Would larger tires improve the ride of 71 Matador?

Got screwed by Tires Plus. They put too small tires on my Matador,
basically E78s(19/14s)instead of H78-14s(234R14s). Would having larger
tires help cushion the ride more and improve the ride? I read that the
smaller, narrower tires are causing the ride to be like crap.

sctvguy1 > wrote in :

> Got screwed by Tires Plus. They put too small tires on my Matador,
> basically E78s(19/14s)instead of H78-14s(234R14s). Would having larger
> tires help cushion the ride more and improve the ride? I read that the
> smaller, narrower tires are causing the ride to be like crap.
>


A car that size should take G78 bias-plys, no? In any case, I think E's are
the size you would have put on a Dart or Maverick. not a Matador. F's would
go on something like a Nova. Those smaller sidewalls would definitely
contribute to a harder ride on your Matador.

I can't see -- especially in today's litigious climate -- that Tires Plus
would put the wrong size tires and call it OK. Your speedometer must be WAY
off. I think you should go back and get them to put the correct size on.

--
Tegger

On Friday, January 24, 2014 6:49:39 AM UTC-5, Tegger wrote:
> sctvguy1 > wrote in :
>
>
>
> > Got screwed by Tires Plus. They put too small tires on my Matador,
>
> > basically E78s(19/14s)instead of H78-14s(234R14s). Would having larger
>
> > tires help cushion the ride more and improve the ride? I read that the
>
> > smaller, narrower tires are causing the ride to be like crap.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> A car that size should take G78 bias-plys, no? In any case, I think E's are
>
> the size you would have put on a Dart or Maverick. not a Matador. F's would
>
> go on something like a Nova. Those smaller sidewalls would definitely
>
> contribute to a harder ride on your Matador.
>
>
>
> I can't see -- especially in today's litigious climate -- that Tires Plus
>
> would put the wrong size tires and call it OK. Your speedometer must be WAY
>
> off. I think you should go back and get them to put the correct size on.
>

Google actually says E78-14 was the original size

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/ti...automatic.html

I cannot seem to find what the rim width was or an image of the tire pressure sticker (which usually lists the factory tire size.)

but Tire Rack lists 205/70R14 as the recommended size for a '71 Matador. An E size tire is actually closer to 195 but today a 195/75R14 probably is intended for a much lighter car than a Matador. And yes, more air volume in the tires will help ride, and you may have to play with the tire pressure. Perhaps ask the tire manufacturer what the recommended pressure would be for the weight of your car (I think they had GVWR and GAWR stickers back in '71 yes?) as the pressures recommended for the original bias tires are irrelevant to the radials you undoubtedly have.

If you know or can measure the width of your wheels, it's possible to calculate an acceptable wider but lower profile tire size that will give you a little more "meat" without changing the rolling diameter, and probably yielding a higher load rating as well.

FWIW my memory says that the stock tire size on my dad's (formerly my grandfather's) '73 Chevy pickup was a G78-15, and that was a much heavier vehicle. We drove around on some skinny ol' tires back in the day... looking at a vintage 6.70-15 bias ply - a pretty big tire for the late 50s/early 60s - would probably horrify someone who grew up thinking that 255s are "little bitty tires" for a performance car

nate

N8N > wrote in
:


>
> Google actually says E78-14 was the original size



Now that's unbelievably teeny-weeny.


>
> FWIW my memory says that the stock tire size on my dad's (formerly my
> grandfather's) '73 Chevy pickup was a G78-15,



My dad's '70 Custom 500 (a low-end Galaxie) took G78-15. A friend's '74
Nova took F78-14.



> We drove around on some skinny ol' tires back in the day...



That's for sure. Many early-'70s Japmobiles rode around on B78-13, about
equivalent to a 155/80-13 these days.




--
Tegger

On Friday, January 24, 2014 4:18:31 PM UTC-6, Tegger wrote:
> N8N > wrote in
>
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Google actually says E78-14 was the original size
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now that's unbelievably teeny-weeny.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > FWIW my memory says that the stock tire size on my dad's (formerly my
>
> > grandfather's) '73 Chevy pickup was a G78-15,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My dad's '70 Custom 500 (a low-end Galaxie) took G78-15. A friend's '74
>
> Nova took F78-14.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We drove around on some skinny ol' tires back in the day...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's for sure. Many early-'70s Japmobiles rode around on B78-13, about
>
> equivalent to a 155/80-13 these days.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tegger

The bigger the tires, the softer the ride. I think so.

JR > wrote in
:


>
> The bigger the tires, the softer the ride. I think so.
>



Yep. And those Monster Trucks ride softest of all.


--
Tegger

On 1/24/2014 8:00 PM, Tegger wrote:
> JR > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>
>> The bigger the tires, the softer the ride. I think so.
>>
>
>
>
> Yep. And those Monster Trucks ride softest of all.
>
>
To a point. At least in the 1980's, one could legally drive on the
street in Hawaii with a huge amount of lift - rode in a guy's Toyota P/U
with 48-inch tires, and the ride was terrible due to the very stiff
springs and shocks needed to control all the unsprung weight.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 1/25/2014 12:08 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 8:00 PM, Tegger wrote:
>> JR > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The bigger the tires, the softer the ride. I think so.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep. And those Monster Trucks ride softest of all.
>>
>>
> To a point. At least in the 1980's, one could legally drive on the
> street in Hawaii with a huge amount of lift - rode in a guy's Toyota P/U
> with 48-inch tires, and the ride was terrible due to the very stiff
> springs and shocks needed to control all the unsprung weight.
>

I see these rides occasionally. It's pretty cool to see the suspension
with a battery of shock absorbers and everything lifted up. The drive
shaft will be canted at an unreal angle. A lot of trucks here won't have
that amount of lift but some lift is desirable because pig hunting is
popular over here. OTOH, I've seen an 80s Lincolns and Cadillacs running
of 4 space saving spare tires. Whoa baby!

I used to have a VW Rabbit with skinny tires. Those were perfect tires
for the car. If I went a little too fast around a corner the whole car
would slip sideways and then regain traction without changing direction.
That was pretty cool. Narrow tires are better on wet roads and snow
although it rarely snowed in Hawaii. :-)

dsi1 wrote: "....Narrow tires are better on wet roads and snow ..."


Narrow tires are actually better overall.

Combine with a tall rim so you have, say, a 60 sidewall, and you'll have less sidewall latency(flex), higher weight per contact patch and better straight-ahead stability(less twitching and correction).

A wide tire requires aggressive amounts of caster and SAI(kingpin angle) to travel in a straight line, and are more sensitive to pull if one side differs even a little from the other. Plus, they'll hydroplane more readily in anything more than a shower due to lower weight per contact patch.

On 1/28/2014 3:59 AM, wrote:
> dsi1 wrote: "....Narrow tires are better on wet roads and snow ..."
>
>
> Narrow tires are actually better overall.
>
> Combine with a tall rim so you have, say, a 60 sidewall, and you'll have less sidewall latency(flex), higher weight per contact patch and better straight-ahead stability(less twitching and correction).
>
> A wide tire requires aggressive amounts of caster and SAI(kingpin angle) to travel in a straight line, and are more sensitive to pull if one side differs even a little from the other. Plus, they'll hydroplane more readily in anything more than a shower due to lower weight per contact patch.
>

Skinny tires are better unless you don't care for slipping sideways on
corners or are concerned with traction on dry surfaces. What does
lower/higher weight per contact patch mean? Thanks.