Tyre Pressure ?

[robkilby]

How should I know what the pressure should be in my vans tyres ( Autosleeper Boxer Symbol) ?

 

There is a handwritten note from the previous owners ( 72psi), but I can't see anything official in the various handbooks

 

There is something in the door ( a sticker) but I guess this is for the van pre conversion

[tp002c784tp002c784tp]

 

Hi Rob

 

If you do a "Search" and type in tyres you will find numerous threads on tyres and how you can find the correct way to determine tyre pressures

 

Terry

[BarnacleBob]

Hello robkilby,

 

You need to know your individual axle weights to properly determine the correct pressures for your tyres.

If you don't have this already, go to a weighbridge to get this information.

 

Once you have the axle weights, look up www.tyresafe.org where you will find a chart giving recommended tyre pressures for your tyre size and axle weight.

 

Good luck

[JamesFrance]

robkilby - 2011-04-18 7:20 PM

 

There is something in the door ( a sticker) but I guess this is for the van pre conversion

 

For a panel van conversion wouldn't these be the correct pressures?

 

If you were ever involved in an accident I would have thought the police might well check that you were adhering to those.

[Derek Uzzell]

This is an earlier thread that may be of interest:

 

HTTP://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2660&posts=6

 

For what it's worth, an inflation pressure of 70psi (or over) of any standard 'light commercial vehicle' tyre fitted to a Symbol will almost certainly be beyond that tyre's design maximum. If the tyre were the 'camping-car' variety, then 70+psi would be OK tyre-design-wise, but would produce an unnecessarily hard ride.

[BGD]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-04-19 9:06 AM

 

This is an earlier thread that may be of interest:

 

HTTP://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2660&posts=6

 

For what it's worth, an inflation pressure of 70psi (or over) of any standard 'light commercial vehicle' tyre fitted to a Symbol will almost certainly be beyond that tyre's design maximum. If the tyre were the 'camping-car' variety, then 70+psi would be OK tyre-design-wise, but would produce an unnecessarily hard ride.

 

 

 

Don't all tyres come with the maximum recommended inflation psi actually stamped onto the sidewall nowadays?

I've no recollection of seeing one without that info.

 

[Guest Tracker]

If the tyres are Michelin and you know the axle weights you can contact Michelin with full details of tyres and weights and they will advise correct tyre pressures - and I wouldn't bet against them being a lot less than 70 psi?

 

I believe that some other tyre, but not all, makers can be just as helpful?

 

Chances are that at 7 years old the tyres are not original - but if they are you might consider replacing them if there is any cracking or crazing on the side walls?

 

Manufacture dates are on the side wall - usually the inside wall - and in four digit format showing the week and year made - so early January 2011 would be 0111

[robkilby]

Thanks for these very helpful comments.

 

I was a bit surprised to read the 72 psi note . They were all at mid 50s when I went to check them.

I think the side walls did say 70 ( can't check now cos i am in my dressing gown !!)

 

On the issue of replacemenmt due to age and cracking, i always ask the garege when I get a service to let me know of anything that needs doing, and ask them not to hold back on any marginal decisions. Next MOT and service is coming up....July i think

[jadatis]

You can calculate it with spreadsheet I made.

http://cid-a526e0eee092e6dc.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/pressurecalculationwithtemp.xls

There you can fill in the load-percentage .

This is a term I introduced,it means the % the real load is of the load you calculate the pressure for.

That you conversed the car to motorhome is not important, the Gross Axle weigth ratings ( GAWR) stay the same , and these are used for the tyrepressure-advice .

The equation I use in the spreadhseet is the same as that of the European tyre-makers, and proved to be reasonably save.

But you have to use a reserve for pressure loss in time, loadshifting and extra load, misreadings of pressure and load. By reactions I decided the load% of under 85% to give discomfort by bouncing.

Over 100% gives tire-damage. So If you calculate for 85% you are on the save side.

Front GAWR is seldomly overloaded, but back GAWR often, so use 85% for back and 95% front, is my estimation, but can be discussed.

[Guest Tracker]

Thanks for that Jadatis and welcome to the madhouse!

 

Well done for a fascinating bit of software and for sharing it with us - when I can get it to work!

 

Everyone will think it - so I may as well ask - so with respect, how can we be sure that the pressures predicted are reliable for all tyre makes and types and acceptable as evidence should a legal or insurance dispute arise please?

 

How do I open and use the spreadsheet please as although the page came up on screen when I followed the link I couldn't see how to use it?

 

Thanks.

[Derek Uzzell]

Tracker - 2011-04-19 9:20 PM

 

...Everyone will think it - so I may as well ask - so with respect, how can we be sure that the pressures predicted are reliable for all tyre makes and types and acceptable as evidence should a legal or insurance dispute arise please?...

 

The answer is, of course, that you can't be sure.

 

When people choose to diverge from the tyre inflation-pressures advised by the manufacturer of their vehicle, they need to keep in mind any potential/predictable consequences of that choice.

 

I'm only aware of one instance where an insurance provider was said to have quibbled over 'wrong' tyre pressures. This was mentioned years ago on a previous incarnation of this forum and suggested that a motorhome owner had changed from Michelin 'camping-car' tyres to 'light commercial vehicle' (LCV) tyres and failed to reduce the tyre pressures accordingly. Presumably (I don't recall much detail being provided) the motorhome was involved in an accident where tyre failure was believed to be contributory. A follow-up posting said that Michelin had been consulted and advised that the high inflation pressure that had been used was still within the LCV tyres' 'safety zone'. Consequently the insurance provider withdrew their objection.

 

This is a link to the relevant tyresafe section mentioned earlier by BarnacleBob

 

http://www.tyresafe.org/data/files/motorhome%20leaflet.pdf

 

but I think there's a fair chance the tyre size of robkilby's A-S Symbol may not be covered. My 2004 Michelin technical handbook indicates that a 2004 Boxer panel-van could have various tyre sizes as original equipment, but 205/70 R15C 106/104 seems like a fair bet.

 

If that's the tyre-size involved here, then Michelin's load/pressure recommendations for a 205/70 R15C 106/104R Agilis 81 were:

 

Axle load/pressure

 

1900kg/65psi

1740kg/58psi

1360kg/43psi

 

All tyres with a similar 'specification' (irrespective of make) will have similar load-to-pressure characteristics, so the above data may provide a useful indicator for assessing the suitability of tyre-pressure suggestions for that tyre size. Intermediate figures are obtainable via a simple stright-line graph.

 

It's worth reading the earlier threads involving contributions by "jadatis". These are:

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17932&posts=1

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17887&start=1

 

[Guest Tracker]

Many thanks again Derek for that well balanced and informative post.

 

Tyre pressure does not seem to be an exact science Derek, but my 2006 Autocruise Starlet II handbook shows 55 / 45 psi front / rear pressures on a van rated at 3500 kg. This figure is also stated in the Alko chassis handbook but both are at dramatic odds with the door frame figures.

 

The weighbridge split on our van last year fully laden and ready to go was 1650 / 1700 = 3350 kg and I run at 55 / 50 psi because I find the handling is a bit better with the extra 5 lb in the rears and they look to sit on the ground better without too much tyre depression at the rear and no noticeable effect on ride quality.

 

The original Peugeot plating of 1750 / 1900 / 3400 has been upgraded by the Alko chassis plate to 1750 / 2000 / 3500 and it is always good to be within weight limits. I therefore urge any buyers of any van to check the theoretical and actual weights on a weighbridge and to be aware of the risks of being over loaded because some converter's load limits are totally inadequate.

 

I am totally happy with the tyre set up and when I replace the cracked six year old tyres shortly - possibly with ordinary commercial tyres as I see no advantage in 'camping' tyres - I expect to use the same pressures as long as it sits correctly and rides and handles as well as it does now on the original 21/70 R15 109/107 rated XC Camping tyres.

 

I have to wonder whether I actually need as high a load rating as 107/109 but it is probably as well to have a saftety margin and keep the size and ratings as original on the assumption that Peugeot, Autocruise and Alko between them know more about it than I do!

 

It is worth noting that anyone applying altered tyres and/or pressures to their own van does need to ensure that both the tyre ratings and pressures are entirely safe and acceptable to both maker, the police and their insurer.

 

Others reading this should bear in mind also that the low line LWB Alko chassis puts more weight on the front wheelsand less on the rear than the standard chassis and this dramatically improves both front wheel grip and ride qualities, but at the expense of ground clearance and turning circle!

 

So now - which tyres to choose? Continental or Hangkook look interesting?

 

Not bothered about wear rates as I will never wear 'em out but comparative road noise and wet grip are much more of interest.

 

I hope some of the above helps others to find acceptable tyre pressures for their van but what is good for one is not always good for another - especially vans with long rear overhangs where weight distribution, body roll, tyre flexing etc are far from ideal and very different to the Alko chassis charecteristics with it's very short rear overhang and lack of pitching.

[Basil]

Tracker - 2011-04-20 10:17 AM

 

..................The original Peugeot plating of 1750 / 1900 / 3400 has been upgraded by the Alko chassis plate to 1750 / 2000 / 3500 and it is always good to be within weight limits. I therefore urge any buyers of any van to check the theoretical and actual weights on a weighbridge and to be aware of the risks of being over loaded because some converter's load limits are totally inadequate..........................

 

...........................................I have to wonder whether I actually need as high a load rating as 107/109 but it is probably as well to have a saftety margin and keep the size and ratings as original on the assumption that Peugeot, Autocruise and Alko between them know more about it than I do!

 

 

Hi Tracker, just an observation (as much to ensure my understanding is correct as anything), you state that the Alko replate gives 1750/2000/3500 therefore as I understood it you will legally be required to fit tyres of a load rating that will meet or exceed that requirement i.e. 107 rate is 975 so therefore is too low for half your rear axle load and 109 rate of 1030 exceeds half your rear axle max load so therefore you would be legally oblidged to fit tyres of the load rating you are wondering if you need, or am I wrong here somewhere?

 

Bas

[robkilby]

Well. I am enjoying this...but feel well out of my comfort zone !

 

I looked at the sheet from my recent service last night and they record the pressures as 48psi all round, and 50 in the spare.

 

On the door of the van, in Italian, it says 70 for the front ( I think) and then some strange info about the back and three very different levels , something like 30, 50 and 80 !

 

My girlfriend phoned our motorhome garage and they said 48, so I have reduced them down to that figure again

[Guest Tracker]

Basil - 2011-04-20 6:43 PM

 

Hi Tracker, just an observation (as much to ensure my understanding is correct as anything), you state that the Alko replate gives 1750/2000/3500 therefore as I understood it you will legally be required to fit tyres of a load rating that will meet or exceed that requirement i.e. 107 rate is 975 so therefore is too low for half your rear axle load and 109 rate of 1030 exceeds half your rear axle max load so therefore you would be legally oblidged to fit tyres of the load rating you are wondering if you need, or am I wrong here somewhere?

 

Bas

 

Well spotted that man!

The tyre load rating to maximum load and not actual load had not filtered it's way down through the furred up bits that used to be called brain cells!

I like to think that it would have done eventually but meanwhile I thank my learned friend for his assistance!

[jadatis]

If you calculate it you use the same calculation the tyre-manufacturers still use.

The equation was introduced in 1928 for cross plie tires ( same as diagonal tires??) .

When the radial tire was introduced they chanched the power in the universal equation from 0,585 to 0,5 for normal car tires ( standard load) and 0,7 for truck-tires and the tires we use for motorhomes.

In Europe they upgraded the power between 1970 and 1990, to 0,8 ( lower loads for a sertain pressure). In America they only chanched it in 2005 , as they say for worldwide harmonisation , but to my opion because accidents happened with the Ford Explorer for wich they still calculated with the old 0,5 power, to the european 0,8 power.

Found an article of J.C. Daws , an American , with a new way of calculating , and comparison with the old power -equation and its diferent powers used in Europe and America.

http://www.dawsengineering.com/dewebsite2_003.htm

On this page click the 5th wheel for it. It is a long article, but scroll over it to the conclusions and the graphics.

There the end-conclusion is , that if you keep using the power Equation, you better use for motorhome-tyres, a power of 0,9 to 0,95 .

So people who use part of max load = part maximum pressure dont do it that wrong, gives only a little bit to high pressures,so never unsave.

To compare the different powers , I also made a spreadsheet. You will get the same lists as the tire-manufacturer gives, but can fill in your own steps to go down with from reference-pressure, and your own power. Read it and play with it.

Download the spreadsheets and open them in Excell or likewise programm to work with it , and not directly in the browser. It has become a little more difficult to get it that way lately , the browser keeps trying to open it .

http://cid-a526e0eee092e6dc.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/calculateloadRV.xls

click download in this page and open it afterward in Excell.

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Tracker - 2011-04-20 7:51 PM

 

Basil - 2011-04-20 6:43 PM

 

Hi Tracker, just an observation (as much to ensure my understanding is correct as anything), you state that the Alko replate gives 1750/2000/3500 therefore as I understood it you will legally be required to fit tyres of a load rating that will meet or exceed that requirement i.e. 107 rate is 975 so therefore is too low for half your rear axle load and 109 rate of 1030 exceeds half your rear axle max load so therefore you would be legally oblidged to fit tyres of the load rating you are wondering if you need, or am I wrong here somewhere?

 

Bas

 

Well spotted that man!

The tyre load rating to maximum load and not actual load had not filtered it's way down through the furred up bits that used to be called brain cells!

I like to think that it would have done eventually but meanwhile I thank my learned friend for his assistance!

 

The correct technical description of the load-carrying capability and speed rating of a 215/70 R15C Michelin XC Camping tyre is 109/107Q, NOT (as Tracker originally suggested) 107/109.

 

This is not nit-picking - the first figure (109) is the load index when the tyre is fitted to a 'single-wheel axle' (ie. an axle that has just one wheel at each end), while the second figure is the load index when the tyre is fitted to a 'twin-wheel axle' (ie. an axle that has two wheels at each end). The letter (in this case "Q") indicates the speed at which the tyre can carry the load corresponding with its load index.

 

Tracker's Starlet (like most UK-registered motorhomes) has single-wheel axles and the 109 load index and Q speed rating indicate that his tyres are each designed to carry a maximum load of 1030kg at 160kmh (roughly 99mph). The Starlet's rear-axle load-carrying limit is 2000kg, so its present tyres should be adequate for the job.

 

For STATIC loads of 1650kg or 1700kg, Michelin's inflation-pressure recommendation for an XC Camping 215/70 R15 XC Camping tyre would be around 50psi or 53psi respectively. However, Michelin normally suggest that front tyres be inflated an extra 10% above the static-load pressure to better deal with the loads placed on them during braking and cornering.

 

Tracker's first 20 April posting seems to suggest that he uses 55psi(front) and 50psi(rear), but his follow-on comment suggests the pressures are actually the other way round. Either way, Tracker's chosen inflation pressures seem near enough.

 

The Autocruise handbook recommendation of 45psi(rear) for a 2006 3500kg Starlet is very dubious as Tracker's weighbridge readings suggest that the vehicle's rear axle might be loadable to 1850kg (1700kg + (3500kg - 3350kg)), which would demand an inflation pressure of about 57psi. (I've assumed the 1650/1700 "weighbridge split" is front/rear.)

 

It would be interesting to know where robkilby's motorhome garage got their 48ps front & rear figures from, but the earlier forum thread I referred to suggests that the pressures may well be suitable. Personally, I'd want to check with Auto-Sleepers about this and, if the advice from A-S differed significantly from the garage's, I'd want to weigh the vehicle in loaded state to confirm its axle loadings.

 

It does need emphasising that motorhomes aren't Formula One racing cars and smallish adjustments to motorhome tyre pressures won't make major differences to the vehicle's on-road performance. I doubt very much that, if robkilby inflated his Symbol's tyres to 53psi (that's a 5psi and roughly 10% increase), he'd notice any difference. Moving from 48psi to 72psi (that's an extra 24psi and 50% increase) would, of course, be quite another matter!

[Guest Tracker]

Thanks Derek - I must admit to being unaware of the importance of a 'Q' - I continue to learn from the master - and I do indeed use 55 psi front and 50 psi rear.

 

Can I call upon your expertise and experience once again Derek please?

 

Would you buy 'camping' tyres as replacements given that, in this instance, there seems to be no need of the higher pressures that camping tyres seem to be capable of - and do you - or does anyone else - have experience of the relative merits and demerits of any specific makes of commercial tyre please?

 

Many thanks.

[robkilby]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-04-21 8:40 AM

 

Tracker - 2011-04-20 7:51 PM

 

Basil - 2011-04-20 6:43 PM

 

Hi Tracker, just an observation (as much to ensure my understanding is correct as anything), you state that the Alko replate gives 1750/2000/3500 therefore as I understood it you will legally be required to fit tyres of a load rating that will meet or exceed that requirement i.e. 107 rate is 975 so therefore is too low for half your rear axle load and 109 rate of 1030 exceeds half your rear axle max load so therefore you would be legally oblidged to fit tyres of the load rating you are wondering if you need, or am I wrong here somewhere?

 

Bas

 

Well spotted that man!

The tyre load rating to maximum load and not actual load had not filtered it's way down through the furred up bits that used to be called brain cells!

I like to think that it would have done eventually but meanwhile I thank my learned friend for his assistance!

 

The correct technical description of the load-carrying capability and speed rating of a 215/70 R15C Michelin XC Camping tyre is 109/107Q, NOT (as Tracker originally suggested) 107/109.

 

This is not nit-picking - the first figure (109) is the load index when the tyre is fitted to a 'single-wheel axle' (ie. an axle that has just one wheel at each end), while the second figure is the load index when the tyre is fitted to a 'twin-wheel axle' (ie. an axle that has two wheels at each end). The letter (in this case "Q") indicates the speed at which the tyre can carry the load corresponding with its load index.

 

Tracker's Starlet (like most UK-registered motorhomes) has single-wheel axles and the 109 load index and Q speed rating indicate that his tyres are each designed to carry a maximum load of 1030kg at 160kmh (roughly 99mph). The Starlet's rear-axle load-carrying limit is 2000kg, so its present tyres should be adequate for the job.

 

For STATIC loads of 1650kg or 1700kg, Michelin's inflation-pressure recommendation for an XC Camping 215/70 R15 XC Camping tyre would be around 50psi or 53psi respectively. However, Michelin normally suggest that front tyres be inflated an extra 10% above the static-load pressure to better deal with the loads placed on them during braking and cornering.

 

Tracker's first 20 April posting seems to suggest that he uses 55psi(front) and 50psi(rear), but his follow-on comment suggests the pressures are actually the other way round. Either way, Tracker's chosen inflation pressures seem near enough.

 

The Autocruise handbook recommendation of 45psi(rear) for a 2006 3500kg Starlet is very dubious as Tracker's weighbridge readings suggest that the vehicle's rear axle might be loadable to 1850kg (1700kg + (3500kg - 3350kg)), which would demand an inflation pressure of about 57psi. (I've assumed the 1650/1700 "weighbridge split" is front/rear.)

 

It would be interesting to know where robkilby's motorhome garage got their 48ps front & rear figures from, but the earlier forum thread I referred to suggests that the pressures may well be suitable. Personally, I'd want to check with Auto-Sleepers about this and, if the advice from A-S differed significantly from the garage's, I'd want to weigh the vehicle in loaded state to confirm its axle loadings.

 

It does need emphasising that motorhomes aren't Formula One racing cars and smallish adjustments to motorhome tyre pressures won't make major differences to the vehicle's on-road performance. I doubt very much that, if robkilby inflated his Symbol's tyres to 53psi (that's a 5psi and roughly 10% increase), he'd notice any difference. Moving from 48psi to 72psi (that's an extra 24psi and 50% increase) would, of course, be quite another matter!

 

I will ask the garage when I am there soonish....happy at the moment and also hapy that i know how to check the tyres..I probably hadn't done tyres for twenty years !

[Derek Uzzell]

robkilby - 2011-04-21 7:54 PM

 

I will ask the garage when I am there soonish....happy at the moment and also hapy that i know how to check the tyres..I probably hadn't done tyres for twenty years !

 

Don't forget (as Tracker mentioned earlier) the possibility that your Symbol's tyres may be the ones originally fitted to the motorhome and, hence, 7 years old. Although tyre-age on its own isn't something that will result in MOT-test failure, many people (including me) would be wary of using tyres that old.

 

When you visit your garage, it would be useful to ask them to confirm the age of each tyre (including the spare). If you want to check this yourself, then there's a good deal of information on:

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22793&posts=14

[Derek Uzzell]

Tracker - 2011-04-21 2:22 PM

 

Thanks Derek - I must admit to being unaware of the importance of a 'Q' - I continue to learn from the master - and I do indeed use 55 psi front and 50 psi rear.

 

Can I call upon your expertise and experience once again Derek please?

 

Would you buy 'camping' tyres as replacements given that, in this instance, there seems to be no need of the higher pressures that camping tyres seem to be capable of - and do you - or does anyone else - have experience of the relative merits and demerits of any specific makes of commercial tyre please?

 

Many thanks.

 

This is an earlier thread that may be helpful:

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23261&posts=25

 

This article may also be useful

 

http://www.giordanobenicchi.it/camper/promobil_ra08.pdf

 

though it needs to be said that it was published in mid-2005, so won't necessarily cover current products. It does, however, show that all tyres aren't created equal - especially in the wet.

 

When I recently replaced my 2005 Hobby's tyres, I chose Continental Vanco-2s to replace the original Continental Vanco-8s. The Vanco-2 has a quite different tread pattern to the Vanco-8, so it's impossible to tell whether its performance would match that of the Vanco-8 tested by Promobil. New tyres are shiny and hard, and it's common for people to claim that steering is lighter and road-noise less after replacing tyres. 1000 miles down the road, steering will have heavied up and it's quite likely road-noise will have also increased as the tyre's tread surface scuffs in. I THINK the Vanco-2s are a bit quieter than the Vanco-8s, but I wouldn't swear to it. As far as on-road performance is concerned, I never had any complaints about the Vanco-8s. I could lose traction in the wet in an urban environment if I was heavy on the throttle, but I would expect that to happen with any LCV (or 'camping-car') tyre. No idea what the Vanco-8's or Vanco-2's ultimate grip was/is like, and I've no intention of finding out!

 

Forum questions about tyres often provoke responses on the lines of "I had tyre-type A and they were rubbish - now I've got cheapo tyre-type B and they are brilliant." This may be true, but there may also be caveats.

 

I once met a motorcaravanner with a recent-ish Fiat X250-based Auto-Trail Cheyenne. He told me this had a 4-tonne chassis and a 'chipped' 2.3litre motor. He said that the original Michelin XC Camping tyres had been appalling grip-wise in the wet and he'd replaced them with Hankook tyres that were a vast improvement regarding grip and ride quality, and also offered the advantage of being M+S-marked. So a big vote of confidence for the Hankooks? Well maybe...

 

The tyre size for a X250 'maxi' chassis is 225/75 R16C and this wasn't available in the XC Camping pattern. So we are probably comparing Michelin Agilis Camping (also M+S-marked) with (probably) Hankook RA08. The motorcaravanner added that he had been using 85psi for the Michelins and 65psi for the Hankooks. I immediately thought to myself that, if the Cheyenne's axle-loadings allowed 65psi to be used safely for the Hankooks then, logically, 65psi should have been adequate for the Michelins. And, if you are essentially over-inflating a tyre by 20psi, it's hardly surprising that it might not perform as well as it might at a more appropriate lower pressure. That's not to say that a Hankook RA08 isn't better in the wet than an equivalent-size Michelin Agilis Camping - it may well be for all I know - it's just that you have to be careful about what people tell you.

 

In your case, as you are using pressures well within the comfort zone of any 215/70 R15C tyre with a 109 load index, I can't see any technical requirement whatsoever to opt for 'camping-car' tyres. Price-wise, you'll almost certainly pay more for a 'premium' brand-name like Continental or Michelin than for, say, Hankook, Kumho or Toyo. I'm not aware of any independent test of LCV tyres that will allow you to make a realistic value-for-money decision about whether paying the former's higher price is worthwhile, but it's fair to expect all of the tyres to do a reasonable job. As I was happy with the Vanco-8s on my Hobby, I chose Vanco-2s as replacements and selected a local supplier who offered a good deal. If I had needed to pay less I would have gone for the Hankkook RA08. What I would not have done is choose some obscure Chinese-made cut-price brand as all independent tests of 'car' tyres have revealed that some of these fall into the crap-in-the-wet category.

[Guest Tracker]

Thanks Derek. I never buy cheap tyres but by the same rule I am not so keen on paying for the most expensive tyre available either - unless there is clear evidence that the extra cost translates to a quieter ride and better wet braking!

 

After all if you are spending £400 once every six years another £100 ain't gonna break the bank!

 

I doubt I will ever need to replace the tyres on this van again so, like many of us, I am happy to pay for a premium product - up to a point.

 

Peace of mind is everything and when belting down a busy M25 at 45 mph in the rain and four solid lanes of often unpredictable traffic knowing I have good dependable rubber twixt me and the deck is worth a lot to me.

 

I'll have a look at Vanco 2s and Hankook RA08 - Kumho and Toyo have also been around a long time but any cheapo Chinese or Eastern European brands are an absolute nono.

 

Different tyres have different qualities so you can't really generalise but Continental always do well for wet performance in motor magazine tyre tests.

 

 

[tp002c784tp002c784tp]

Hi All

I have much to my sorrow had to fit four new tyres on my Fiat Lunar Roadstar, The reason I say sorrow is the vehicle has only done 6500 miles it is registered 2007 ( 57 ) but is the old model 2.8jtd.

I could have bought the X250 but because of all the troubles with this model at the time I declined and glad I did now.

 

Even the it is Registered 2007 it is the last of the 2006 models, I am over the moon with the performance and the layout of this vehicle ( I digress back to the Tyres ) I was a bit shocked a couple of weeks ago when I inspected the tyres Michelin xc campers to find the walls had fine cracks in them and when I found the date stamp they turned out to be 04 stamped, So either the tyres where old when they where put on or my vehicle is a bit older than I thought.

 

Any way I searched the forum and the net inquired at all my local tyre firms and ended up with Continental Campers, I done the same with these tyre as I did with the Michelin, Emailed Continental with the the vehicle weights and within 3 hours they replied with recommendid pressures so I think it is well worth doing this for peace of Mind

 

Terry

[Derek Uzzell]

tp002c784tp002c784tp - 2011-05-01 7:57 PM

 

Hi All

I have much to my sorrow had to fit four new tyres on my Fiat Lunar Roadstar, The reason I say sorrow is the vehicle has only done 6500 miles it is registered 2007 ( 57 ) but is the old model 2.8jtd.

I could have bought the X250 but because of all the troubles with this model at the time I declined and glad I did now.

 

Even the it is Registered 2007 it is the last of the 2006 models, I am over the moon with the performance and the layout of this vehicle ( I digress back to the Tyres ) I was a bit shocked a couple of weeks ago when I inspected the tyres Michelin xc campers to find the walls had fine cracks in them and when I found the date stamp they turned out to be 04 stamped, So either the tyres where old when they where put on or my vehicle is a bit older than I thought.

 

Any way I searched the forum and the net inquired at all my local tyre firms and ended up with Continental Campers, I done the same with these tyre as I did with the Michelin, Emailed Continental with the the vehicle weights and within 3 hours they replied with recommendid pressures so I think it is well worth doing this for peace of Mind

 

Terry

 

It's not that uncommon for the date of manufacture of the tyres fitted to a new motorhome to be significantly earlier than the vehicle's date of registration (the tyres on my Herald were about 8 months old when the motorhome was first registered, and there have been horror stories where a motorhome's warranty had virtually expired before it was sold 'brand new'. But 2004-manufactured tyres on a 2007-registered motorhome is, on the face of it, pretty extreme.

 

One might expect the Michelin XC Camping tyres of your Lunar to have been fitted when the chassis left the Fiat factory and (presumably) a Fiat main agent should be able to tell you when that happened if you provide your vehicle's VIN number. Factory-fitted tyres are normally near enough new - certainly it would be strange if your motorhome's chassis had been made in, say, early-2006 and had been fitted with 2004-manufactured tyres. On the other hand, if the tyres had been made at the close of 2004 and the chassis sometime in 2005, it might not be so odd. There were problems with Lunar motorhome production a few years back (not just with the Home-car part of the organisation), so possibly your Roadstar was built on an 'old' chassis whose date of manufacture roughly matched the tyres. I expect Lunar's records could identify when your motorhome's conversion took place.

 

A salutary warning for buyers of 2nd-hand motorhomes.

 

(I have heard it said that the outer surface of a tyre's sidewall is just a cosmetic skin and minor sidewall 'crazing' (which seems to be common with the XC Camping pattern) will not affect the integrity of the rest of the tyre. Obviously if a tyre's sidewall is badly cracked or the crazing is severe, it's another matter.)

[Keithl]

Terry,

 

There are a lot of other ways of dating a base vehicle, for example look at the labels on seat belts as they have to show date of manufacture by law.

Then look for any date codes on plastic mouldings, such as the ash tray, which are easily removable. These codes will probably be in the form of a 'clock' and will show either week number and year or month and year. In all cases once you have identified the 'code' you will quickly build up an idea of when your MH's base vehicle was built.

 

HTH,

Keith.