I have a good answer for that!
I got a free rotate and balance deal when I bought my tires. Keeping the
tires balanced does significantly improve how it feels at speed. It doesn't
make sense to ask them to balance and NOT rotate....
----- Original Message -----
From: <mark@noakes.com>
To: <Jim.Wilkerson@sas.com>
Cc: <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 2:01 PM
Subject: RE: [oletrucks] Old Tire Sizes
Another argument is why rotate at all?
On my 86 Chevy pickup, I never rotated tires. The OEM Uniroyals went 48K
miles with
even wear, and then I put 2 sets of Michelins on it that each went 80K miles
with even
wear. Then I put a set of cheapy tires on it now that the truck is getting
a little
worn at 230K miles...but I'm still not rotating tires on it...
Our technician at work drove a roughly equivalent era F*rd pickup, he
rotated tires
religiously, and that truck still ate tires at more than twice my rate.
I do rotate tires on my wife's Jeep Wrangler and any front wheel drive car
I've had ate
front tires as well.
Mark Noakes
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:40:48 -0400, "Jim Wilkerson" wrote:
>
> A quick (and unscientific) search on radial tire rotation resulted in a
general
> consensus that cross-rotation of radial tires is OK and even recommended
by some
> manufacturers. Here is a typical comment:
>
> http://www.chicagolandmgclub.com/techtips/532.html
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Jim Wilkerson
> ***********************************************************************
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Hanberg [mailto:steve@oldsub.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:46 PM
> To: mark@noakes.com
> Cc: oletrucks@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Old Tire Sizes
>
>
> Or perhaps you were corrected by someone who didn't know what they were
talking about,
> or maybe it never really made any difference in the first place...
>
> The so-called experts can't all be right, given how much of the time they
disagree on
> things!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mark@noakes.com>
> To: <Jim.Wilkerson@sas.com>
> Cc: <steve@oldsub.com>; <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:44 AM
> Subject: RE: [oletrucks] Old Tire Sizes
>
>
> I remember saying the same thing a while back and being corrected on it.
Apparently
> radial tire technology is now to the point that you don't have to keep the
direction of
> rotation the same any more.
>
> Having said that, my 86 Chevy truck manual says to keep them the same as
does my 86
> Corvette manual and my wife's 97 Jeep manual. (Most vette tires are
directional
anyway.)
>
> So either radial technology that doesn't care about direction is a fairly
recent
> development or the car manufacturers aren't listening to the tire
manufacturers.
>
> Mark Noakes
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:50:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkerson" wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree it would be best to have the same size. What are the
> recommendations for tire
> > rotation nowadays? For example, could I rotate the spare into the
> > regular
> rotation or
> > do right-side tires have to stay on the right side and vice versa?
> > Seems
> like I read
> > somewhere that the direction of rotation has to stay the same.
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > *
> > Jim Wilkerson
> > ***********************************************************************
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Hanberg [mailto:steve@oldsub.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:22 AM
> > To: Jim Wilkerson; oletrucks@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Old Tire Sizes
> >
> >
> > You might want to check with the manufacturer to see how much
> > difference
> is
> acceptable.
> > I have an all-wheel drive car, and there is a specification regarding
> > how
> close to
> > identical the diameter of each tire must be.
> >
> > But since you've only got two driven wheels, an spare that doesn't
> > match
> the rears
> could
> > always be put on the front, and one of the fronts moved to the rear,
> > in a
> pinch.
> >
> > Probably better to have the right size spare...
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "wayne osborne" <wayne@chevytrucks.org>
> > To: "Jim Wilkerson" <Jim.Wilkerson@sas.com>; "Gary Perry"
> <glperry@fwi.com>;
> > <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:53 AM
> > Subject: RE: [oletrucks] Old Tire Sizes
> >
> >
> > Jim,
> > Seems to me the rule of thumb should be to use the same diameter
> > tire
> for a spare
> > regarding a posi rear. Might be hard on the clutch pack in a limited
> > slip
> to run any
> > distance with mismatched set. A true posi, where there is no slip
> > wouldn't
> be able to
> > handle it very long as you'd probably bust an axle or the differential
> before long. I
> > would personally get the same diameter for a spare.--wayne
> >
> >
> > At 02:49 PM 9/22/03 -0400, Jim Wilkerson wrote:
> > >Thanks Gary! And Thanks to Bob Chansler also. According to a tire
> > >size calculator I found the closest to the original 6.50 x 16 is a
> > >P215R80 - 16
> > .
> > >
> > >What is the 'rule of thumb' for vehicles with positraction and
> > >running different size wheel/tire combos on the rear? For example,
> > >is it absolutely necessary that the spare tire is exactly the same
> > >diameter as the regular tires? The same circumference? Or is it OK
> > >to run a completely different size - for short distances? If yes,
> > >what is a short distance?
> > >
> > >Thanks in advance!
> > >
> > >*********************************************************************
> > >**
> > >Jim Wilkerson
> > >***********************************************************************
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Gary Perry [mailto:glperry@fwi.com]
> > >Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:38 PM
> > >To: Jim Wilkerson; oletrucks@autox.team.net
> > >Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Old Tire Sizes
> > >
> > >
> > >I don't know for sure, but think you need 80 or 85 series tire to be
> > >that tall. Also think only a 195 or such narrow tire to stay orig
> > >looking. Myself would get wider and smaller diameter, probly for
> > >better ride. Speedo may be off, but So What, I say!
> > >
> > >G. L. Grumpy's
> > >Old Iron Ranch
> > >Huntington, IN 46750
> > >AD trucks and MM tractors
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Jim Wilkerson" <Jim.Wilkerson@sas.com>
> > >To: <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
> > >Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:19 PM
> > >Subject: [oletrucks] Old Tire Sizes
> > >
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know what the modern tire size equivalent would be for
> > > > the
> > >original 6.50 x 16 tires that came on the '53 Chevy AD trucks?
> > >Assuming a radial, I want a tire with the same diameter and
> > >approximately the same width. i.e. P205R70 -16 or LT20575-16 or
> > >????
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > ******************************************************************
> > > > **
> > > > **
> > > > *
> > > > Jim Wilkerson
> > > >
> ***********************************************************************
> > > > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and
> 1959
> > >oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and
> > >1959
> >
> > Wayne Osborne
> > http://www.chevytrucks.org
> > http://www.chevytrucks.org/wayne
> > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and
> > 1959 oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941
> > and 1959
> oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|