blt2ski wrote:
the 235's in reality are about a 1/2" diam larger than the 245's. Not enough to worry about, since if one DID go to the 245's, the effective ratio will be lower. Potentially a bit more torque to the ground. The fronts won't have as many issues with the outer tire edge wearing quicker due to the wider and shorter sidewall. Should have better handling. At least it has on the three duallues I've had going with a wider shorter profile front, keeping the same diam rears in a higher profile.
Just to be different, look at Coopers too. The AT3 and HT have been good performers for others i know here in the PNW.
marty
Ya, true statements. It takes someone who has driven, wrenched on and understands trucks to believe what you’re saying. But simple math/logic “should” prevail and it should not seem unnatural for tires to wear more/quicker etc when you put the smallest skinniest tires possible on the front of the heaviest pickup out there.
But it’s become an indelible standard with dual wheel vehicles of most configurations to keep the front rims/tire the same as rear rod obvious reasons. Years ago, when this started, pickup trucks weren’t sporting 500hp, hauling 3tons and towing 10 tons all at the same time while having the ability to bury the speedo.
I wouldn’t call it a flawed design per se but rather a consideration. Just is what it is unless one spends the money to upgrade.
Nothing to do with the china bomb **** tires the OP is talking about. That’s just poor quality cheap tires. Now the OP needs to get off dead center and realize that there are a couple/few comparable sizes he can use and that he doesn’t HAVE to get Micheblows because there are many comparable quality brands out there.
