A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Low Profile vs Standard Tires - Durability?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 9th 04, 06:46 AM
Brad and Mia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 9th 04, 02:55 PM
Dave Gower
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old October 9th 04, 02:55 PM
Dave Gower
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old October 9th 04, 05:11 PM
Full_Name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 04, 05:11 PM
Full_Name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 04, 08:02 PM
SgtSilicon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 04, 08:02 PM
SgtSilicon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 10th 04, 06:42 AM
Joe Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 10th 04, 06:42 AM
Joe Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 10th 04, 07:44 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 08:09 PM
Run Flat tire question H and A Corvette 36 January 16th 05 02:56 PM
Winter tires vs offroad tires. Goldhawk 4x4 5 January 5th 05 10:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.