Our stock rear tire is 255/35-19. That would equate to a tire circumference of 81.769 inches. So, lets assume that someone was stupid enough to put a 255/35-16 tire on the back of the car. That would equate to a circumference of 72.345 inches. The car with 19" wheels would have to have 774.8658 axle rotations to complete a mile. The 16" wheels would have to have 875.8034 axle rotations to complete a mile. So, your assertion that the larger tires would have fewer rotations is correct.

Where you loose me, is the statement: "It may be 100,000 miles on the crossfire but feel like only 90,000 when compared to a car with smaller tires." It should feel like 100k miles on both cars.

However the reality is that you would never put a 16" rim on this car with a 35 aspect ratio for the tire height. To do this, the undercarriage would probably be sitting on the ground. If you were to go from a 19" rim to a 16" rim, you would have a larger diameter tire to account for the difference. I just do not understand the point as.... regardless of the wheel size, the manufacturer would have put on appropriate size tires with a tire diameter that is optimal for the vehicle configuration.

Have you ever seen a mustang for example with 15" wheels that have low profile tires on them? No.... if they have 15's, they have taller profile tires. If they put 19s on them, they would have to go with a lower profile tire. It all boils down to tire circumference and not wheel size. And.... for the most part.... if the owner is not a complete dumbass, he would insure that the circumference of the tires are relatively the same should he make a change to the wheel size.