2002 E450 Superduty tires
I have tried searching and wading thru old and new info and I could not find the info I was looking for. My Tioga 31W is in need of new tires. As it is 31ft class c it runs at max weight. I try to ...
Forum Discussion
John, great informative comments in two of your posts above.
I was kindof amazed years ago when I noticed that 215/85R16 LRE tires were taller than 225/75R16 LRE tires - but still spec'd at the same load carrying maximums. What got me looking into it was that traveling friends of ours had the 215 size on their Ford chassis Class C, while my newer Class C came stock with the 225 size .... so I thought that their rig was "under-tired" relative to mine. So....the next time I re-tired our Class C I did some research into tire profiles versus other considerations.
I wanted more ground clearance anyway - but not too much more so that the DW could still easily get into the cab - without having to go to the 235/75 tires because I feared that the duallies might wind up too close together using the stock rims. So what I got by changing to the 215 tires from the 225 tires was the same load carrying capacity, greater dually tire spacings for improved inter-tire cooling, and no sidewall rubbing .... and my ultimate goal of a little more ground clearance for all of the chassis components without at the same time having to lift the coach higher up off the frame.
Admittedly I'm NOT a "tire designer" by any stretch of the imagination, but in my ignorance I don't buy into the current trend of huge rims with low profile tires on them. (Most) Big rigs still use high profile tires - just tires with a lot of plies and a lot of pressure to carry the weight. I think I want a "larger air chamber" between the road surface and the steel of the rims so as to provide a bigger/better air cushioned ride, while at the same time not sacrificing load carrying capacity - just as big rigs don't sacrifice load carrying capacity when sticking with high profile tires. To me it seems like todays low profile and wide footprint tires A), are a style thing coming from the racing world where vehicle tire sidewall flex needs to be non-existent under extreme side-forces and B), inherently make for an unnecessarily stiff ride resulting from a minimum size air chamber. I've ridden in plenty of todays fancy tired SUVs and sedans - and the ride is atrocious for various reasons - but IMHO at least partly due to the low profile tires on them.
On our Class C, what I would prefer is to be able to stay with 16 inch steel rims, but be able to get the additional ply rating from load range G tires on them, and also be able to get them in 215 size for better ground clearance. The higher ply rating would make for a more rugged/thicker tire material so as to better guard against punctures from sharp surfaces - such as curbs and rocks.
BTW, the 215 tire puts a narrower treadprint down on the road than a 225 tire ... which for the same load puts more pounds per square inch pressure onto the road surface. This increased pounds per square inch pressure probably makes for better snow and ice traction (... but worse flotation on soft surfaces).
I was kindof amazed years ago when I noticed that 215/85R16 LRE tires were taller than 225/75R16 LRE tires - but still spec'd at the same load carrying maximums. What got me looking into it was that traveling friends of ours had the 215 size on their Ford chassis Class C, while my newer Class C came stock with the 225 size .... so I thought that their rig was "under-tired" relative to mine. So....the next time I re-tired our Class C I did some research into tire profiles versus other considerations.
I wanted more ground clearance anyway - but not too much more so that the DW could still easily get into the cab - without having to go to the 235/75 tires because I feared that the duallies might wind up too close together using the stock rims. So what I got by changing to the 215 tires from the 225 tires was the same load carrying capacity, greater dually tire spacings for improved inter-tire cooling, and no sidewall rubbing .... and my ultimate goal of a little more ground clearance for all of the chassis components without at the same time having to lift the coach higher up off the frame.
Admittedly I'm NOT a "tire designer" by any stretch of the imagination, but in my ignorance I don't buy into the current trend of huge rims with low profile tires on them. (Most) Big rigs still use high profile tires - just tires with a lot of plies and a lot of pressure to carry the weight. I think I want a "larger air chamber" between the road surface and the steel of the rims so as to provide a bigger/better air cushioned ride, while at the same time not sacrificing load carrying capacity - just as big rigs don't sacrifice load carrying capacity when sticking with high profile tires. To me it seems like todays low profile and wide footprint tires A), are a style thing coming from the racing world where vehicle tire sidewall flex needs to be non-existent under extreme side-forces and B), inherently make for an unnecessarily stiff ride resulting from a minimum size air chamber. I've ridden in plenty of todays fancy tired SUVs and sedans - and the ride is atrocious for various reasons - but IMHO at least partly due to the low profile tires on them.
On our Class C, what I would prefer is to be able to stay with 16 inch steel rims, but be able to get the additional ply rating from load range G tires on them, and also be able to get them in 215 size for better ground clearance. The higher ply rating would make for a more rugged/thicker tire material so as to better guard against punctures from sharp surfaces - such as curbs and rocks.
BTW, the 215 tire puts a narrower treadprint down on the road than a 225 tire ... which for the same load puts more pounds per square inch pressure onto the road surface. This increased pounds per square inch pressure probably makes for better snow and ice traction (... but worse flotation on soft surfaces).
