Tyres?

G

Guest

Guest
Hello again,
It looks like it's time for me to invest in some new tyres - I picked
up a screw in one the other day which has left a sizable hole, and
they are cracked and nearly worn out anyway. The front ones are
noticeably more worn than the rear but I guess that's the result of
steering.
Currently fitted are Dunlop Grandtrek AT1 275/70 R16 114.S, they could
be the factory originals as the LC only shows 55K miles on the clock
and I think about 35K of this could have been km's rather than miles
before it was imported from Japan.
I would like another set of all-terrains, but am wondering which brand
comes recommended (BFG? Coopers? Dunlop again?) and also what size. I
have noticed that a number of people are running 285/75-16. I need
the highest load rating possible as the LC frequently doubles as a
builders van and gets loaded to the roof with bricks and tiles etc.
However vehicle height could be an issue as I can only just get into
my garage at the moment. A significant increase in wheel diameter
could mean that I have to either remove my roof rack, or else get it
cut down a bit. A useful website I found is
http://www.tyresave.co.uk/tyresize.html which shows the increase in
vehicle height would be about 2.5cm allowing for new tread if I go to
285/75. I might just about get away with that.
Comments anyone please?
Also has anyone used a wireless tyre pressure monitoring device?
Thinking of getting one while I'm at it....
Thanks,
--
Andy Haxby
1994 HDJ81
Den Haag NL
Macclesfield UK
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi
Concerning tires I use BFG-AT/KO 295/75-16 load range D, they will carry a
significant amount of load, speed index R, holds 65 psi. This will allow for
more than your axels can carry... I have tried it at around 3.6T total, no
worries on firm grounds, on soft the total weight will be a problem
anyway... They are a little high, but if your load the rig that may
compensate some?
Wear is very good, ran 160KKms on the last set before replacement with still
5mm's of rubber on them...
Price around here (DK) is fair, compared to anything else, so IMHO there is
really no alternative unless real MT tire is in question...
Regards..
Henrik
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi Andy,
BFG ATs appear to be the best allrounder and whilst expensive will last
50,000miles +.
I have gone for 285/75/16s on my 80 with a 2.5" lift. They will fit
with no lift however you may get occasional rubbing.
Also, one word of warning - you are measuring the height of your truck
with worn tyres - don't forget new tyres of the same size will be
higher.
Are you looking to wider or taller?
Also what is the car used for.
If you want to go taller, consider going to 275/75/16 first.
--
Regards,
Julian Voelcker
Mobile: 07971 540362
Skype: julianvoelcker
Cirencester, United Kingdom
1994 HDJ80, 2.5" OME Lift
 
G

Guest

Guest
i agrees ive done uk/capetown ad uk australia on BFG never any problem,
magnficient tyre wear under some dreadful conditions, and not one
puncture!!!
jeff
_________________________________________________________________
Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
 
Don't like the adverts? Remove them by becoming a supporting member.   Click here
G

Guest

Guest
Thanks for all the feedback, looks like BFG's it is then.
Now I need to decide between 275/70 (S-rated, load 1360, radius 354)
and 285/75 (R-rated, load 1500, radius 370).
Regarding use it really is an all-purpose vehicle. I use it for
general urban driving around the Hague, high-speed driving across
Europe, occasional driving on the beach delivering musical equipment
to beach bars and pulling stuck cars out of the sand, heavily loaded
as a builders van or full to the roof importing Belgian beer into
England, camping in the Lakes and elsewhere including off-road use
sometimes reasonably heavily loaded, and in a couple of years I want
to drive around the world and maybe it will still have the same tyres
on it when I leave.
The speed rating doesn't really make any difference, as the truck will
only do 100mph downhill with the wind behind it anyway. I do often
drive it flat out though (speed limits permitting :) Load rating may
be more important when full of bricks.
I'm not sure whether wider/taller is a good option or not, I just
wondered about fitting 285/70's as it seems a common thing to do. It
would reduce revs a little when charging across Europe, and a bit of
extra ground clearance wouldn't go amiss especially with a long range
fuel tank (which in itself adds a lot of extra weight when full), a
bigger footprint helps when heavily loaded I guess.
A tape measure will be used as a final check before I buy :)
No opinions on tyre pressure monitors then? Maybe I'll be the first to try....
Cheers,
--
Andy Haxby
1994 HDJ81
Den Haag NL
Macclesfield UK
 
G

Guest

Guest
Jeff
Re > i agrees ive done uk/capetown ad uk australia on BFG never any
problem,
Did you carry 2 spares or 1?
I'm thinking of taking 2 but don't really want the weight and don't
want to use up space either...
Cheers
Niall
HDJ80 in prep for Africa
 
G

Guest

Guest
how many spares??
I carried two spares one in the normal 80 series location under the back
and one on the roof, i also carried two tubes and repair kit!!!
its your call what you finally take whatever decision you make will, if
you're anything like me, be wrong!!!
and dont discount the addition cost of carrying a second spare!!!
jeff watts
www.gonewandering.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN. http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Jeff
It's a tough call to make. Another spare is a fair bit of weight
alright + takes up space.
if
you're anything like me, be wrong!!!
It's one of those for sure! - Would prefer to be wrong having brought
spares and repair kits than wrong not bringing them though! ;)
Cheers
Niall
 
G

Guest

Guest
Why not go with a narrower tyre? Less wear on steering components, better
traction, less problems with rubbing when increasing the diameter as
compared with a wider tyre.
7.5 x 16 is a standard for this type of vehicle in the bush (whether urban
or real).
245 or 255 in an 85 % profile could be suitable for you. Really depends on
the rims you have available.
A couple of other points:
- Larger diameter counts more than width when it comes to float in sand.
- Larger diameter and wider tread means more wear on wheel bearings and
ball joints.
When it comes to tyre pressure monitors, I 've heard that it's a common
source of problems on vehicles which have them as original eqpmnt. 2nd
hand info though.
Here is a table which gives a good overview of some possible sizes, not
all of them available, at least not common. The table also shows the
difference in circumference as a % of the stndrd 275/70-16.
Hope it comes through OK - copied from a spreadsheet.
Can post the spreadsheet if wanted.
U
rim size (") 16
width aspect OD (mm) (“) Circumfer. % diff.
7,5 given: 814 (802-822 varies among manufactrs)
275 70 791,4 31,16 2486,26 0,00
215 85 771,9 30,39 2425,00 -2,46
225 85 788,9 31,06 2478,40 -0,32
235 85 805,9 31,73 2531,81 1,83
245 85 822,9 32,40 2585,22 3,98
255 85 839,9 33,07 2638,62 6,13
265 85 856,9 33,74 2692,03 8,28
255 80 814,4 32,06 2558,51 2,91
265 80 830,4 32,69 2608,78 4,93
275 80 846,4 33,32 2659,04 6,95
255 75 788,9 31,06 2478,40 -0,32
265 75 803,9 31,65 2525,53 1,58
275 75 818,9 32,24 2572,65 3,47
285 75 833,9 32,83 2619,77 5,37
295 75 848,9 33,42 2666,90 7,27
--
Ugo Hu, Oslo, Norway
HDJ100, Auto, AHC, 2001; ex HZJ80
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:41:29 +0200, Andy Haxby <[Email address removed]>
wrote:
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ugo,
I like the 7.5R16 size - don't really know when wider would be better, the power is not great and the vehicle weight means traction should be there under acceleration and braking. Interesting that diameter counts more than width for in sand, I would have imagined spreading the weight more would be important.
Your list is good but you haven't included the 9.0R16 like XZL Michelin make, you would need some lift for those and they must accelerate wear on bearings steering etc!
Width : 255 mm, Diameter: 923 mm, Weight : 40 kg
Available as retreads here;
http://www.aircrafttyres.com/900r16__255_100r16 michelin XZL.htm
Malcolm Bagley
Stafford UK
FJ45 '75 & FJ45 '76
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/918 - Release Date: 25/07/2007 14:55
 
G

Guest

Guest
I tried a set of these retreads, had huge problems with them being out of
round. If you go for them make sure that they are trimmed before shipping.
I ended up sending mine back for a refund.
I now run genuine 255/100 XZLs and am delighted with them.
When you lower the pressures on a tall thin tyre the tread lengthens a lot
more than it widens. When at road pressures I have 2 - 3 tread blocks
touching the ground, when at low pressure this increases to 6. Its like
driving on a tank track.
Ian Rubie
Hampshire UK
96 HDJ80 2.5" OME Lift
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi
Just a clarification of width versus height: Wider tires do give a larger
traction surface on sand too. Only if one needs to choose between a height
increase of say 5% and a width increse of same 5%, the height will be the
one of the two giving the largest increase in traction surface, and allow
for even lower pressure to maintain some given clearance underneath it.
Load range is significant to avoid heat build up when loaded. A standard
33x12,5x15 BFG-MT does not carry like a 295/75-16 BFG-AT, one reason being
max pressure 35 psi on the first and 65 on the latter. Thus for a loaded
cruiser for travel or the like only the latter really can cope with the job,
especially in hot weather.
For economy a heavier tire will ruin the picture - the momentum needed to
accelerate it will really increase, and if the height increases too it just
adds up. The Michelin XZL is a lot heavier than most other tires, possibly
also more damage resistant, but at a significant cost, not just at the tire
shop but at the gas station as well. The thread pattern is a factore too,
more void often meaning more rolling resistance, but in mud you would need
the open thread.
So of course it is all a compromize. Though I really like the BFG-AT load
range D type, I will, again, consider an MT next time. The AT's are useless
in mud so if that needs to be encountered one might have to live with
(significant) drawbacks on the highway especially when wet and icy, though
siping may reduce the problem. Decisions, decisions... :)
Regards...
Henrik/ lc100 v8 in DK
 
G

Guest

Guest
>The AT's are useless in mud so if that needs to be encountered one might h
I am have 285/75-16 BFG-AT and they are so bad in mud that my buddies howle
with laughing when I stuck in tiny wholes, but locking axles all 3 are put
on!
Never more I buy The AT's again. Next time I do try BGF MT tyres.
2007/7/26, Henrik Christensen <[Email address removed]>:
>
> Hi
>
> Just a clarification of width versus height: Wider tires do give a larger
> traction surface on sand too. Only if one needs to choose between a height
> increase of say 5% and a width increse of same 5%, the height will be the
> one of the two giving the largest increase in traction surface, and allow
> for even lower pressure to maintain some given clearance underneath it.
>
> Load range is significant to avoid heat build up when loaded. A standard
> 33x12,5x15 BFG-MT does not carry like a 295/75-16 BFG-AT, one reason being
> max pressure 35 psi on the first and 65 on the latter. Thus for a loaded
> cruiser for travel or the like only the latter really can cope with the
> job,
> especially in hot weather.
>
> For economy a heavier tire will ruin the picture - the momentum needed to
> accelerate it will really increase, and if the height increases too it
> just
> adds up. The Michelin XZL is a lot heavier than most other tires, possibly
>
> also more damage resistant, but at a significant cost, not just at the
> tire
> shop but at the gas station as well. The thread pattern is a factore too,
> more void often meaning more rolling resistance, but in mud you would need
>
> the open thread.
>
> So of course it is all a compromize. Though I really like the BFG-AT load
> range D type, I will, again, consider an MT next time. The AT's are
> useless
> in mud so if that needs to be encountered one might have to live with
> (significant) drawbacks on the highway especially when wet and icy, though
> siping may reduce the problem. Decisions, decisions... :)
>
> Regards...
>
> Henrik/ lc100 v8 in DK
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Benoit
Re > Never more I buy The AT's again. Next time I do try BGF MT tyres.
I just got a new set of AT's.
The way thigs are working out I' might be leaving for Africa earlier
than planned and heading into some wet seasons.
Muds might have been a better choice. But the AT's are supposed to be
better in the sand.
Has anyone run a combination of Muds and AT's - I wonder if that would
work?
Niall
 
G

Guest

Guest
Tyres discussion is a constant topic on several sahara forums - in my
opinion (also based on some experience) AT are overall better choice.
in my opinion mud-terrain tyres are too "agresive" for sand.
I think it is quite an important indicator that also all the locals are
driving tyres almost without profile (they told me that not only because
of economical reasons ...).
regarding the combination of AT and mud-terrain - never heard of one
using them on purpose
just my 2cents ...
regards,
Tomaz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Cheers Tomaz
The old tyre issue gets talked to death alright.
using them on purpose
You never know - The Paddy Waggon might be the trend setter
Niall
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi Niall,
Where are you actually going?
If you are just doing desert work then AT's should be fine, but if you
are heading down to the cape and you know you will be hitting a lot of
mud then I would err on the side of caution and go for the MTs.
On the flip side though MTs on wet tarmac can get interesting at speed!
Having seen some pics of friends trips down through parts of the Congo
in the wet season, some bits look more like a winch challenge and you
might be grateful of some MTs.
--
Regards,
Julian Voelcker
Mobile: 07971 540362
Skype: julianvoelcker
Cirencester, United Kingdom
1994 HDJ80, 2.5" OME Lift
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi Julian,
a friend of mine was driving MT on the highway while we were on the way
to ferry in Genova - and we were quite late ... On the descent close to
the cost it started to rain and his lc80 became very unstable ... we
almost missed the ferry because of that - bottom line : mt and wet
tarmac - very bad combination.
Tomaz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi Julian,
a friend of mine was driving MT on the highway while we were on the way
to ferry in Genova - and we were quite late ... On the descent close to
the cost it started to rain and his lc80 became very unstable ... we
almost missed the ferry because of that - bottom line : mt and wet
tarmac - very bad combination.
I think that you can't really go wrong with a dissent AT tyres ...
regards,
Tomaz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Tomasz et al
I use AT's all the time when in North Africa - tyres of choice,
my 2 euros worth
Renate
-----Original Message-----
From: [Email address removed]
[mailto:[Email address removed]]On Behalf Of Tomaz Sustar
Sent: 30 July 2007 13:58
To: [Email address removed]
Subject: Re: [ELCO] Tyres?
Tyres discussion is a constant topic on several sahara forums - in my
opinion (also based on some experience) AT are overall better choice.
in my opinion mud-terrain tyres are too "agresive" for sand.
I think it is quite an important indicator that also all the locals are
driving tyres almost without profile (they told me that not only because
of economical reasons ...).
regarding the combination of AT and mud-terrain - never heard of one
using them on purpose
just my 2cents ...
regards,
Tomaz
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks