had 18k km already), so I have just rotated them. Many thanks again for the info! Regards!


Anybody got any experiences with Yokohama Advan Fleva V701?

Not had Fleva v701 but my Mx5 came with Advan sport v105 as standard and seemed pretty decent.

Can anyone remember which tyres are fitted on the 16" wheels fitted to the sport in other markets? They are Yokohama's but can't remember which ones.

I have yokohama fleva v701 fitted to my zc33s in a 195/45r17.

On the OE wheels they look wider than the continental tyre because of the design, i guess. They are as good, if not better than the continental for grip and wet performance as well as dry. I have swapped these now to a 7.5j et42 wheel and still, the performance is very good with no issues for good grip, feel and response in all settings. I got mine for 70 quid each fitted from kwik fit, and were the tyre i wanted at a very cheap price.

On our zc32s, i have 205/45r17 on the OE wheels which are the same size as the zc33s i believe. They fit fine, and using a tyre size calculator i noticed almost no difference. The handling and performance of this size has a very neutral feel.. wider tyres offer more surface contact but a slightly increased sidewall means a margin of extra softness. What you gain in one area you lose in another.. but it feels good to drive and zero mechanical issues with it.

For a daily drive either are okay on a stock wheel for sizing. If you need a very high performance because of track work 205/40r17 will work better but i had some in that size previously on the wider wheels and the arch gap is HUGE on a zc33s so if you run OE suspension you might want to consider checking for a herd of elephants before each journey hasnt hidden under there. Realistically if you arent putting the car to its limits on every corner it wont make too much difference, but i could strongly recommend yokohama tyres fleva v701 is a new compound and good wet performance. I will be buying these again every time unless the ps4 is significantly better.. but i cant picture it for some reason and my driving doesnt need such a soft compound and track ready offering as its my daily.

@Steve: Many thanks. 😉

@xu5: Yokohama ADVAN A13 195/50 R16 84V (source: ).

As it is getting towards that time of year I ordered some winter tyres. I got some Continental WinterContact 860 in 195/45 r17.

If anyone is interested I weighed them and they came in at 7.7kg, so about 200-300g heavier than the SportContact 5.

Incidently it would appear that the SportContact 5 is actually quite a light tyre for its size. Something to bear in mind for those pedantic enough to worry about unsprung weight (like me).