17.5 wheels & tires for class C

[Chance]

I purchased a commercial-rated 16” tire the size used on Ford Transit vans as a spare, so can’t rate performance. It’s a little wider and lower profile than what comes on E-Series Class Cs.

Mine is a 235/65R16C manufactured by Hankook in Korea and load rated 121/119. Maximum load marked on tire is 3195 pounds single and 3000 pounds dual, both at 85 PSI. Since my rims may not be rated beyond 80 PSI, I don’t plan to inflate beyond 80 PSI. Load capacity is way more than I need anyway.

The size used on E-Series is LT225/75R16 (load rated 115/112), which is also the size used on ProMaster vans as standard equipment. The commercial-rated 225/75R16C is optional, and therefore also available in US.

[jim5554]

Originally Posted by macgyvr

So seriously. I was ready to call and order the 17.5 rims/tires this week.

Has anyone bought these Nexen tires?

mac '1/3 the cost' gyvr

I'd love to get an opinion from someone with a lot more expertise than I have. The price and convenience factors factors are hard to ignore. If no one can come up with a downside to the Commercial use(C) rated tires I'm going for the Nexens.
It's my understanding that our current tires have a tendency to blow out because they're either underinflated or overloaded and as a result, overheat. Going to a 121/120 tire should solve the overload problem without springing for all new rims. My only question is about the ply rating. Will the higher ply rating make a difference? I don't know. Someone is going to have to be a pioneer and buy them I guess.

[jim5554]

Chance, do you have any problems with the wider tires "kissing" on the rears?

[Chance]

Originally Posted by jim5554

Chance, do you have any problems with the wider tires "kissing" on the rears?

That doesn’t apply in my case.

My OEM tire size is even wider at LT245/75R16 with load rating of 120 (only used as singles, not duals). Compared to smaller tires used on E-350/450 Class Cs, my OEM tires are larger and a little heavier.

I needed a compact spare, and the commercial-rated Hankook is both small enough, and has a load rating that is even higher than my 4 normal Michelins.

I would not recommend using this 235/65R16C tire on a Class C because it would reduce ground clearance by about 5/8 of an inch, and throw speedometer off a bit too.

The 225/75R16C is available and would be exact size. I can’t recommend either way because with any luck I’ll never use my spare.

[macgyvr]

Guess I'll be the guinea pig...

Just ordered 7 of them...

mac 'here we go' gyvr

[macgyvr]

And for those wondering. I got 7 tires from simple-tire for $831.54. They have a deal going on right now for 10% off. Just under $119 each with free shipping.

mac 'gambler' gyvr

[jim5554]

Your UPS guy is going to hate you.

[macgyvr]

Eh
He hated me two years ago when i bought 6 tires for my old pusher...

mac ‘these should be nothing’ gyvr

[macgyvr]

mac ‘they are here’ gyvr

[jim5554]

Good Luck with them.

[blw2]

wait...so you are telling me that these tires are the same size as the OEM load range E tires...BUT they have a higher weight capacity???
That sounds like it might be exactly what we need!!!

how much higher?

[blw2]

Sorry, went back and caught up on the posts that I missed. see that's already been asked and answered.

MacGyver, I am very much looking forward to your reports about installation, ride, handling, noise, etc...!!

[macgyvr]

I am taking the Jeep off-road this weekend and towing it. I’m going to try to get the tires on before I leave town.

I’m super busy until then and its not just a regular visit to discount tire...

mac ‘my initial impression is they got great tread depth’ gyvr

[Chance]

blw2, I’m not sure we should rule out the benefits of C-rated “Commercial” tires even if his experience/experiment doesn’t work out well. There are other brands also, which may be more expensive, but still lower than 17.5s.

I hope it works out great for him, but would also like to see other brands tried for additional comparison. Providing about 20% higher rated load capacity than the vehicles’ axles is a nice safety factor; at least from tire standpoint.

Obviously if tires are damaged from road debri or hitting curbs, etc. it won’t make much difference. That’s why more data points are needed.

[macgyvr]

Chance what are the other brands of 16 inch rims that would provide 3100 weight rating in a dually set up? This is the first that I have seen.

I firmly believe that the 9600 lb rear axle rating is basing on typical "E" tire ratings. These Dana or Sterling or Ford axles, whatever they are (I haven't identified mine) can handle much more than 9600 lbs in my opinion.

I also bought 7 because road debris do happen. I will have 7 - Michelin tires with 8k on them for sale soon if anyone is interested.

mac 'him is mac' gyvr

[Chance]

Originally Posted by macgyvr

Chance what are the other brands of 16 inch rims that would provide 3100 weight rating in a dually set up? This is the first that I have seen.

I firmly believe that the 9600 lb rear axle rating is basing on typical "E" tire ratings. These Dana or Sterling or Ford axles, whatever they are (I haven't identified mine) can handle much more than 9600 lbs in my opinion.

I also bought 7 because road debris do happen. I will have 7 - Michelin tires with 8k on them for sale soon if anyone is interested.

mac 'him is mac' gyvr

I don’t necessarily agree with that logic/assumption because the lighter E-350s are rated even lower in spite of using the identical tires. Ford detail specs show the E-450 rear axle at 9,600 pounds, so I’d stick with that regardless of tire rating.

To your question, Continental Vanco seem like a major player in Europe on OEM tires. Quick search shows Hancock like the spare I bought, General, etc. Not sure about Michelin which is brand I normally buy.

Not that I started the other thread, but I hate to keep adding information about 16” Commercial tires on a thread about 17.5” wheel conversions. Some of this information may be of value later, yet hard to find doing a forum search because of title.

[Chance]

P.S. — By the way, wasn’t suggesting that sometimes axles don’t exceed tire capacity. In my case, the rear is limited to 6,084 pounds due to tires, but axle is rated around 6,400 pounds.

Also, on Ford SRW E-350 cutaways, the rear is rated and limited by tires to same 6,084 pounds, but axle can go up to 7,800 pounds.

I personally think it’s a shame that Ford doesn’t install heavier-duty wheels and tires on these SRW E-350 chassis to make an 11,000 ~ 12,000 pound option. I’m not a big DRW fan when singles will do.

[macgyvr]

Having the new shoes put on today.

Four hour trip as soon as they are installed and I load the Jeep on the trailer.

mac ‘testing starts today’ gyvr

[blw2]

good deal macgyver!

Originally Posted by Chance

P.S. — By the way, wasn’t suggesting that sometimes axles don’t exceed tire capacity. In my case, the rear is limited to 6,084 pounds due to tires, but axle is rated around 6,400 pounds.

Also, on Ford SRW E-350 cutaways, the rear is rated and limited by tires to same 6,084 pounds, but axle can go up to 7,800 pounds.

I personally think it’s a shame that Ford doesn’t install heavier-duty wheels and tires on these SRW E-350 chassis to make an 11,000 ~ 12,000 pound option. I’m not a big DRW fan when singles will do.

Just a gut feel opinion... my guess is that you are right about tires not always being the weak link... brakes and lots of other variables go into it, not just axle strength and tires.

My guess on my rig is this...& considering I'm running the rear axle at capacity. I feel like the tires probably are my weak link. the axle is likely much more thoroughly engineered and sized, with good safety factor built in, good tolerances, lots of testing, etc... ditto the suspension, brakes, etc...

but the tires are a disposable thing.... engineered and tested of course in design, but they are not intended to last as long as that axle is.
On top of all of that, they are subjected to so much more abuse...

Running right at the rated limit, I'd "sleep easier", big time, if my tires were rated much higher than my axle.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by blw2

.....cut.....

Running right at the rated limit, I'd "sleep easier", big time, if my tires were rated much higher than my axle.

No doubt if I was replacing tires on a “C” or Axis, I’d spend a little more to get the higher load rating as long as it didn’t affect fuel economy — and I don’t expect it should.


My point was that upgrading tires doesn’t upgrade the overall load rating, which I believe you agree with. It just reduces risk of blowouts, so improves safety some. We shouldn’t overlook axles and other components though because their failure can be more dangerous than a blown tire. A cousin rolled a Jeep when he lost a rear axle with wheel. My father’s boss broke a rear axle on a Ford F-150, and fortunately came to a stop minus one wheel. And a high school friend broke a rear leaf spring, which led to a minor accident, but could have easily been serious if not for great luck. By comparison most blown tires don’t cause an accident at all.

So I agree tire failures are more common, but consequences aren’t usually as bad.