Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2019, 07:59 PM   #41
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxster1971 View Post
Dave - what is the date code on those Michelin Defenders? My new Agilis tires have date code 2919, made in mid-July this year.

The vibrations you describe on your first set of Agilis tires sounds like they were not balanced properly.

Glad you are enjoying the Defenders.
5 are dated 0919 and the one they had to search for is 3118 so 5 are about 6 months and 1 is about a year old. I'm fine with that because IMO 1 year inside a warehouse with virtually no UV shouldn't shorten life appreciably and I expect to wear them out in 5-6 years anyway.

Vibrations - I probably didn't describe it well, the vibration was fast like the speed of a u-joint at ~35mph, not the slower speed of tire revolutions at 35mph. so I don't think it was a balance issue IMO


Dave
__________________

D&J Phillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2019, 04:04 PM   #42
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Alaska-Arizona
Posts: 17
Default

I'm about to take the plunge on an entire suspension upgrade on a 2005 Express 3500 (Roadtrek 190) starting with tires, and am wondering what the pros/cons of 245 vs 265/75/16 might be. I can see that there might be a clearance problem with 265s.

Also I'm still a little foggy on what the advantages of the C-metric directional tread would be... if there is one.
__________________

alaskasail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2019, 05:45 PM   #43
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskasail View Post
I'm about to take the plunge on an entire suspension upgrade on a 2005 Express 3500 (Roadtrek 190) starting with tires, and am wondering what the pros/cons of 245 vs 265/75/16 might be. I can see that there might be a clearance problem with 265s.

Also I'm still a little foggy on what the advantages of the C-metric directional tread would be... if there is one.

The larger 265-75-16 tires will give you an extra about 700# of load capacity on each axle, so I guess you call it buying blowout insurance to some extent.


You can also run them a bit lower pressure for comfort if you chose, as we do. Not a lot, but it is smoother.


You will get and extra 1/2" of ground clearance.


We think they look better, but some don't.


Hard to tell on handling as we can't compare because we changed tire make and model when we did the size change. Ours drives very well, though.


Remember that AFAIK, there is really one wheel with the correct offset and wide enough for those tires, although there have been a few others shown lately that are close to right in aluminum wheels.


Clearance is tight, but most don't have any issues.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 08:22 PM   #44
Platinum Member
 
rowiebowie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,207
Default

First trip (4,000 miles around the Southeast) on the new Michelin Defender LTX/MS tires. They performed well, but gas mileage was down 1 mpg from previous two trips out West and one to the Northeast on the old Firestone Transforces.

I cannot readily account for the difference. Weather and wind were not unusual and we were loaded as usual and driving at or slightly below posted speed limits as is our norm. Nothing mechanical was done to the 6.0L in between trips and it performed normally.

I don't want to think we lost 7% of our gas mileage due to the tire change, but will have to monitor as we put on more miles in the months and years to come.
rowiebowie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 08:35 PM   #45
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowiebowie View Post
First trip (4,000 miles around the Southeast) on the new Michelin Defender LTX/MS tires. They performed well, but gas mileage was down 1 mpg from previous two trips out West and one to the Northeast on the old Firestone Transforces.

I cannot readily account for the difference. Weather and wind were not unusual and we were loaded as usual and driving at or slightly below posted speed limits as is our norm. Nothing mechanical was done to the 6.0L in between trips and it performed normally.

I don't want to think we lost 7% of our gas mileage due to the tire change, but will have to monitor as we put on more miles in the months and years to come.

I would be surprised if you did lose mileage because of the Defenders, at least if they are like the MS2 tires we have on the van and Defenders on DW's CRV. They feel quite soft and easy rolling, but never been on the Firestones. 7% is more like you would see by going to a stiffer, higher speed rated tire. We saw about 10% worse with our old muscle car when I switched to V rated tires.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 10:02 PM   #46
Platinum Member
 
rowiebowie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,207
Default

MPG could be related to something else I just haven't considered and quite possibly was undetected head winds due to cold fronts since the biggest effect on mpg (for good or bad) is wind. Mountains, surprisingly, have minimal effect.

And with the Micheline's being just 2-ply sidewalls (which I did not know until after purchase) I thought maybe we'd get a small boost in gas mileage.

I know there are other threads for reporting gas mileage, but just to compare mpg to where we've gone on the three trips with the old Firestones to our recent trip on the Michelin's (which shared the same diameter).

Each trip was within a few hundred miles of 4,000 (most just under). The amounts below are corrected from the Dash computer which always shows a good 5% optimistic:

Trip #1 Texas Gulf Coast to Yellowstone - 14.8 mpg
Trip #2 Texas Gulf Coast to Boston - 15.2 mpg
Trip #3 Texas Gulf Coast to San Fransisco - 14.6 mpg *
Trip #4 Texas Gulf Coast to Charleston - 13.7 mpg

* - This mpg is only back to the Petrified Forrest. A strong tail wind blew in from the West and from there to Amarillo we averaged almost 21 mpg. Then from Amarillo home we averaged 18 mpg. I removed this anomaly from the calculation (but it sure was nice to have a 30% boost in mpg for the final 900 miles of the trip).
rowiebowie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2019, 01:08 AM   #47
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: western New York State
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowiebowie View Post
MPG could be related to something else I just haven't considered and quite possibly was undetected head winds due to cold fronts since the biggest effect on mpg (for good or bad) is wind. Mountains, surprisingly, have minimal effect.

<snip>

Hi RB,

Don't want to hijack this thread (perhaps we should have a new one, or tack this onto one of the other MPG threads), but very surprised to hear you say that wind is a big factor and mountains are not! I don't have data pro or con on the wind (I'm sure it has some effect), but we have definitely seen huge mileage differences going up or down mountains, especially across the continental divide. Like they say, YMMV. : )


Regards, Dick
dicktill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2019, 01:54 AM   #48
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Key West, FL
Posts: 83
Default

I recently purchased a set of BFG KO2ís for my 2005 RT210. I went a bit larger with LT265/75R16.

As booster said, you can run lower pressures because of the larger Capacity of the bigger Tire. Iím running 40/70 PSI based on Load (VS 65/80 on the previous LT245/75R16 Michelins). While I also did Suspension upgrades (Moog 81004 front Coils, Bilstein Shocks, Sumo Bump Stops), the lower pressures on the front Tires alone GREATLY improved the Ride. The added benefits of running the larger size far outweighed having to trim the Plastic on the front .
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1119BB67-8AF7-4EA8-AAA8-A45EE9867943.jpg (232.6 KB, 8 views)
angelmroman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2019, 01:55 AM   #49
Platinum Member
 
rowiebowie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dicktill View Post
Hi RB,

Don't want to hijack this thread (perhaps we should have a new one, or tack this onto one of the other MPG threads), but very surprised to hear you say that wind is a big factor and mountains are not! I don't have data pro or con on the wind (I'm sure it has some effect), but we have definitely seen huge mileage differences going up or down mountains, especially across the continental divide. Like they say, YMMV. : )


Regards, Dick
I guess you could extrapolate mountains affect it by max of .5 mpg if you consider Trip #2 was the least mountainous and was the best mpg, while Trip #1 & #3 were most mountainous and got .4 to .6 worse mpg than Trip #2. But then, Trip #4 was only mountainous briefly in the Smoky Mountains and yet it was the worst mpg by far.

When I said mountains affected mpg very minimally, it was due to comparing mpg driving out of state and fairly level, then checking mpg again after coming out the mountains and not noticing much difference. Surprises me too. Go figure.
rowiebowie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2019, 01:58 AM   #50
Platinum Member
 
rowiebowie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelmroman View Post
I recently purchased a set of BFG KO2’s for my 2005 RT210. I went a bit larger with LT265/75R16.

As booster said, you can run lower pressures because of the larger Capacity of the bigger Tire. I’m running 40/70 PSI based on Load (VS 65/80 on the previous LT245/75R16 Michelins). While I also did Suspension upgrades (Moog 81004 front Coils, Bilstein Shocks, Sumo Bump Stops), the lower pressures on the front Tires alone GREATLY improved the Ride. The added benefits of running the larger size far outweighed having to trim the Plastic on the front .
I like the look!

Had a set of GFG KO2's nearly 15 years ago. Tread & sidewall pattern still looks the same today.

As I recall they were pretty smooth and quiet, especially for how aggressive they looked.
rowiebowie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2019, 03:46 AM   #51
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: western New York State
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowiebowie View Post
I guess you could extrapolate mountains affect it by max of .5 mpg if you consider Trip #2 was the least mountainous and was the best mpg, while Trip #1 & #3 were most mountainous and got .4 to .6 worse mpg than Trip #2. But then, Trip #4 was only mountainous briefly in the Smoky Mountains and yet it was the worst mpg by far.

When I said mountains affected mpg very minimally, it was due to comparing mpg driving out of state and fairly level, then checking mpg again after coming out the mountains and not noticing much difference. Surprises me too. Go figure.
It is difficult to get consistent fill-ups, but I think if you do, and you compare tankful to tankful, you'll see big differences going up the Rockies vs. coming down. It takes a lot of work (= energy = fuel) to move ~10,000 pounds up thousands of feet.
dicktill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 02:46 AM   #52
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5
Default

Quick update on the Michelin Cross Climate Agilis C metric directional tires. I’ve had them on my 2006 Sprinter 2500 RV for about 13,000 miles, trip from Chicago to Seattle and a trip to Florida Keys. So far I can’t really tell any difference in handling or mileage compared to the Michelin LTX MS2 that they replaced. Both good tires. The have worn well. Currently measure about 10.25/32 and I didn’t measure them when new, but they are listed as 11.5/32 new.
Nekit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 02:53 AM   #53
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskasail View Post
I'm about to take the plunge on an entire suspension upgrade on a 2005 Express 3500 (Roadtrek 190) starting with tires, and am wondering what the pros/cons of 245 vs 265/75/16 might be. I can see that there might be a clearance problem with 265s.

Also I'm still a little foggy on what the advantages of the C-metric directional tread would be... if there is one.
The C metric being directional tread probably handles a little better in the wet, as directional tread channels away water. In my size, 225/75R16 they have a little bit higher load rating than the standard tread too. One downside I noticed is the C ones are listed as 11.5/32 tread depth new and the standard are listed as 12.5/32, so they might last a little longer.
Nekit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 03:16 PM   #54
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: MI
Posts: 36
Default

One additional consideration, do all these various tires roll the same revolutions per mile, even if they are the same stated size. On my big class A equipped with 11R22.5 tires I noticed different rpm (revolutions per mile) quoted for different tire brand, tire series and load ratings. With tires revolving at different rates to a mile our odometer recorded distance travel will vary which then effects our calculated fuel mileage. And then if we mess around with tire pressures even more variation is added.
jaak1993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2019, 09:32 PM   #55
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Washington
Posts: 8
Default

Has anyone have any experience with General A/TX? They are highly rated through Tire Rack and my local tire guy (Tire Pros). I travel mostly highway but when/if I go boondocking I don't want a flat (been there/don't want to do that again) and I would like as quiet a ride as reasonably possible. I have a PW Ascent on a Sprinter 2500. It's pretty heavy at about 7500GVW. Seems like everyone only considers Michelin and BFG KO2. any thoughts are welcomed.
4Joey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2019, 01:59 AM   #56
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 507
Default

https://ricksfreeautorepairadvice.co...-larger-tires/
RossWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2019, 02:04 AM   #57
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RossWilliams View Post

Totally disagree with much of what is said in that link. Door post pressures are the minimum to carry a fully load rating, not necessarily the best for handling, mileage, or wear. Never fill to max? What if the door post says to, or you are at max tire loading?



IMO, he is flat out incorrect.
__________________

booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×