Chrysler: Introduce Tire Options

The Old America is going down the tubes, did you not say in a recent thread?

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
[...]

> So, why doesn't D-C offer a choice? Isn't that what free enterprise is
> all
> about?
>

You are on drugs.

My Durango with Goofy 15 inch tires from goodyear wallowed All over the
frikken road. It is and Was simply scary to drive.

The 17" on the R/T models is/were better.

I put 45 series 20" Toyo Proxes that are less than 1 percent different in
hieght (thus no Speedo error) on the truck and was simply amazed at how well
the truck felt, drove and cornered.

When Winter came around and I stuck the factory wheels with 15's back on I
was scared driving the thing cause it was such a sloppy drive.

Don't tell me low profile is not better - it is just a function of finding
the right tread, sidewall height and combination. Granted I would not take
the Durango off road with lower profile street tires. Nor would I go over a
6 " deep pothole.

The area of contact was similar to original but only due to SHAPE of tire -
not the profile.

Get Real Norm.


"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> I get most of my new car info from Consumer Reports. I especially like
the
> spec page which itemizes details of interest to sophisticates.
>
> Aspect ratio of tires are getting lower and lower, folks! Even among
> "economy" models, I've seen them as low as -55.
>
> Does Chrysler actually think they are going to sell the older crowd cars
> which appear as though they're riding on the rims? I'm not even in that
> catagory, but resist these lower profile tires. I'm not alone either,
from
> what has been posted in the recent past.
>
> What I know is this:
>
> Lower profile tires do not enhance "handling". As area of the tire
> footprint increases, its unit area pressure decreases in proportion, thus
> traction is a constant. (Traction = area x coefficient)
>
> Wider footprint cause a problem with alignment. The center of pressure of
> the footprint "wanders" thus no well defined point can be established for
> setting caster and camber. This results in built-in directional
> instablity.
>
> Low ratio tires leave little for deflection. If the car is run over an
> obstacle, damage to the carcass and rims is more likely to occur.
>
> There are at least a dozen other problems related to low profile tires.
> The optimum ratio is -80 with -90 running closely behind.
>
> So, why doesn't D-C offer a choice? Isn't that what free enterprise is
all
> about?
>