Tires, tires, tires

7006 messages, Last post on Oct 29, 2009 at 11:24 AM

You are in the Maintenance & Repair Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright

What is this discussion about? Tires, Wheels, Steering

Edmund's Feature Article: Tire Safety: Don't Ignore the Rubber on the Road

For dedicated winter tires, also have a look at the Snow/ice winter tires discussion topic.

Outline

Messages Page 450 of 702: 1; ...; 447; 448; 449; 450; 451; 452; 453; ...; 702; Prev; Next; Last

#4483 of 7006 Re: 2003 Focus ZX5 [andys120] by tdi_tan Jan 13, 2005 (1:29 pm)
Replying to: andys120 (Jan 12, 2005 1:34 pm) 195/60 r15 for the Focus since those are the factory size 15" tires. 195/55 r15 are too small and leaves you with little choices in winter tires
#4484 of 7006 I just found this topic by marsha7 Jan 14, 2005 (7:01 pm)
and maybe you can help my dilemma...on my Crown Vic LX Sport, Goodyear tires, Ford calls for 35psi for both front and rear...no problem, I always add one pound to allow for leakage (36psi cold) and the tires state the max pressure is 44 psi so, no problem...the problem is with my Dodge Ram 1500 with Michelin tires...Dodge also calls for 35 psi in front and rear, but the Michelins state on the tire, max pressure is 35 psi...this is not a misprint...Dodge's normal tire reco happens to be the max pressure in the Michelin tire...am I unsafe by keeping the Ram at 35 psi cold, since we are running at the max inflation pressure that the tire can tolerate???...do we have a tire problem on this truck, keeping it near the max allowable pressure that Michelin says the tire can handle???...what do I do?
#4485 of 7006 Re: I just found this topic by marsha7 by capriracer Jan 14, 2005 (8:52 pm)
There is a tire standardizing body called the Tire and Rim Association (TRA). They are a US based organization. Part of what they do is to standardize the load vs inflation table for all manufacturers. In Europe, it's the ETRTO (European Tire and Rim Technical Organization). There are others. Typical passenger car tires have a maximum load at 35 psi. Past interpretations of US regulations meant that 35 psi was what was supposed to be stamped on the sidewall. In the past few years there has been some re-evaluation of this, as well as some standardiztion between TRA and ETRTO. What has come out is that tires that used to be stamped 35 psi max can now be stamped 44 psi. This really isn't a technical change (this has always been an acceptable practice from a technical point of view), it's just a different way of reading the regulation. Most of the tire manufacturers decided to change the stamping as they changed molds. Michelin, however, either didn't react very quickly, or has chosen not to adopt this standard. This doesn't mean you can't inflate your Michelins to 44 psi - it means they are probably viewing the regulation a bit differently than everyone else. (Sounds like the French, doesn't it?) Hope this helps. Replies to this message: edh (Jan 15, 2005 1:11 pm)
#4486 of 7006 Re: I just found this topic by marsha7 [capriracer] by edh Jan 15, 2005 (1:11 pm)
Replying to: capriracer (Jan 14, 2005 8:52 pm) whats missing in all the tire data (some companys give it, many like Michelin will not give it) is the tire tread WIDTH where it meets the ground- it varies by like 3/4 inch out of 8 inchs in the standard camry size based on my parking lot measurenments. More smoke and mirrors by the tire people. Michelin told me tire width on the ground was not required by the government therefore they would not release it. go figure.
#4487 of 7006 rotation by z71bill Jan 16, 2005 (9:09 am)
My Mazda3 is at 10,000 miles - when I rotated the tires at 5K - I followed the owners manual and did a front to back (back to front) leaving the tires same side of the car. With all my other vehicles (rear wheel drive) I always moved the back tires to the front - same side, but crossed the front tires to the rear of the other side of the vehicle. I checked on the Goodyear web site and - for my tires (Goodyear Eagle RS-A 205 50 17) they say I should cross the tires on the drive wheels. Which would mean I move the front tires to the back on the same side, and cross the rear tires to the other side of the car. Anyone have any input - Follow owners manual or tire manufacture advise?
#4488 of 7006 by ruking1 Jan 16, 2005 (9:33 am)
The Honda Civic OEM recommended rotation is front to the rear- same side. The REARS are CROSSED. (LR to RF and RR to LF) I am assuming the Mazda III is a front engine/wheel drive?! If so it might be VERY similar to the OEM recommended rotation for VW Jetta (TDI) in my case. In the case of the Jetta (TDI) and Honda Civic, the static weight distribution is 60/40. So all things being equal which would tend to wear more? Front or rear? Also the VW technical data hints at more wear on one side that the other. Again on the Jetta it is the right side. Procedurally Honda (since it recommends a rear cross rotation) hints at this same phenomenon, but there does not seem to be any hints in a 3.5 in 10# shop manual! I took exception to the VW OEM recommendations and do a five tire cross rotation. I did this due to a number of factors: 1. 5 full sized tires/wheels 2. technical data that hints at different wear rates 3 longitudinal data that confirms it 4. more even and hopefully longer wear from tires. 125,333 miles projected, but extreme happiness with 85-95k. On the VW Jetta in order of most to least wear : 1. RF 2. LF 3. RR 4. LF 5. spare (actually no wear but you get the picture) I keep records to serve as another data point for those folks (and others who are interested) who have posted their results (on another web site) whose write ups were helpful to me in my decision making. The technical side is: 1. 5 tires each (at 10k rotation intervals) serve at the RF (and all positions also) as opposed to the oem recommendation of MAX of 2 (front to rear rear to front same side will = 2 tires) . So while the wear characteristic is the same it is spread over 5 tires vs 2 2 Cross rotation tends to more evenly wear the side to side "set" that a tire can take 3. Since we already understand the front to rear and vice versa condition, I skipped over this. So in your Mazda III, if you decide to go with a cross rotation with 4 tires, cross the REARS because the rears wear least and you want to put the least worn tires in the position of most wear, i.e. RF. So on YOUR front engine rear wheel drive the dynamics are (different)and opposite of the front engine front wheel drive. So at 47,000 miles on OEM GY LS-H tires, the measured remaining tread is 7/32 in for discussion sake.a tad more than 6.5 to 7.5/32's is the range) Since the tires started with 10/32- 7/32= 3/32 wear or consumed/47,000= 15,667 miles per 1/32. So projected consumption if I take it to 2/32 in = 8/32 x 15,667= 125,333 miles. The truth be told I'd be thrilled to get 85-95k!
#4489 of 7006 ruking1 by z71bill Jan 16, 2005 (6:51 pm)
I think I will use Goodyears rotation method - my fronts will go straight back to the rear (same side) and I will move the rears up to the front - but switch sides. Since I did one same side rotation I considered doing a double cross. The only problem - it is a lot more of a pain to cross rotate - I can Jack up one side of the car and lift both front and rear off the ground at the same time. If I cross I need to figure out how to put jack stands under a Mazda3. The number of miles you are getting from a set of tires is fantastic - My Goodyears started out at 11/32 - after 10K they are down to between 6 and 7 (32nds) at this rate I will be lucky to see much over 20K. I normally replace at around 3/32 -
#4490 of 7006 by ruking1 Jan 16, 2005 (9:57 pm)
Short answers are YES and YES. If you use the Goodyear rotations, I take it that you do not have a full sized spare. What you intend to do will make sure all four tires occupy each of the four positions, as opposed to just two.
#4491 of 7006 Tire Size - 17" vs. 18"? by dorothyk Jan 31, 2005 (9:47 am)
I would like to get the opinion of this forum on tire size for the 2005 Lexus LS430. Lexus insist on shipping most of the LS430 with 18” tires (P245/45WR18) instead of the standard 17” (P225/55HR17). I do not see the advantage of the larger tire size (except cosmetic) for this car. In fact, the shorter sidewalls and wider tread on the larger 18” wheels will probably significantly reduce ride quality and increase noise. Should I demand the smaller size wheel or is the difference not that noticeable? Surely, this car does not need a W speed rated tire. My impression is the trend towards bigger wheels is driven mostly by looks not performance. Replies to this message: ruking1 (Jan 31, 2005 10:58 am) ruking1 (Jan 31, 2005 1:51 pm)
#4492 of 7006 by ruking1 Jan 31, 2005 (10:58 am)
Replying to: dorothyk (Jan 31, 2005 9:47 am) I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am also sure that if you price the SIZES of tires side by side, in the tire brands and models, you will probably find the 18 in significantly more expensive. The H rated tires are at 130 mph. The problem will be you will not have to go too long or to far at 130 mph to get BUSTED!! So unless you routinely take it to the track, or God forbid street race, W rated tires (168 mph) might be almost total overkill.