If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Low Profile vs Standard Tires - Durability?
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message ... > Cars of the 50s used the equivilant of -90 profile, almost round in cross > section. In those days, most tires were bias ply and 20,000 miles was > considered pretty average durability. > > The VW Rabbit was equipped with slightly more oval tires, usually -80 > radials. Typically, tires were good for 60,000 miles on the fronts and > 100,000 on the rears. This was very a commendable improvement. The > fronts > wore out first because of higher weight, braking forces, and higher slip > angles in turns than the rears. If the tires were rotated, 80,000 miles > in > mixed city and highway mileage was overall achievable with economy > radials. > > Now we are in the age of -45 and lower profiles yet. What is the > experience with these low, but wide tires. Are they proving to be as > durable as the -80 radials of 25 years ago? > Durable. Yeah. But the ride can be the ****s on anything less that 40s. 80,000 miles? No way. Maybe 30,000. But it's a good 30. Brad |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote > Now we are in the age of -45 and lower profiles yet. What is the > experience with these low, but wide tires. I know that among Focus owners there are complaints about the 50-series tires on some sportier models. They handle well but tend to break in potholes. Apparently it is quite common for Ford dealers in places like New York City to recommend that owners replace them with the regular 60 series tires on smaller rims (15 inch vs. 16). Personally I think that all cars intended for regular real-world use should be available with 70 series tires. To their credit, DC offers this on the Neon, as does Honda on the Civic, but on most car models only offer the sportier tires. Even the new Kia Spectra5 pushed 50-series donuts as standard, for Pete's sake. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote > Now we are in the age of -45 and lower profiles yet. What is the > experience with these low, but wide tires. I know that among Focus owners there are complaints about the 50-series tires on some sportier models. They handle well but tend to break in potholes. Apparently it is quite common for Ford dealers in places like New York City to recommend that owners replace them with the regular 60 series tires on smaller rims (15 inch vs. 16). Personally I think that all cars intended for regular real-world use should be available with 70 series tires. To their credit, DC offers this on the Neon, as does Honda on the Civic, but on most car models only offer the sportier tires. Even the new Kia Spectra5 pushed 50-series donuts as standard, for Pete's sake. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:30:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote: >Cars of the 50s used the equivilant of -90 profile, almost round in cross >section. In those days, most tires were bias ply and 20,000 miles was >considered pretty average durability. > >The VW Rabbit was equipped with slightly more oval tires, usually -80 >radials. Typically, tires were good for 60,000 miles on the fronts and >100,000 on the rears. This was very a commendable improvement. The fronts >wore out first because of higher weight, braking forces, and higher slip >angles in turns than the rears. If the tires were rotated, 80,000 miles in >mixed city and highway mileage was overall achievable with economy radials. > >Now we are in the age of -45 and lower profiles yet. What is the >experience with these low, but wide tires. Are they proving to be as >durable as the -80 radials of 25 years ago? Low profile tires simply will not last the same length of time that a similarly constructed 80 series tire will last. (heat torsional forces etc). BUT ! They look pretty & they feel "a bit sharper" when handling. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:30:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote: >Cars of the 50s used the equivilant of -90 profile, almost round in cross >section. In those days, most tires were bias ply and 20,000 miles was >considered pretty average durability. > >The VW Rabbit was equipped with slightly more oval tires, usually -80 >radials. Typically, tires were good for 60,000 miles on the fronts and >100,000 on the rears. This was very a commendable improvement. The fronts >wore out first because of higher weight, braking forces, and higher slip >angles in turns than the rears. If the tires were rotated, 80,000 miles in >mixed city and highway mileage was overall achievable with economy radials. > >Now we are in the age of -45 and lower profiles yet. What is the >experience with these low, but wide tires. Are they proving to be as >durable as the -80 radials of 25 years ago? Low profile tires simply will not last the same length of time that a similarly constructed 80 series tire will last. (heat torsional forces etc). BUT ! They look pretty & they feel "a bit sharper" when handling. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Life is just full of trade offs. Here is yet another set of them.
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:11:36 -0400, Full_Name > wrote: >On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:30:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio > wrote: > >>Cars of the 50s used the equivilant of -90 profile, almost round in cross >>section. In those days, most tires were bias ply and 20,000 miles was >>considered pretty average durability. >> >>The VW Rabbit was equipped with slightly more oval tires, usually -80 >>radials. Typically, tires were good for 60,000 miles on the fronts and >>100,000 on the rears. This was very a commendable improvement. The fronts >>wore out first because of higher weight, braking forces, and higher slip >>angles in turns than the rears. If the tires were rotated, 80,000 miles in >>mixed city and highway mileage was overall achievable with economy radials. >> >>Now we are in the age of -45 and lower profiles yet. What is the >>experience with these low, but wide tires. Are they proving to be as >>durable as the -80 radials of 25 years ago? > >Low profile tires simply will not last the same length of time that a >similarly constructed 80 series tire will last. (heat torsional >forces etc). > >BUT ! > > >They look pretty & they feel "a bit sharper" when handling. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Life is just full of trade offs. Here is yet another set of them.
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:11:36 -0400, Full_Name > wrote: >On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:30:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio > wrote: > >>Cars of the 50s used the equivilant of -90 profile, almost round in cross >>section. In those days, most tires were bias ply and 20,000 miles was >>considered pretty average durability. >> >>The VW Rabbit was equipped with slightly more oval tires, usually -80 >>radials. Typically, tires were good for 60,000 miles on the fronts and >>100,000 on the rears. This was very a commendable improvement. The fronts >>wore out first because of higher weight, braking forces, and higher slip >>angles in turns than the rears. If the tires were rotated, 80,000 miles in >>mixed city and highway mileage was overall achievable with economy radials. >> >>Now we are in the age of -45 and lower profiles yet. What is the >>experience with these low, but wide tires. Are they proving to be as >>durable as the -80 radials of 25 years ago? > >Low profile tires simply will not last the same length of time that a >similarly constructed 80 series tire will last. (heat torsional >forces etc). > >BUT ! > > >They look pretty & they feel "a bit sharper" when handling. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Full_Name > writes:
> > Low profile tires simply will not last the same length of time that a > similarly constructed 80 series tire will last. (heat torsional > forces etc). Mind elaborating on that? I don't know much (I know virtually nothing) about tire construction, but offhand I can't think of any reason why a lower profile wouldn't last at least as long as an equivalently constructed taller tire. I can imagine the sidewalls not lasting as long (since the torsional forces are spread across a shorter distance), but I've never had a tire's sidewall wear out: every tire I've ever replaced has been because of tread wear or road hazard, and I don't see how sidewall height would affect either one. Now, if you'd like to say that a lower profile tire will typically be a higher performance tire, and hence will have a softer compound so it will wear out more quickly, I'll agree completely. But that isn't inherent in "lower profile", and isn't my idea of "equivalent construction." -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Full_Name > writes:
> > Low profile tires simply will not last the same length of time that a > similarly constructed 80 series tire will last. (heat torsional > forces etc). Mind elaborating on that? I don't know much (I know virtually nothing) about tire construction, but offhand I can't think of any reason why a lower profile wouldn't last at least as long as an equivalently constructed taller tire. I can imagine the sidewalls not lasting as long (since the torsional forces are spread across a shorter distance), but I've never had a tire's sidewall wear out: every tire I've ever replaced has been because of tread wear or road hazard, and I don't see how sidewall height would affect either one. Now, if you'd like to say that a lower profile tire will typically be a higher performance tire, and hence will have a softer compound so it will wear out more quickly, I'll agree completely. But that isn't inherent in "lower profile", and isn't my idea of "equivalent construction." -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Gower" > wrote in message ... > > "Nomen Nescio" > wrote > > > > Now we are in the age of -45 and lower profiles yet. What is the > > experience with these low, but wide tires. > > I know that among Focus owners there are complaints about the 50-series > tires on some sportier models. They handle well but tend to break in > potholes. Apparently it is quite common for Ford dealers in places like New > York City to recommend that owners replace them with the regular 60 series > tires on smaller rims (15 inch vs. 16). > > Personally I think that all cars intended for regular real-world use should > be available with 70 series tires. I agree totally. The lower profile make the things look like the Mexicans across the border just got done with the customization job. All that's missing is the dingle balls. Ted |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
99 TJ - 35" Tires? Wheel size and lift suggestion? | Adam | 4x4 | 9 | April 18th 05 01:57 PM |
hybrids: toyota vs. honda | Magnulus | Driving | 38 | January 18th 05 07:09 PM |
Run Flat tire question | H and A | Corvette | 36 | January 16th 05 01:56 PM |
Winter tires vs offroad tires. | Goldhawk | 4x4 | 5 | January 5th 05 09:34 PM |