I get most of my new car info from Consumer Reports.  I especially like the
spec page which itemizes details of interest to sophisticates.

Aspect ratio of tires are getting lower and lower, folks!  Even among
"economy" models, I've seen them as low as -55.

Does Chrysler actually think they are going to sell the older crowd cars
which appear as though they're riding on the rims?  I'm not even in that
catagory, but resist these lower profile tires.  I'm not alone either, from
what has been posted in the recent past.

What I know is this:

Lower profile tires do not enhance "handling".  As area of the tire
footprint increases, its unit area pressure decreases in proportion, thus
traction is a constant.  (Traction = area x coefficient)

Wider footprint cause a problem with alignment.  The center of pressure of
the footprint "wanders" thus no well defined point can be established for
setting caster and camber.  This results in built-in directional
instablity.

Low ratio tires leave little for deflection.  If the car is run over an
obstacle, damage to the carcass and rims is more likely to occur.

There are at least a dozen other problems related to low profile tires.
The optimum ratio is -80 with -90 running closely behind.

So, why doesn't D-C offer a choice?  Isn't that what free enterprise is all
about?