@Dick Steinkamp - regarding your original reply, I think it's right OT!
I have had the same understanding regarding 82 aspect ratio, but looking closely at specs, it's not the case in practice. When I did the calls on the XAS, it had an aspect ratio closer to 78.Low profile and rowdy!
Tire diameters, widths and sidewall heights vary by manufacturer. Your calculation of the 175/hr14 and the 205 should be correct. However, if you look at Michelin's site a 175/hr14 XAS has a height of 634mm and the 205/70r14 has a height of 644mm, a difference of 10mm or about .4 inches.
So, 205 is a bit tall and, based on the two tires above, 1.22 inches wider. That's quite a bit. If you go to tire size, it will show a bit less of a difference in width.
@HB Chris - Yes, exactly. Early ones had the older sizes only and later the 195/70r14 was along side the 175hr14. I learned that by reading a thread not this site about original stickers!
I have had the same understanding regarding 82 aspect ratio, but looking closely at specs, it's not the case in practice. When I did the calls on the XAS, it had an aspect ratio closer to 78.Low profile and rowdy!
Tire diameters, widths and sidewall heights vary by manufacturer. Your calculation of the 175/hr14 and the 205 should be correct. However, if you look at Michelin's site a 175/hr14 XAS has a height of 634mm and the 205/70r14 has a height of 644mm, a difference of 10mm or about .4 inches.
So, 205 is a bit tall and, based on the two tires above, 1.22 inches wider. That's quite a bit. If you go to tire size, it will show a bit less of a difference in width.
@HB Chris - Yes, exactly. Early ones had the older sizes only and later the 195/70r14 was along side the 175hr14. I learned that by reading a thread not this site about original stickers!