Rickson 17.5 inch wheels/tires

LT235/85R16 are rated for 2,770 a piece in DRW configuration, or an extra 300 lbs. per tire vs stock 225s. They are however 2.5" taller, so that effectively makes for taller final drive ratio equivalent to 4.2 gears (which don't exist, but ford gave the V10/4.30 pickups a 20,000 GCWR with the same height tire).

Bryan,

I assume your Ford has 16 inch rims and I assume your Toyos are Load Range E?

If so, how much more load per tire are your 16 inch Load Range E 235s rated for than 16 inch Load Range E 225s are rated for?

FWIW I have 235 tires on my van, Toyo M55. I'm about to put on my 3rd set of those tires (i get about 60,000 miles out of the rears).

My van weighs in at 11,000 pounds on just the rear axle when fully loaded and hitched up. The rear tires never got too hot even though I run at only 65 psi (80 psi makes the rear and too squarely unloaded).

The tires have excellent snow and mud traction. Main downsides is they weigh a lot so they can be hard to balance, and they cost about twice as much as most highway tread tires.

I'd love to switch to that Rickson setup on our lightly loaded 24 foot E450 Class C for more rugged tire availability (Load Range G) when off paved roads! Too much $$$, though.

The trouble with those Michelin Steel-Belted XPS Rib commercial tires is their tread - it's only a smooth highway tread.

One heavy Class C poster in these forums has stayed with their stock 16 inch rims, Load Range E tires, and 80 lbs. of pressure ... BUT merely went up in size to 235/85R16 tires. This tire is rated for more load capacity with no rim change or pressure changes required - plus these tires provide a bit more road clearance (due to their greater diameter) to better protect low points/items on the motorhome and less rear end scraping when entering/exiting parking lots.

nomad 289 wrote:

hazmatpony wrote:
benefit / peace of mind knowing that a true commercial tire which flexes much less and subsequently far less heat generated.

IMO. If I had a RV pushing the weight limits (requiring stiffer tire for proper handling) and lived in SoCal (no snow) I would run these:

Michelin steel-belted XPS Rib commercial tires

oops. what j-d said.


.

I DO have an RV that pushes the weight limits (requiring stiffer tires for proper handling) and I DO live in SoCal (with ocassional trips to the snow)... and I DO run Michelin Steel-Belted XPS Rib Commercial Tires.

hazmatpony wrote:
benefit / peace of mind knowing that a true commercial tire which flexes much less and subsequently far less heat generated.

IMO. If I had a RV pushing the weight limits (requiring stiffer tire for proper handling) and lived in SoCal (no snow) I would run these:

Michelin steel-belted XPS Rib commercial tires

oops. what j-d said.


.

Hi, I have not had a chance to weigh rig yet, and have no history or experience with blowouts, just part of a conversation with other rv'ers at a campsite. I currently have michelins all around, no complaints was just curious, and of course the added weight rating of the tires DOES NOT add any benefit but peace of mind knowing that a true commercial tire which flexes much less and subsequently far less heat generated.

That setup has a few fans here. I'd suggest you weigh your coach. Fully loaded as for travel, passengers and all.
Our 31-ft is heavy too. Only about 400-lbs below axle rating both front and rear. My belief is that quality fresh tires will do the job. Tires like Michelin Rib, Bridgestone R250, I forget the Goodyear model, and there are others. Just not entry level ones.
You haven't said you actually have had blowouts. If you have, then try to find a scale where you can weigh each corner individually. Most truck stops can provide only axle weights and most of us are satisfied with that. But Michelin really want to see corner weights for RVs since they tend to be unevenly loaded while cargo trucks don't.
EDIT: I would be remiss to not add that increasing capacity of wheels and tires, springs, etc. does NOT increase the rated capacity of the chassis and therefore its payload.