Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
ยป Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > alt.autos.ford
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2005, 16:01   #1 (permalink)
Nomen Nescio
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point on Tire Profiles.

Amazingly some of these utility type vehicles are being fitted with -55 and
-50 tire profiles. For you out there who don't know what this
specification means, I am referring to the new low profile tires, usually
fitted to oversized wheels.

When you see a car or truck that looks like its riding on its rims, it has
those abdominal low profile tires installed. Its a pure gimmick on the
part of the auto makers.

A neat side effect is instead of $35 tires, your replacement is going to
cost about $150 or more.

How does C.R. prove my point? Easy. Every one of these cars rode "noisy".
That's because the stiff sidewalls of low profile tires telegraph all the
noise into the cabin. Also, because there's little air cushion, the rides
are harsh.

Not to mention its impossible to wear a wide imprint tire evenly. Its also
impossible to maintain alignment and avoid cupping, that's why cars which
are perfectly aligned start pulling hard to the right after the tires wear
into a pattern, then bounce like crazy. This NEVER happened when tires
were -90, -80 or -75. When tires were -70 or less, that's when all Hell
broke loose and cars no longer where the comfortable conveyences we had
grown to love. They're all bastards now, one and all and its due 100% to
low profile tires.

Here's another proof and its an unrefutable foolproof proof. All airplane
tires, from the littleist Piper Cubby to the great big Airbus Double Decker
all have -90 to -100 tires. If low profile tires were so good, they'd put
them on airplanes (and it would save them precious space in the wheel
well). They don't, so that proves it, once and for all.

Do not throw your money away by buying cars with those stupid tires.
Boycott all makers until they get the point and start putting real rubber
back on our cars.

  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-13-2005, 17:01   #2 (permalink)
Backyard Mechanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

> Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point on Tire Profiles.


What point... did they liken them to the one on top'a your haid?


>
> Amazingly ...


yawn... snip!
>
> A neat side effect is instead of $35 tires, your replacement is going
> to cost about $150 or more.


Who buys $35 tires? And where can you GET $35 LT's?

I dont, I wont and the only time I ever DID was when I was a kid without
a job.

>
> How does C.R. prove my point? Easy. Every one of these cars rode
> "noisy". That's because the stiff sidewalls of low profile tires
> telegraph all the noise into the cabin. Also, because there's little
> air cushion, the rides are harsh.
>
> Not to mention its impossible to wear a wide imprint tire evenly. Its
> also impossible to maintain alignment and avoid cupping, that's why
> cars which are perfectly aligned start pulling hard to the right after
> the tires wear into a pattern, then bounce like crazy. This NEVER
> happened when tires were -90, -80 or -75.


Yeah! Back to them 6.50 - 16's!!!

And Doughnut white sidewalls

But, say... back then, didnt they all wear out the tread at 25,000
anyway?

> When tires were -70 or
> less, that's when all Hell broke loose and cars no longer where the
> comfortable conveyences we had grown to love. They're all bastards
> now, one and all and its due 100% to low profile tires.
>
> Here's another proof and its an unrefutable foolproof proof.


Say again? You mean like .. it's bogus?

> ... They don't, so that proves it, once and for
> all.


uh.. you forgot NASCAR tires

>
> Do not throw your money away by buying cars with those stupid tires.
> Boycott all makers until they get the point and start putting real
> rubber back on our cars.
>
>


Or not... just let me have the last word on "dizum.com", here!

Then we can boycott him.


--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2005, 17:01   #3 (permalink)
Spike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:40:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point on Tire Profiles.
>
>Amazingly some of these utility type vehicles are being fitted with -55 and
>-50 tire profiles. For you out there who don't know what this
>specification means, I am referring to the new low profile tires, usually
>fitted to oversized wheels.
>
>When you see a car or truck that looks like its riding on its rims, it has
>those abdominal low profile tires installed. Its a pure gimmick on the
>part of the auto makers.
>
>A neat side effect is instead of $35 tires, your replacement is going to
>cost about $150 or more.
>
>How does C.R. prove my point? Easy. Every one of these cars rode "noisy".
>That's because the stiff sidewalls of low profile tires telegraph all the
>noise into the cabin. Also, because there's little air cushion, the rides
>are harsh.
>
>Not to mention its impossible to wear a wide imprint tire evenly. Its also
>impossible to maintain alignment and avoid cupping, that's why cars which
>are perfectly aligned start pulling hard to the right after the tires wear
>into a pattern, then bounce like crazy. This NEVER happened when tires
>were -90, -80 or -75. When tires were -70 or less, that's when all Hell
>broke loose and cars no longer where the comfortable conveyences we had
>grown to love. They're all bastards now, one and all and its due 100% to
>low profile tires.
>
>Here's another proof and its an unrefutable foolproof proof. All airplane
>tires, from the littleist Piper Cubby to the great big Airbus Double Decker
>all have -90 to -100 tires. If low profile tires were so good, they'd put
>them on airplanes (and it would save them precious space in the wheel
>well). They don't, so that proves it, once and for all.
>
>Do not throw your money away by buying cars with those stupid tires.
>Boycott all makers until they get the point and start putting real rubber
>back on our cars.


They been doing stuff like that for years and years. The 91 GTA I had
came with Z rated Goodyear's. Then California passes a law which puts
liability on any tire shop who changes from the "originally installed
equipment". The tires, installed were over $200 each, and that does
not include the fact that to rotate them, they had to be taken off the
rims because of the different rim size between front and rear. And,
without tearing up the streets, the compound was so soft I got about
10 months out of each set. I finally found a place that was willing to
downgrade the rating and stayed with the replacements.

Kinda reminds me of buying a printer for $49 and then having to pay
$35 for each ink cartridge.
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2005, 18:01   #4 (permalink)
Jim Warman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

OK... now that you have decided what kind of tires I like, can please tell
me my favourite colour and what my favourite dish are...... I've been
waiting for someone to tell me oh, so many things for such a long
time.......


  Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2005, 19:01   #5 (permalink)
Bill Putney
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> ...All airplane
> tires, from the littleist Piper Cubby to the great big Airbus Double Decker
> all have -90 to -100 tires. If low profile tires were so good, they'd put
> them on airplanes (and it would save them precious space in the wheel
> well). They don't, so that proves it, once and for all.


Apples and oranges. There are synergistic huge savings in using high
profile tires on aircraft:
(1) The tire/wheel combined weight is less with high profile tires (of a
given tread OD) - weight is much more of a premium on aircraft than on
automobiles.
(2) The tire/wheel combined moment of inertia is less for a high profile
tire (of a given tread OD). This does two things:
(a) The shock to the tire when it contacts the runway on landing is
less to spin the tire up in a matter of milliseconds, and
(b) The landing gear can be designed to be less bulky (lighter) to
absorb the shock of the tire contacting the runway on landing due to
(a). This in turn leads to even more weight savings than *just* the
tire/wheel combination (hence my previous comment about the effects
being synergistic in light of the premium put on weight savings in
aircraft design).

While similar effects are seen on automobiles, they are orders of
magnitude less than on aircraft. On cars, people are willing to pay the
penalty (higher unsprung weight, decreased acceleration due to higher
moment of inertia, harsher ride) for some reason. On aircraft, there is
a significant overall cost and payload capacity impact - not so with the
automobile (and in automobiles, you do get improved steering response
with low profile - not a factor with aircraft; aesthetic improvement -
real or imagined - may also play a part - not a factor with aircraft).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2005, 20:01   #6 (permalink)
Count Floyd
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

Bill Putney wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> ...All airplane
>> tires, from the littleist Piper Cubby to the great big Airbus Double
>> Decker
>> all have -90 to -100 tires. If low profile tires were so good, they'd
>> put
>> them on airplanes (and it would save them precious space in the wheel
>> well). They don't, so that proves it, once and for all.

>
>
> Apples and oranges. There are synergistic huge savings in using high
> profile tires on aircraft:
> (1) The tire/wheel combined weight is less with high profile tires (of a
> given tread OD) - weight is much more of a premium on aircraft than on
> automobiles.
> (2) The tire/wheel combined moment of inertia is less for a high profile
> tire (of a given tread OD). This does two things:
> (a) The shock to the tire when it contacts the runway on landing is
> less to spin the tire up in a matter of milliseconds, and
> (b) The landing gear can be designed to be less bulky (lighter) to
> absorb the shock of the tire contacting the runway on landing due to
> (a). This in turn leads to even more weight savings than *just* the
> tire/wheel combination (hence my previous comment about the effects
> being synergistic in light of the premium put on weight savings in
> aircraft design).
>
> While similar effects are seen on automobiles, they are orders of
> magnitude less than on aircraft. On cars, people are willing to pay the
> penalty (higher unsprung weight, decreased acceleration due to higher
> moment of inertia, harsher ride) for some reason. On aircraft, there is
> a significant overall cost and payload capacity impact - not so with the
> automobile (and in automobiles, you do get improved steering response
> with low profile - not a factor with aircraft; aesthetic improvement -
> real or imagined - may also play a part - not a factor with aircraft).
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

My 6.50x16, Firestone Champions on my 1940 Royal Coupe ride smooth! I
agree with you on the profile. I am going to change to a 75 series tire
on my wife's 2005 PT Cruiser Convertible when the originals go south.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2005, 22:01   #7 (permalink)
Shoe Salesman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

NO! PLEASE! NO! NOT AGAIN Nomen!
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:24884bb354187ff6fe302b37907fe958@dizum.com...
> Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point on Tire Profiles.
>
> Amazingly some of these utility type vehicles are being fitted with -55
> and
> -50 tire profiles. For you out there who don't know what this
> specification means, I am referring to the new low profile tires, usually
> fitted to oversized wheels.
>
> When you see a car or truck that looks like its riding on its rims, it has
> those abdominal low profile tires installed. Its a pure gimmick on the
> part of the auto makers.
>
> A neat side effect is instead of $35 tires, your replacement is going to
> cost about $150 or more.
>
> How does C.R. prove my point? Easy. Every one of these cars rode
> "noisy".
> That's because the stiff sidewalls of low profile tires telegraph all the
> noise into the cabin. Also, because there's little air cushion, the rides
> are harsh.
>
> Not to mention its impossible to wear a wide imprint tire evenly. Its
> also
> impossible to maintain alignment and avoid cupping, that's why cars which
> are perfectly aligned start pulling hard to the right after the tires wear
> into a pattern, then bounce like crazy. This NEVER happened when tires
> were -90, -80 or -75. When tires were -70 or less, that's when all Hell
> broke loose and cars no longer where the comfortable conveyences we had
> grown to love. They're all bastards now, one and all and its due 100% to
> low profile tires.
>
> Here's another proof and its an unrefutable foolproof proof. All airplane
> tires, from the littleist Piper Cubby to the great big Airbus Double
> Decker
> all have -90 to -100 tires. If low profile tires were so good, they'd put
> them on airplanes (and it would save them precious space in the wheel
> well). They don't, so that proves it, once and for all.
>
> Do not throw your money away by buying cars with those stupid tires.
> Boycott all makers until they get the point and start putting real rubber
> back on our cars.
>



  Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2005, 22:01   #8 (permalink)
Oscar_Lives
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point


"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:24884bb354187ff6fe302b37907fe958@dizum.com...
> Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point on Tire Profiles.
>
> Amazingly some of these utility type vehicles are being fitted with -55
> and
> -50 tire profiles. For you out there who don't know what this
> specification means, I am referring to the new low profile tires, usually
> fitted to oversized wheels.
>
> When you see a car or truck that looks like its riding on its rims, it has
> those abdominal low profile tires installed. Its a pure gimmick on the
> part of the auto makers.
>
> A neat side effect is instead of $35 tires, your replacement is going to
> cost about $150 or more.
>
> How does C.R. prove my point? Easy. Every one of these cars rode
> "noisy".
> That's because the stiff sidewalls of low profile tires telegraph all the
> noise into the cabin. Also, because there's little air cushion, the rides
> are harsh.
>
> Not to mention its impossible to wear a wide imprint tire evenly. Its
> also
> impossible to maintain alignment and avoid cupping, that's why cars which
> are perfectly aligned start pulling hard to the right after the tires wear
> into a pattern, then bounce like crazy. This NEVER happened when tires
> were -90, -80 or -75. When tires were -70 or less, that's when all Hell
> broke loose and cars no longer where the comfortable conveyences we had
> grown to love. They're all bastards now, one and all and its due 100% to
> low profile tires.
>
> Here's another proof and its an unrefutable foolproof proof. All airplane
> tires, from the littleist Piper Cubby to the great big Airbus Double
> Decker
> all have -90 to -100 tires. If low profile tires were so good, they'd put
> them on airplanes (and it would save them precious space in the wheel
> well). They don't, so that proves it, once and for all.
>
> Do not throw your money away by buying cars with those stupid tires.
> Boycott all makers until they get the point and start putting real rubber
> back on our cars.
>


Its the ****ing fault of the rappers and ricers.


  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 06:01   #9 (permalink)
joe schmoe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:40:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

Sorry couldn't resist so here goes

><snip>
>
>When you see a car or truck that looks like its riding on its rims, it has
>those abdominal low profile tires installed. Its a pure gimmick on the
>part of the auto makers.


The "gimmick" as you refer to it, is required to allow clearance for
larger disc brakes and components while retaining a wheel small enough
to not impair acceleration or carry undue inertia. Everyone wants a
car that will stop on a dime, offer razor sharp steering, snappy
acceleration from a rest and most importantly "look like a race car".
Hence lower profile tires on larger rims

>A neat side effect is instead of $35 tires, your replacement is going to
>cost about $150 or more.


Not if you are able to fit smaller rims and tires on your vehicle
>
>How does C.R. prove my point? Easy. Every one of these cars rode "noisy".
>That's because the stiff sidewalls of low profile tires telegraph all the
>noise into the cabin. Also, because there's little air cushion, the rides
>are harsh.

I do believe that you are confusing the speed ratings requirements
with air cushion. " Z" rated tires require a much stiffer sidewall
than an "S" rated tire. Sports car performance = sports car tires.
>
>Not to mention its impossible to wear a wide imprint tire evenly. Its also
>impossible to maintain alignment and avoid cupping, that's why cars which
>are perfectly aligned start pulling hard to the right after the tires wear
>into a pattern, then bounce like crazy.


this is news to me

> This NEVER happened when tires
>were -90, -80 or -75.


Might want to think back, Think of the Goodyears that came stock on
the Chrysler "K" cars.... I could give countless other examples
(continental Contacts on some VW's etc, etc, etc.
>When tires were -70 or less, that's when all Hell
>broke loose and cars no longer where the comfortable conveyences we had
>grown to love. They're all bastards now, one and all and its due 100% to
>low profile tires.


You give too much credit to the tires. Don't forget the changes in
suspension and engine tuning. Most car buyers at the moment have a
hard on for the "European Engineering" Not realizing that European
cars handle like they do because their roads are shit, Europeans are
willing to trade a louder, stiffer ride and more money in their cars
in exchange for a car that can take an unmarked 90' corner at 60 MPH
and come to a sudden stop at the other side when a farmer with muck
covered lights backs out into the road
>
><snip>
>Do not throw your money away by buying cars with those stupid tires.
>Boycott all makers until they get the point and start putting real rubber
>back on our cars.


People already are doing that. Take a look at the dealers sales of
SUV's and Pickup Trucks. Most do not come with 40 series tires.

Having said that..............
I partially agree
My Vehicles have 70 Series tires
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 06:01   #10 (permalink)
Paul of Dayon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point

Manufacturers make and sell what people buy, plain and simple. They
wouldn't be there if there wasn't a market. Sensibility doesn't go very far
in the American market place. Remember Studebaker & Rambler?

PoD


"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:24884bb354187ff6fe302b37907fe958@dizum.com...
> Consumer Reports Jan '06 Issue Proves My Point on Tire Profiles.
>


  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > alt.autos.ford



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 21:54.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.