Couldn't find the right answer by searching.

I need to buy new tires for my stock rims.
I am at stock ride height and would like to put a tire with more sidewall.
I was thinking of a 185/65/15. Would that fit without any rubbing at stock ride height???
I have seem some people running 195/60/15 but I would like to keep the tires thinner to help with rolling resistance.

If I do go wider...anyone run a 195/65/15 with stock wheels on stock suspension/height?

Has anyone used a 195/65:

I used to run 205/55/15 on my steelies with stock height and it was fine

< on 195/60/15 on 8", they are a bit plump.

185-205 / 50-60 will work, most common are 195/60/15, 195/55/15, 205/50/15 and 205/55/15

Thanks guys, for mpg wouldn't it be a little better to stick with a skinnier tire like the 185?

Depends on the tire, but it would be an epically minimal difference. If you are on stock wheel or similar, go with 195/60/15. They are the cheapest with higher UTOG than the other sizes.

They are the cheapest with higher UTOG than the other sizes.

What does UTOG mean?

Yes, all those tire combos will work, but if your wanting to attain the best highest mpg, stick to either a 185(optimal) or 195 tire (with 60 or 65 series sidewall). Also, if you put 11K+ miles on per year, I recommend getting a Michilen tire if you can(discount-tire may still have that $70 rebate offer still going on), like a HydroEdge(long.. long wearing... should be 60K miles easy if you rotate them out every 4-5K miles) , Energy, Harmony, etc.

actually, its UTQG. its a rating sysem for tires.

http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT-Tires/tire-tech.htm#UTQG

*facepalm*

It is the tirewear rating.

right... tire wear rating! Isn't that # a very subjective(depending upon the conditions the tire is used for) way of rating a tire wear(durability indicator) ? I have seen some listed as, for example: 340 ....... and others like Michilen: 720 or even 800 !

Is it a claim of the density of the rubber compound they use? The higher the #, technically, a consumer would think they are getting a more durable longer lasting tire. I think for the most part this is a way for manufactures to give customers a gauge by which to justify why tire A has a wear rating of 800, and they are charging $115 each for it, as opposed to a tire that has a wear rating of say 360 = $80 per tire. Is the tire at 800 wear rating really twice a longer lasting as the one at 360 UTQG ?
I remember years ago, Yokohoma tires would wear out fairly quickly for a passenger tire(in general, in comparison to other makes such as BFG, Michilen, etc.), but I think they have come a long way the last 10 years or so.

I don't know if safety is you main concern, but remember that narrower tires are better for the snow.