How important is tire size to your selection?

tropical36 wrote:

Many don't check any of this out before purchase and concentrate on the fireplace and big TV. Fact is and if I'm looking to buy a DP, I first look in the rear for a side radiator, while most head for the entry door for checking out said TV and fireplace. But then, that's for another topic.

while the salesman makes a mad dash for the button to demonstrate the electric awning with the LED lights. :)
bumpy

It looks like the GVWR/CGVWR are the same at 22,000/26,000 on the Mirada and the Vision XL. We had a 2010 Mirada 35DS with the same ratings for 5 seasons. We weighed right at 20,000 travel ready. It was on 19.5's and we never had an issue.

Bumpyroad wrote:

Mondooker wrote:
If I’m reading you right, the 22 is better and holds more weight. But the 19 has been around a long time and does fine if additional weight isn’t a factor?

I think you have to go back to the old chevy P-30/32 chassis to get to units that had too much weight on the front tires/end. I remember some of the write ups the units were overloaded if there was a passenger in the front passenger seat. don't remember if that was a tire or chassis issue however.

great engineering, put in a puny front end, put two chassis batteries about as far forward as possible, and stick some balloons in the springs to take the weight.
bumpy

Here's the issue for me. For example: My current Class A (a 1999 30' on a Ford F-53 chassis) has 19.5" tires/wheels and an 18,000 GVWR. It weighs under 16,000 lbs. fully loaded, fueled, and, watered, so, I have over 2,000 lbs. discretionary payload. That year, you could buy the same motorhome on a Chevy P-XX chassis that has a GVWR of 15,400 lbs. It had 16.5" wheels/tires. If I had my same motorhome on the Chevy chassis, I would be over maximum gross weight with NO discretionary payload. In my travels, I found the exact same motorhome as mine but on the Chevy chassis. IMO, it looked kind of silly with the smaller wheels/tires and the front suspension looked SEVERELY overloaded. (kind of like a big dog with two broken front legs) The current owner told me the front suspension/tires were always a problem as was the front axle overloading condition.

Larger wheels also allow the use of larger brake rotors and higher ground clearance. (a good thing in a MH)

Chum lee

Bruce Brown wrote:

Trackrig wrote:
I would never consider the 19.5s, they won't handle the weight capacity for a true Class A.

Bll

The Ford F53 chassis was only built for one purpose - "true Class A motorhomes", and for YEARS the 19.5 was the only tire size offered. :h

As to the OPs question, bigger is always better.

And from 1986 to 1997 Ford F53 chassis had 16" tires.
Silly me, I always though my 95 Bounder was a true class A.

Richard

Mondooker wrote:
If I’m reading you right, the 22 is better and holds more weight. But the 19 has been around a long time and does fine if additional weight isn’t a factor?

This is true and for example, our old coach was well under weight for the 19.5" tires. It had a tag axle for an additional 4500 lbs. but only because it was 36ft long and on a GM P32 chassis. At the same time, pulling our Jeep put an extra ton of overload on it and only because of the GM 4L80E transmission. No problem however, except for long 6% grades in the heat of summer.

Now with our present coach and 22.5 tires, the rear is at max GVWR when loaded for travel, but because of the axle, not the tires. Still a ton to the good on the front. As for GCWR, we can pull 15K lbs and stay within specs. and just as long as it's not a trailer with hitch weight to contend with and even though the hitch rating is 1500lbs.

Many don't check any of this out before purchase and concentrate on the fireplace and big TV. Fact is and if I'm looking to buy a DP, I first look in the rear for a side radiator, while most head for the entry door for checking out said TV and fireplace. But then, that's for another topic.

Mondooker wrote:
It was between the Coachmen Mirada and Entegra Vision XL. The Vision XL is the 22.5.

the tire size would not even enter imto our thought process. far more important would be floor plan, front and rear axle empty and max weight limits, tow capacity, options, etc.

Mondooker wrote:
If I’m reading you right, the 22 is better and holds more weight. But the 19 has been around a long time and does fine if additional weight isn’t a factor?

I think you have to go back to the old chevy P-30/32 chassis to get to units that had too much weight on the front tires/end. I remember some of the write ups the units were overloaded if there was a passenger in the front passenger seat. don't remember if that was a tire or chassis issue however.

great engineering, put in a puny front end, put two chassis batteries about as far forward as possible, and stick some balloons in the springs to take the weight.
bumpy

If I’m reading you right, the 22 is better and holds more weight. But the 19 has been around a long time and does fine if additional weight isn’t a factor?

Bruce Brown wrote:

Trackrig wrote:
I would never consider the 19.5s, they won't handle the weight capacity for a true Class A.

Bll

The Ford F53 chassis was only built for one purpose - "true Class A motorhomes", and for YEARS the 19.5 was the only tire size offered. :h

As to the OPs question, bigger is always better.

yep, my three motorhomes were Class A and all on 19.5s. when I was interested in moving to 22s I priced the out and there was as large differential, don't know where the price points were the same.
bumpy

Mondooker wrote:
Some motorhomes have 22.5 tires while others have 19.5. The style, meaning price point is the same. But as I said they have different size tires. How important is that in the big selection process?

I've never seen a motorhome that didn't have adequate wheels and tires for the chassis it was on. Thing to watch out for is CCC and GCWR, which many fail in miserably and for a number of reasons.
Axles capacity for one and most importantly for the latter, the transmission.
Having said all that, the larger wheels could very well account for more CCC and GVWR. Apples to Apples, I'd go with the 22.5's.