Every time an automaker makes an economy car, they always give it short, fat tires; giving it a look that was pulled off much better by the BMW Isetta.

Yet every time a you look at a car that's built for a mileage competition, you see tall, skinny tires.

Given the lower rolling resistance, higher final gearing and better traction of tall and skinny tires, why don't more manufacturers use them?

Those purpose-built MPG rigs have 1 goal only- MPG. Ride comfort, traction, handling, etc doesn't even make the list.

Besides, low-profile rubber band tires are considered 'sporty'; tall skinny tires look cheap/puny.

You knew all this, tho, WMJ.

BTW, the Fit wears 16"ers, the Isetta wears 10"ers. Even as a vintage guy, both seem appropriate here. Isetta is what; one-third the size of the fit?

The low pro's nowadays already let the driver feel every bump, dip and dead prostitute in the road, so ride couldn't be that much worse. I see WRX's with tall and skinny tires driving around here in the winter from time to time as well. Even if the tires were wide, a taller one would mean fewer revolution per mile and better mileage, at least in theory, plus the advantage of the car not looking like a pregnant rollerskate.

wildmanjoe ~ >>"The low pro's nowadays already let the driver feel every bump, dip and dead prostitute in the road, so ride couldn't be that much worse."<<

True; a byproduct of short stiff sidewalls. However, all the rags want to preach about is hhaannddlliinngg, as if econoboxes are carving canyons at 2AM X-mas night instead of slogging thru rush-hour at an average speed of 30 MPH.

>>"I see WRX's with tall and skinny tires driving around here in the winter from time to time as well."<<

You see WRX's like THAT driving around? Natch; that's a singular-purpose tire (traction in snow/ice), it has zero business in real world commuter conditions. Aren't a lot of them steel-studded, too?

>>"Even if the tires were wide, a taller one would mean fewer revolution per mile and better mileage, at least in theory, plus the advantage of the car not looking like a pregnant rollerskate."<<

Now we're talking about lesser distinctions.

A '12 honda Fit "Sport" wears 185/55 R16s, which are 24.0" tall. If it were a -say- 185/75R16, it would increase to 26.9" tall. What this does effectively is reduce the final drive ratio, making the vehicle accelerate slower. The previous tire change would reduce a -say- 3.25 gear to 2.89. Now you have to swap gears to retain the original acceleration rates, which decreases MPG in gears below 1:1 / OD. On top of that, a 75-series tire here will only set the rag jockeys a-moaning and a-whining about the hhaannddlliinngg (the taller tire will also be heavier, increasing unsprung weight, also affecting handling). Compromises.

Rims on average have of course gotten taller & taller over the last couple decades. Overall tire heights have conversely gone down quite a bit. A 1960's 8.25x15 equates to a 205/80R15, which is 27.9". I don't believe that's at all commonplace on cars today- a LaCrosse for example wears 235/50R17s : 26.25" tall.

All that aside, I get your point; you're wondering on getting narrower tires on the smaller cars, instead of the mini-steamrollers the "Sport" models often have. I could see that as long as overall heights didn't move much- so they'd have to get narrower. THAT WAY, they'd be lighter, have lower rolling & wind resistances, and retain all performance stats. Handling at 75% & above would decrease, but not as much as the above scenarios I posted. At this level of distinction, I believe it boils down to marketing/perception ("fat tires look cooler/handle better").