315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight
|
03-27-2009, 11:02
Post: #29
|
|||
|
|||
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight
I have never gotten satisfaction from any mfg. when it comes to a claim for
their poor products, especally Goodyear, marathon trailer tires. now I have a G-149 on my left tag, I would like to get rid of it, and replace it with a Michelin so all tires will be of the same make and size. From these last posts I see some of you have made the change to the 315's from the 12R's. I may do the same next year when I cycle the steers to the rear. I have decided to replace the steers every year to 18 months and sell the take offs, so far so good, last go round got $500 for the old tires making the new tires, Michelin 12r22.5 $350 each, That's only $60 more per tire than the ones I put on my Pickup. When you consider what tires do they are cheap. Buy the best tires you can find, get new steers evry couple of years and after a while you'll have good rubber all the time, just my $00.02 Kurt Horvath 95 Pt 42 10AC Pasted below are a few items of interest Runout Still There While it's true that tiremakers are providing safer, more reliable, longer-lasting medium truck tires than ever before, radial runout remains a sore point. So the job of managing and understanding the problems caused by this condition falls to you. First, you need to understand that a pair of zeroes on a balancer (inner and outer planes) does not mean you've properly balanced the tire/wheel assembly. Your job isn't over until you center the assembly on the vehicle the same way it was centered on the balancer. Nor does it mean you've gotten rid of a built-in vibration problem created by a tire or wheel that isn't perfectly round. There is still work to do. Make sure you've mounted the tire/wheel assembly on the balancer properly. A truck tire/wheel assembly that is 43-plus inches in diameter and weighs about 250 pounds will have more than several ounces of imbalance when mounted off center by as little as 0.005 of an inch. Follow the Fundamentals The first secret to balancing medium truck tires is to make certain you are mounting the tire/wheel assembly on the vehicle exactly the same way you mounted it on the balancer. Replication is vital, and more so with truck tires than with their smaller cousins. You can help minimize radial runout by mounting the high spot of the tire (indicated by a paint dot on the sidewall) to the low spot on the wheel (indicated by a dimple). If you can't find the dimple, use the valve stem opening as your reference point. Don't mount the tire dry, use proper lubrication. The bead must seat properly on the rim. Also important, don't limit the use of lubricant to the tire alone. If you see a hump on the wheel that looks like a problem, put lubricant on it to facilitate a better mounting job. But don't overlubricate or you'll have wheels spinning loosely and tearing up beads. When mounting medium truck tires, more errors occur with demountable and stud pilot wheels than hub pilot wheels. That's because the inner cap nuts may not have bottomed out all the way, and are improperly seated. Look for dirty threads and make sure that torque specifications have been carefully followed. Demountable wheel clamps can also contribute to a centering and/or vibration imbalance problem. A tire/wheel mounted in this manner will wobble. That sets up a scuffing motion which causes an irregular wear pattern and creates a vibration in the vehicle. Worse, the driver, isolated in the cab, will not feel any of this. You'll have to eyeball the tire and read the signs of irregular wear to diagnose this problem. September 24, 2008 â â CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA -- Toyo® brand tires have once again been rated the #1 Overall Brand for Medium Truck Tires in Tire Review magazine's annual Tire Brand Study of North American tire dealers. Toyo has received this prestigious ranking four years in a row and a total of five times in the seven years since the medium truck tire survey began. November 01, 2003 Michelin medium truck tires have been ranked first in quality and innovation in the 11th annual brand study conducted by Tire Review, a magazine for tire dealers. The study's objective was to analyze tire dealers' perceptions of the brands they carry. A total of 500 tire dealers were asked to rate each brand of medium truck tire they sell in 19.5" to 24.5" sizes. Michelin tires scored 9.2 on product quality and 8.6 on product innovation on a scale of 10 --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "ronmarabito2002" wrote: > > Try getting that kind of response from Michelin. I know of no one that has ever been able to satisfy a claim with Michelin. If you know of someone, I'd like to talk to them. > > R.E. (Ron) Marabito, Dallas, TX 92WB40 > > --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, rogerwwebb@ wrote: > > > > FWIW - I now have Michelins. > > > > In 2007 I bought Goodyear G149 tires, which were a bit less expensive and I > > thought would be just as good. I was wrong. > > > > I had catastrophic tread separation with less than 9,000 miles on two > > separate occasions, both times caused damage to the coach. Goodyear replaced the > > tires and paid for the coach damage. However, as I did not trust the tires I > > asked for a refund or replacement of all the tires. Unfortunately the G149's > > were the only tire they made (including other brands they own) that fit and > > although they offered to replace all the tires with new G149's I was uneasy > > with such action, as they could/would not tell me why a new set was going to > > be better than the old set. I got disgusted and changed out to the Michelins. > > I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND GOODYEAR TIRES due to this experience. > > > > R. W. Webb > > 91 WL > > Cedar Rapids, IA > > > > > > In a message dated 3/26/2009 9:44:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > > bluethunder@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > I can only put it this way: tires are one thing I'm not looking for the > > least expensive alternative. > > > > On 3/27/2009 at 12:26 AM ronmarabito2002 wrote: > > > > >Why would you want to pay +$200 to $300 per tire for Michelins? Do you > > >actually perceive that additional value in your tires? I have yet to wear > > >out any tire unless it was mis-aligned or damaged. Mine change due to age > > >and a less expensive tire does the job. > > > > > >R.E. (Ron) Marabito, Dallas, TX 92WB40 > > > > > >--- In _WanderlodgeForum@WanderlodgeFWan_ > > (mailto:WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com) , "Don Bradner" > > >wrote: > > >> > > >> The price was $709.89 each, before a lot of taxes, etc. > > >> > > >> The MSRP is something over $800, but I'm not sure if anyone ever charges > > >full list. > > >> > > >> So far the X Coach is only 295/80, which is an inch less in diameter > > >than the 315/80 XZA-2 and 1.3 inches less than the 12R XZE* > > >> > > >> To handle your weight, assuming equal weight on each axle end: > > >> 315/80 XZA-2 95 PSI > > >> 295/80 X-Coach 110 PSI > > >> 12R XZE* 115 PSI > > >> > > >> On 3/26/2009 at 1:02 AM Bob Lawrence wrote: > > >> > > >> >Hi Don, > > >> >What did you have to pay for the steer tires? > > >> >Next month I want to get new steers. > > >> >I see Michelin has new X Coach XZ bus tires on their website. > > >> >Trying to figure what way to go. > > >> >My front end is 13,800 lbs. now. > > >> >Bob Lawrence > > >> >84 PT36 > > >> >Laguna Atascosa NWR, Los Fresnos, Texas (Where a guy shot himself to > > >death > > >> >today) > > >> > > > >> >> Got my new steer tires today, 315/80R Michelin XZA-2 Energies. Moved > > >my > > >> >2+ year-old 12R XZE* to the tag. > > >> >> > > >> >> Really happy to have the tires down near 100 lbs fully capable of > > >> >handling the weight that took near 120 lbs on the 12Rs! > > >> >> > > >> >> The price of the tires though is one of those "gulp" items. > > >> >> > > >> >> A footnote: When I bought Blue Thunder I rather immediately had to > > >> >replace the left front wheel because it had a severe crack that was > > >> >intolerable for a steer wheel. Today it was pointed out that the left > > >tag > > >> >wheel had multiple cracks - some horseshoe from outer hole to inner back > > >> >to outer. Not good. The local tire place had a lot of excellent used > > >ones, > > >> >so I replaced that wheel. Going to have a lot of work to get it looking > > >as > > >> >good as the other ones ![]() > > >> >> Don Bradner > > >> >> 90 PT40 "Blue Thunder" > > >> >> My location: http://www.bbirdmaps. My locati My locat > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >------------------------------------ > > >> > > > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------ > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under > > $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=e...od00000002) > > > |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Messages In This Thread |
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-24-2009, 14:04
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-24-2009, 16:25
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Fred Hulse - 03-24-2009, 16:47
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Fred Hulse - 03-24-2009, 17:41
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-24-2009, 18:33
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-25-2009, 04:46
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - davisgr - 03-25-2009, 05:59
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-25-2009, 06:58
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Fred Hulse - 03-25-2009, 13:49
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Bob Lawrence - 03-25-2009, 14:02
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-25-2009, 14:38
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - sfedeli3 - 03-26-2009, 01:17
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Bob Lawrence - 03-26-2009, 13:20
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - ronmarabito2002 - 03-26-2009, 13:26
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - birdshill123 - 03-26-2009, 14:29
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Steve Pfiffner - 03-26-2009, 14:48
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Pete Masterson - 03-26-2009, 15:19
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-26-2009, 15:40
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - rogerwwebb@... - 03-26-2009, 20:16
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - birdshill123 - 03-27-2009, 04:07
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - ronmarabito2002 - 03-27-2009, 04:29
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - ronmarabito2002 - 03-27-2009, 04:31
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - ronmarabito2002 - 03-27-2009, 04:37
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - ronmarabito2002 - 03-27-2009, 05:21
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-27-2009, 06:09
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - ronmarabito2002 - 03-27-2009, 07:02
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Wayne Kotila - 03-27-2009, 07:20
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Pete Masterson - 03-27-2009, 08:33
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Kurt Horvath - 03-27-2009 11:02
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-27-2009, 12:17
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Bob Lawrence - 03-27-2009, 12:27
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - David Brady - 03-27-2009, 14:44
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - David Brady - 03-27-2009, 14:46
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - ronmarabito2002 - 03-27-2009, 14:46
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 03-28-2009, 05:11
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Jim Riordan - 04-01-2009, 14:23
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - ronmarabito2002 - 04-03-2009, 02:50
315/80 vs 12R - was Overweight - Don Bradner - 04-03-2009, 07:43
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)