GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
You are somewhat correct as far as it goes. 75% of 225 mm is 168.75 mm and
70% of 245 mm is 171.5 mm for a difference of 2.75 mm
There is a difference in the lower profile tires which hasn't been mentioned
in sidewall stiffness (roll) which affects handling on-road but as I
mentioned before the suspension of a Grand cannot really utilize the benefit
due to its high center of gravity.
The poster's original question was, I believe, would there be any
interference problem in his WJ. My answer then and now is No, there is no
problem as both are listed in the manual and on the door placard as
alternates.
FWIW I recently put 225-75X16s on my WJ but my original thought was to get
the 245-70-16s
--
..
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HOadnc2nIv6YTLzeRVn-qQ@ez2.net...
> Do the math. 75% of 225 and 70% of 235 are only different by 4.25mm in the
> height of one sidewall. Surely this is not a significant difference.
>
>
>
>
> "Billy Ray" <Billy_Ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:e5b10$4320e00b$d8449845$19481@FUSE.NET...
>> It depends on where you plan to drive.
>>
>> On the road, or in sand, you will have increased lateral traction from
>> the wider tire. Off road, in snow or mud, you will have better forward
>> traction.
>>
>> Another consideration is your vehicle. A Grand Cherokee was not designed
>> for maximum on-road traction. The 75 series tire will probably provide
>> more traction than the Grand could handle given its high center of
>> gravity.
>>
>> A further consideration of tire type. You will have a better off-road
>> selection with the 75 series and a better selection of on-road tires with
>> the 70 series.
>>
>> A final consideration in the discourse is appearance. There are
>> different standards for 'city' and 'country' Jeeps.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> What are your priorities?
>> --
>> .
>> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
>> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
>> Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
>> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
>> .
>> "Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
>> news:BI4Ue.266$Aa1.194@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>>
>>> "Bowgus" <bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:So-dnVNuPbMcLr3eRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>>>> > I am a poor judge of what happens in snow, but it's difficult for me
>>> to
>>>> see
>>>> > where one would notice a difference in 10mm in diameter. I have to
>>> suspect
>>>> > there are tread patterns and other things that enter into the
>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, with 4 tires, 225 to 235 adds up to almost 2 inches ... and in
>>> slush
>>>> and so on at speed, it's enough to affect my puny little 3000 lb
>>> Cherokee.
>>>> As to the heavier trucks, no problem I'm sure. Now if I went to 245s,
>>> yikes.
>>>>
>>> so - you're saying that with the narrow footprint there is probably more
>>> bite
>>> to the footprint - ala the psi of the footprint -
>>> vs the wider tire that will distribute the weight more
>>> and not take a bite out of snow, ice, slush, etc -
>>>
>>> hmmmm - any other thoughts on going from the 75 to the 70 (225 to the
>>> 245)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
70% of 245 mm is 171.5 mm for a difference of 2.75 mm
There is a difference in the lower profile tires which hasn't been mentioned
in sidewall stiffness (roll) which affects handling on-road but as I
mentioned before the suspension of a Grand cannot really utilize the benefit
due to its high center of gravity.
The poster's original question was, I believe, would there be any
interference problem in his WJ. My answer then and now is No, there is no
problem as both are listed in the manual and on the door placard as
alternates.
FWIW I recently put 225-75X16s on my WJ but my original thought was to get
the 245-70-16s
--
..
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HOadnc2nIv6YTLzeRVn-qQ@ez2.net...
> Do the math. 75% of 225 and 70% of 235 are only different by 4.25mm in the
> height of one sidewall. Surely this is not a significant difference.
>
>
>
>
> "Billy Ray" <Billy_Ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:e5b10$4320e00b$d8449845$19481@FUSE.NET...
>> It depends on where you plan to drive.
>>
>> On the road, or in sand, you will have increased lateral traction from
>> the wider tire. Off road, in snow or mud, you will have better forward
>> traction.
>>
>> Another consideration is your vehicle. A Grand Cherokee was not designed
>> for maximum on-road traction. The 75 series tire will probably provide
>> more traction than the Grand could handle given its high center of
>> gravity.
>>
>> A further consideration of tire type. You will have a better off-road
>> selection with the 75 series and a better selection of on-road tires with
>> the 70 series.
>>
>> A final consideration in the discourse is appearance. There are
>> different standards for 'city' and 'country' Jeeps.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> What are your priorities?
>> --
>> .
>> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
>> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
>> Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
>> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
>> .
>> "Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
>> news:BI4Ue.266$Aa1.194@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>>
>>> "Bowgus" <bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:So-dnVNuPbMcLr3eRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>>>> > I am a poor judge of what happens in snow, but it's difficult for me
>>> to
>>>> see
>>>> > where one would notice a difference in 10mm in diameter. I have to
>>> suspect
>>>> > there are tread patterns and other things that enter into the
>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, with 4 tires, 225 to 235 adds up to almost 2 inches ... and in
>>> slush
>>>> and so on at speed, it's enough to affect my puny little 3000 lb
>>> Cherokee.
>>>> As to the heavier trucks, no problem I'm sure. Now if I went to 245s,
>>> yikes.
>>>>
>>> so - you're saying that with the narrow footprint there is probably more
>>> bite
>>> to the footprint - ala the psi of the footprint -
>>> vs the wider tire that will distribute the weight more
>>> and not take a bite out of snow, ice, slush, etc -
>>>
>>> hmmmm - any other thoughts on going from the 75 to the 70 (225 to the
>>> 245)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
You are somewhat correct as far as it goes. 75% of 225 mm is 168.75 mm and
70% of 245 mm is 171.5 mm for a difference of 2.75 mm
There is a difference in the lower profile tires which hasn't been mentioned
in sidewall stiffness (roll) which affects handling on-road but as I
mentioned before the suspension of a Grand cannot really utilize the benefit
due to its high center of gravity.
The poster's original question was, I believe, would there be any
interference problem in his WJ. My answer then and now is No, there is no
problem as both are listed in the manual and on the door placard as
alternates.
FWIW I recently put 225-75X16s on my WJ but my original thought was to get
the 245-70-16s
--
..
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HOadnc2nIv6YTLzeRVn-qQ@ez2.net...
> Do the math. 75% of 225 and 70% of 235 are only different by 4.25mm in the
> height of one sidewall. Surely this is not a significant difference.
>
>
>
>
> "Billy Ray" <Billy_Ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:e5b10$4320e00b$d8449845$19481@FUSE.NET...
>> It depends on where you plan to drive.
>>
>> On the road, or in sand, you will have increased lateral traction from
>> the wider tire. Off road, in snow or mud, you will have better forward
>> traction.
>>
>> Another consideration is your vehicle. A Grand Cherokee was not designed
>> for maximum on-road traction. The 75 series tire will probably provide
>> more traction than the Grand could handle given its high center of
>> gravity.
>>
>> A further consideration of tire type. You will have a better off-road
>> selection with the 75 series and a better selection of on-road tires with
>> the 70 series.
>>
>> A final consideration in the discourse is appearance. There are
>> different standards for 'city' and 'country' Jeeps.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> What are your priorities?
>> --
>> .
>> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
>> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
>> Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
>> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
>> .
>> "Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
>> news:BI4Ue.266$Aa1.194@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>>
>>> "Bowgus" <bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:So-dnVNuPbMcLr3eRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>>>> > I am a poor judge of what happens in snow, but it's difficult for me
>>> to
>>>> see
>>>> > where one would notice a difference in 10mm in diameter. I have to
>>> suspect
>>>> > there are tread patterns and other things that enter into the
>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, with 4 tires, 225 to 235 adds up to almost 2 inches ... and in
>>> slush
>>>> and so on at speed, it's enough to affect my puny little 3000 lb
>>> Cherokee.
>>>> As to the heavier trucks, no problem I'm sure. Now if I went to 245s,
>>> yikes.
>>>>
>>> so - you're saying that with the narrow footprint there is probably more
>>> bite
>>> to the footprint - ala the psi of the footprint -
>>> vs the wider tire that will distribute the weight more
>>> and not take a bite out of snow, ice, slush, etc -
>>>
>>> hmmmm - any other thoughts on going from the 75 to the 70 (225 to the
>>> 245)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
70% of 245 mm is 171.5 mm for a difference of 2.75 mm
There is a difference in the lower profile tires which hasn't been mentioned
in sidewall stiffness (roll) which affects handling on-road but as I
mentioned before the suspension of a Grand cannot really utilize the benefit
due to its high center of gravity.
The poster's original question was, I believe, would there be any
interference problem in his WJ. My answer then and now is No, there is no
problem as both are listed in the manual and on the door placard as
alternates.
FWIW I recently put 225-75X16s on my WJ but my original thought was to get
the 245-70-16s
--
..
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HOadnc2nIv6YTLzeRVn-qQ@ez2.net...
> Do the math. 75% of 225 and 70% of 235 are only different by 4.25mm in the
> height of one sidewall. Surely this is not a significant difference.
>
>
>
>
> "Billy Ray" <Billy_Ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:e5b10$4320e00b$d8449845$19481@FUSE.NET...
>> It depends on where you plan to drive.
>>
>> On the road, or in sand, you will have increased lateral traction from
>> the wider tire. Off road, in snow or mud, you will have better forward
>> traction.
>>
>> Another consideration is your vehicle. A Grand Cherokee was not designed
>> for maximum on-road traction. The 75 series tire will probably provide
>> more traction than the Grand could handle given its high center of
>> gravity.
>>
>> A further consideration of tire type. You will have a better off-road
>> selection with the 75 series and a better selection of on-road tires with
>> the 70 series.
>>
>> A final consideration in the discourse is appearance. There are
>> different standards for 'city' and 'country' Jeeps.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> What are your priorities?
>> --
>> .
>> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
>> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
>> Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
>> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
>> .
>> "Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
>> news:BI4Ue.266$Aa1.194@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>>
>>> "Bowgus" <bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:So-dnVNuPbMcLr3eRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>>>> > I am a poor judge of what happens in snow, but it's difficult for me
>>> to
>>>> see
>>>> > where one would notice a difference in 10mm in diameter. I have to
>>> suspect
>>>> > there are tread patterns and other things that enter into the
>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, with 4 tires, 225 to 235 adds up to almost 2 inches ... and in
>>> slush
>>>> and so on at speed, it's enough to affect my puny little 3000 lb
>>> Cherokee.
>>>> As to the heavier trucks, no problem I'm sure. Now if I went to 245s,
>>> yikes.
>>>>
>>> so - you're saying that with the narrow footprint there is probably more
>>> bite
>>> to the footprint - ala the psi of the footprint -
>>> vs the wider tire that will distribute the weight more
>>> and not take a bite out of snow, ice, slush, etc -
>>>
>>> hmmmm - any other thoughts on going from the 75 to the 70 (225 to the
>>> 245)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
You are somewhat correct as far as it goes. 75% of 225 mm is 168.75 mm and
70% of 245 mm is 171.5 mm for a difference of 2.75 mm
There is a difference in the lower profile tires which hasn't been mentioned
in sidewall stiffness (roll) which affects handling on-road but as I
mentioned before the suspension of a Grand cannot really utilize the benefit
due to its high center of gravity.
The poster's original question was, I believe, would there be any
interference problem in his WJ. My answer then and now is No, there is no
problem as both are listed in the manual and on the door placard as
alternates.
FWIW I recently put 225-75X16s on my WJ but my original thought was to get
the 245-70-16s
--
..
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HOadnc2nIv6YTLzeRVn-qQ@ez2.net...
> Do the math. 75% of 225 and 70% of 235 are only different by 4.25mm in the
> height of one sidewall. Surely this is not a significant difference.
>
>
>
>
> "Billy Ray" <Billy_Ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:e5b10$4320e00b$d8449845$19481@FUSE.NET...
>> It depends on where you plan to drive.
>>
>> On the road, or in sand, you will have increased lateral traction from
>> the wider tire. Off road, in snow or mud, you will have better forward
>> traction.
>>
>> Another consideration is your vehicle. A Grand Cherokee was not designed
>> for maximum on-road traction. The 75 series tire will probably provide
>> more traction than the Grand could handle given its high center of
>> gravity.
>>
>> A further consideration of tire type. You will have a better off-road
>> selection with the 75 series and a better selection of on-road tires with
>> the 70 series.
>>
>> A final consideration in the discourse is appearance. There are
>> different standards for 'city' and 'country' Jeeps.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> What are your priorities?
>> --
>> .
>> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
>> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
>> Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
>> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
>> .
>> "Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
>> news:BI4Ue.266$Aa1.194@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>>
>>> "Bowgus" <bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:So-dnVNuPbMcLr3eRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>>>> > I am a poor judge of what happens in snow, but it's difficult for me
>>> to
>>>> see
>>>> > where one would notice a difference in 10mm in diameter. I have to
>>> suspect
>>>> > there are tread patterns and other things that enter into the
>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, with 4 tires, 225 to 235 adds up to almost 2 inches ... and in
>>> slush
>>>> and so on at speed, it's enough to affect my puny little 3000 lb
>>> Cherokee.
>>>> As to the heavier trucks, no problem I'm sure. Now if I went to 245s,
>>> yikes.
>>>>
>>> so - you're saying that with the narrow footprint there is probably more
>>> bite
>>> to the footprint - ala the psi of the footprint -
>>> vs the wider tire that will distribute the weight more
>>> and not take a bite out of snow, ice, slush, etc -
>>>
>>> hmmmm - any other thoughts on going from the 75 to the 70 (225 to the
>>> 245)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
70% of 245 mm is 171.5 mm for a difference of 2.75 mm
There is a difference in the lower profile tires which hasn't been mentioned
in sidewall stiffness (roll) which affects handling on-road but as I
mentioned before the suspension of a Grand cannot really utilize the benefit
due to its high center of gravity.
The poster's original question was, I believe, would there be any
interference problem in his WJ. My answer then and now is No, there is no
problem as both are listed in the manual and on the door placard as
alternates.
FWIW I recently put 225-75X16s on my WJ but my original thought was to get
the 245-70-16s
--
..
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HOadnc2nIv6YTLzeRVn-qQ@ez2.net...
> Do the math. 75% of 225 and 70% of 235 are only different by 4.25mm in the
> height of one sidewall. Surely this is not a significant difference.
>
>
>
>
> "Billy Ray" <Billy_Ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:e5b10$4320e00b$d8449845$19481@FUSE.NET...
>> It depends on where you plan to drive.
>>
>> On the road, or in sand, you will have increased lateral traction from
>> the wider tire. Off road, in snow or mud, you will have better forward
>> traction.
>>
>> Another consideration is your vehicle. A Grand Cherokee was not designed
>> for maximum on-road traction. The 75 series tire will probably provide
>> more traction than the Grand could handle given its high center of
>> gravity.
>>
>> A further consideration of tire type. You will have a better off-road
>> selection with the 75 series and a better selection of on-road tires with
>> the 70 series.
>>
>> A final consideration in the discourse is appearance. There are
>> different standards for 'city' and 'country' Jeeps.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> What are your priorities?
>> --
>> .
>> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
>> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
>> Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat
>> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
>> .
>> "Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
>> news:BI4Ue.266$Aa1.194@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>>
>>> "Bowgus" <bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:So-dnVNuPbMcLr3eRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>>>> > I am a poor judge of what happens in snow, but it's difficult for me
>>> to
>>>> see
>>>> > where one would notice a difference in 10mm in diameter. I have to
>>> suspect
>>>> > there are tread patterns and other things that enter into the
>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, with 4 tires, 225 to 235 adds up to almost 2 inches ... and in
>>> slush
>>>> and so on at speed, it's enough to affect my puny little 3000 lb
>>> Cherokee.
>>>> As to the heavier trucks, no problem I'm sure. Now if I went to 245s,
>>> yikes.
>>>>
>>> so - you're saying that with the narrow footprint there is probably more
>>> bite
>>> to the footprint - ala the psi of the footprint -
>>> vs the wider tire that will distribute the weight more
>>> and not take a bite out of snow, ice, slush, etc -
>>>
>>> hmmmm - any other thoughts on going from the 75 to the 70 (225 to the
>>> 245)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
Not talking diameter ... talking total tire surface trying to get down to
pavement through snow/slush. And my experience is that with my lightweight
Cherokee, 225s are as wide as I want to go (with a tire that's also good on
dry pavement) and still have decent control at speed in slush/wet snow. So
let's just say the footprint of a 225 at 33 psi is 9" x 3" (27" square)...
just a rough calculation. Then the total footprint would be 27 x 4 wheels or
108" square. Now take a 245 tire ... 9.6 x 3 is 29" square for a total of
116" square. And, again, that extra surface is not much, but it is my
experience (anecdotal eveidence), that my lightweight jeep starts to float
when I exceed that 225 width ... adios.
> Adds up? What adds up? Not the diameter difference.
pavement through snow/slush. And my experience is that with my lightweight
Cherokee, 225s are as wide as I want to go (with a tire that's also good on
dry pavement) and still have decent control at speed in slush/wet snow. So
let's just say the footprint of a 225 at 33 psi is 9" x 3" (27" square)...
just a rough calculation. Then the total footprint would be 27 x 4 wheels or
108" square. Now take a 245 tire ... 9.6 x 3 is 29" square for a total of
116" square. And, again, that extra surface is not much, but it is my
experience (anecdotal eveidence), that my lightweight jeep starts to float
when I exceed that 225 width ... adios.
> Adds up? What adds up? Not the diameter difference.
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
Not talking diameter ... talking total tire surface trying to get down to
pavement through snow/slush. And my experience is that with my lightweight
Cherokee, 225s are as wide as I want to go (with a tire that's also good on
dry pavement) and still have decent control at speed in slush/wet snow. So
let's just say the footprint of a 225 at 33 psi is 9" x 3" (27" square)...
just a rough calculation. Then the total footprint would be 27 x 4 wheels or
108" square. Now take a 245 tire ... 9.6 x 3 is 29" square for a total of
116" square. And, again, that extra surface is not much, but it is my
experience (anecdotal eveidence), that my lightweight jeep starts to float
when I exceed that 225 width ... adios.
> Adds up? What adds up? Not the diameter difference.
pavement through snow/slush. And my experience is that with my lightweight
Cherokee, 225s are as wide as I want to go (with a tire that's also good on
dry pavement) and still have decent control at speed in slush/wet snow. So
let's just say the footprint of a 225 at 33 psi is 9" x 3" (27" square)...
just a rough calculation. Then the total footprint would be 27 x 4 wheels or
108" square. Now take a 245 tire ... 9.6 x 3 is 29" square for a total of
116" square. And, again, that extra surface is not much, but it is my
experience (anecdotal eveidence), that my lightweight jeep starts to float
when I exceed that 225 width ... adios.
> Adds up? What adds up? Not the diameter difference.
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
Not talking diameter ... talking total tire surface trying to get down to
pavement through snow/slush. And my experience is that with my lightweight
Cherokee, 225s are as wide as I want to go (with a tire that's also good on
dry pavement) and still have decent control at speed in slush/wet snow. So
let's just say the footprint of a 225 at 33 psi is 9" x 3" (27" square)...
just a rough calculation. Then the total footprint would be 27 x 4 wheels or
108" square. Now take a 245 tire ... 9.6 x 3 is 29" square for a total of
116" square. And, again, that extra surface is not much, but it is my
experience (anecdotal eveidence), that my lightweight jeep starts to float
when I exceed that 225 width ... adios.
> Adds up? What adds up? Not the diameter difference.
pavement through snow/slush. And my experience is that with my lightweight
Cherokee, 225s are as wide as I want to go (with a tire that's also good on
dry pavement) and still have decent control at speed in slush/wet snow. So
let's just say the footprint of a 225 at 33 psi is 9" x 3" (27" square)...
just a rough calculation. Then the total footprint would be 27 x 4 wheels or
108" square. Now take a 245 tire ... 9.6 x 3 is 29" square for a total of
116" square. And, again, that extra surface is not much, but it is my
experience (anecdotal eveidence), that my lightweight jeep starts to float
when I exceed that 225 width ... adios.
> Adds up? What adds up? Not the diameter difference.
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
Not talking diameter ... talking total tire surface trying to get down to
pavement through snow/slush. And my experience is that with my lightweight
Cherokee, 225s are as wide as I want to go (with a tire that's also good on
dry pavement) and still have decent control at speed in slush/wet snow. So
let's just say the footprint of a 225 at 33 psi is 9" x 3" (27" square)...
just a rough calculation. Then the total footprint would be 27 x 4 wheels or
108" square. Now take a 245 tire ... 9.6 x 3 is 29" square for a total of
116" square. And, again, that extra surface is not much, but it is my
experience (anecdotal eveidence), that my lightweight jeep starts to float
when I exceed that 225 width ... adios.
> Adds up? What adds up? Not the diameter difference.
pavement through snow/slush. And my experience is that with my lightweight
Cherokee, 225s are as wide as I want to go (with a tire that's also good on
dry pavement) and still have decent control at speed in slush/wet snow. So
let's just say the footprint of a 225 at 33 psi is 9" x 3" (27" square)...
just a rough calculation. Then the total footprint would be 27 x 4 wheels or
108" square. Now take a 245 tire ... 9.6 x 3 is 29" square for a total of
116" square. And, again, that extra surface is not much, but it is my
experience (anecdotal eveidence), that my lightweight jeep starts to float
when I exceed that 225 width ... adios.
> Adds up? What adds up? Not the diameter difference.
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
J Strickland proclaimed:
> Not if the change was from 225 to 235. These numbers represent the tread
> width in mm, and 10mm is the functional equivelent of 3/8".
>
> Now, there is some misunderstanding (at least on my part) of just exactly
> where they measure 225 or 235, and the actual tread blocks being square on
> one tire and rounded off on the other might play a role in your perception
> of an inch difference, but the actual difference is 10mm. Your point being
> that you are looking at the tread patch on the ground is not lost on me ...
>
The 225/235 is the sectional width, not the tread width. And now that
you mention it, I can't remember where they measure it either... and
the actual size is always rounded off anyway. Unless the tires
involved have exactly the same tread compounds and patterns,
comparing traction based on section [or tread] width is a waste of
time, as it really depends more on the pattern and compounds.
> Not if the change was from 225 to 235. These numbers represent the tread
> width in mm, and 10mm is the functional equivelent of 3/8".
>
> Now, there is some misunderstanding (at least on my part) of just exactly
> where they measure 225 or 235, and the actual tread blocks being square on
> one tire and rounded off on the other might play a role in your perception
> of an inch difference, but the actual difference is 10mm. Your point being
> that you are looking at the tread patch on the ground is not lost on me ...
>
The 225/235 is the sectional width, not the tread width. And now that
you mention it, I can't remember where they measure it either... and
the actual size is always rounded off anyway. Unless the tires
involved have exactly the same tread compounds and patterns,
comparing traction based on section [or tread] width is a waste of
time, as it really depends more on the pattern and compounds.
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
J Strickland proclaimed:
> Not if the change was from 225 to 235. These numbers represent the tread
> width in mm, and 10mm is the functional equivelent of 3/8".
>
> Now, there is some misunderstanding (at least on my part) of just exactly
> where they measure 225 or 235, and the actual tread blocks being square on
> one tire and rounded off on the other might play a role in your perception
> of an inch difference, but the actual difference is 10mm. Your point being
> that you are looking at the tread patch on the ground is not lost on me ...
>
The 225/235 is the sectional width, not the tread width. And now that
you mention it, I can't remember where they measure it either... and
the actual size is always rounded off anyway. Unless the tires
involved have exactly the same tread compounds and patterns,
comparing traction based on section [or tread] width is a waste of
time, as it really depends more on the pattern and compounds.
> Not if the change was from 225 to 235. These numbers represent the tread
> width in mm, and 10mm is the functional equivelent of 3/8".
>
> Now, there is some misunderstanding (at least on my part) of just exactly
> where they measure 225 or 235, and the actual tread blocks being square on
> one tire and rounded off on the other might play a role in your perception
> of an inch difference, but the actual difference is 10mm. Your point being
> that you are looking at the tread patch on the ground is not lost on me ...
>
The 225/235 is the sectional width, not the tread width. And now that
you mention it, I can't remember where they measure it either... and
the actual size is always rounded off anyway. Unless the tires
involved have exactly the same tread compounds and patterns,
comparing traction based on section [or tread] width is a waste of
time, as it really depends more on the pattern and compounds.
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GC tires - 225/75 vs 245/70 (R16)
J Strickland proclaimed:
> Not if the change was from 225 to 235. These numbers represent the tread
> width in mm, and 10mm is the functional equivelent of 3/8".
>
> Now, there is some misunderstanding (at least on my part) of just exactly
> where they measure 225 or 235, and the actual tread blocks being square on
> one tire and rounded off on the other might play a role in your perception
> of an inch difference, but the actual difference is 10mm. Your point being
> that you are looking at the tread patch on the ground is not lost on me ...
>
The 225/235 is the sectional width, not the tread width. And now that
you mention it, I can't remember where they measure it either... and
the actual size is always rounded off anyway. Unless the tires
involved have exactly the same tread compounds and patterns,
comparing traction based on section [or tread] width is a waste of
time, as it really depends more on the pattern and compounds.
> Not if the change was from 225 to 235. These numbers represent the tread
> width in mm, and 10mm is the functional equivelent of 3/8".
>
> Now, there is some misunderstanding (at least on my part) of just exactly
> where they measure 225 or 235, and the actual tread blocks being square on
> one tire and rounded off on the other might play a role in your perception
> of an inch difference, but the actual difference is 10mm. Your point being
> that you are looking at the tread patch on the ground is not lost on me ...
>
The 225/235 is the sectional width, not the tread width. And now that
you mention it, I can't remember where they measure it either... and
the actual size is always rounded off anyway. Unless the tires
involved have exactly the same tread compounds and patterns,
comparing traction based on section [or tread] width is a waste of
time, as it really depends more on the pattern and compounds.