

| Subject: | Re: Tire question: Sorry, but ... |
| From: | Don Hanson |
| Date: | Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:22:57 -0700 |
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Mike S <mikes@flatsurface.com> wrote: > At 01:03 PM 8/29/2010, Don Hanson wrote... > > The ones I just got are marked "205/70 r 14 95T M+S" with a max load >> rating of 1527# and they are set up for studs, but have none in them I >> guess, from what I have found on the net, that these are likely car tires, >> not light truck like the other Hakkas I have. They do have an adequate >> load >> rating for the weight of my van, >> > > They don't have enough of a load rating to allow you to load your Vanagon > to its rated capacity. > > I did a bit of research on this a while ago, and put together this summary: > OK, thank you for the figures. Using the numbers you provided, it looks like the tires I just got are 'light' by about 85lbs of load, then. So they aren't 'rated' for a fully loaded vanagon by about 170lbs and the sidewalls will likely be too mushy and soft for good handling. Knowing our US DOT, I can live with them being under the specified load range for a light truck by 4%. I'd bet the DOT is at least 100% on the safe side...And for the price I paid weighed against my current spendable resources, I might put up with some degraded performance in my handling, if it isn't too bad. After all, I do not dirve my Vanagon like a performance vehicle, I drive it like a VW bus with poor brakes, which it is, sort of. Thanks again, "You get what you pay for" I guess. I better start looking around for two more "real" LT Hakkapelitta snows to match the ones I have... Don Hanson
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »