Recently bought a sporty small AWD sedan with 17 inch wheels. I've been reading a lot about the benefits of using narrower tires for winter (and we get plenty of winter out here in western NY). Do any of you have experience with this - does it provide better snow traction?
But you still want a winter, or at least all-weather or mud and snow, tread pattern - something that bites and grips the snow, rather than a pattern that sacrifices traction for reduced rolling resistance and therefore better gas mileage and/or longer tire life. All-weather or m & s tread patterns have at least 25% void area, typically block layouts for added traction, and usually lots of sipes to move moisture out from the contact patch.
Also, real snow tires use softer rubber compounds that grip better under icy and snowy conditions. The trade-off is less tread life.
And don't take any tire size changes to extremes unless you really know what you are doing.
To expand on what Red Dog gave you, there are a few other things to consider. As for winter tires they most often use a 62 hardness compound as to a summer using a 72 hardness. Not a real game changer. Something most aren't aware of is that all highway use vehicles, from a Kenworth W900 to a VW bug , use the same hardness compound. A 72 hardness.
1. For the best performance in winter driving buy 4 snow tires.
2. Have them studded, I believe that can still be done in NY.
3. Look for a design with more opposing edges with adequate spacing between the blocks. Not one with excessive angles, which are more for channeling than grip.
4. A small block design as opposed to a larger one.
5. And another that few know are tie bar sizes. Which in a more traditional summer tire rise 2/32 above the under tread. A minimum for a more aggressive/snow design should rise at least half of the overall tread depth above the under tread. Important because a aggressive design can lay over under load.
6. No solid center in the tread design.
While this seems intuitively correct, in fact the "downward pressure" is the about the same in either case. The area of tire in contact with the road (contact patch) is more or less the weight of the car divided by the tire pressure. The width of the tire is largely immaterial.
For example, if you had a 2000 pound car with 4 tires at 50 psi, the contact patch for each tire would be 500lbs / 50 psi = 100 sq. in. Width of the tire doesn't change that, and thus doesn't change the weight per sq. in. of tire in contact with the road.
What it DOES change is the shape of the contact patch, as shown:
Generally the narrower tire performs better in snow because the narrower aspect means it plows through less snow, and the longer contact patch is more likely to be in contact with a less slick piece of road. But it can vary depending on the ice/snow mix, density, depth etc.
I run snows on all four with my AWD CRV. My son runs 4 studded snows on his Accord w/ front WD. Well worth it to have your snows mounted on separate rims and change over yourself. Saves at least $120 a year. and if you rotate your tire with each change over, you save even more. I got alloy rims and snows from one of the online tire sites and I paid for the rims in savings after a couple of years. And... no waiting in line at the garage