Perhaps the load rating could be a problem?
I drove a 2CV many years ago, and the very skinny tires were great when there was snow
Fitting narrower tires?
Usually for narrower you would have to go for larger tire diameter too, for weight compensation.
Same as i3 120 for example that has +- the same GVWR uses FRONT -> 155/70R19 84Q REAR -> 175/60R19 86Q
Thats why it has that weird look to it.
Same as i3 120 for example that has +- the same GVWR uses FRONT -> 155/70R19 84Q REAR -> 175/60R19 86Q
Thats why it has that weird look to it.
Honda E advance [Modern Steel Metallic] 
[DELIVERED JULY 2020] - 80 000Kms + 
[DELIVERED JULY 2020] - 80 000Kms + 
I have noticed a difference. As I wrote in the thread 'Recent "Journeys" and Economy' about 18 months ago:
When my car was at the dealer having it's door handle replaced last week, they gave me a Honda e with 17" wheels as a courtesy car (mine has the 16" wheels). I did notice that the ride was slighty firmer/harsher, but I was more surprised that the economy was noticably worse. On the way home (overall downhill) I got 4.5 miles/kWh from the 17" wheel car, but in my 16" wheel car I got 5.8 mile/kWh (slightly different route, more traffic). On the way there the difference was smaller - I think it was 3.5 and 3.7 miles/kWh. So overall for each car it was an average of 4 miles/kWh (17" wheels) and 4.75 miles/kWh (16" wheels) over a total distance of about 10.5 miles. So for a full charge that's a range of about 125 miles and 148 miles - a bigger difference than I was expecting.
Yes, by 1/2 of an inch. The 17" wheels are '17X6 1/2J' front and '17X7 1/2J' rear, whereas the 16" wheels are 16X6J and 16X7J. Tyres are '205/45ZR17 88Y' front '225/45ZR17 (94Y)' rear, and '185/60R16 86H' front and '205/55R16 91V' rear - according to the Owner's Manual.
