I'm running 195/60/14 tires on 14x6 wheels. These same tires were on
my stock 4.5" wheels and I never had any problems, although I believe
most 195mm tires should be on 5.5" wheels minimum, from what I read on
tire mfr's websites.
--- datsunmike <datsunmike@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm running 185/65s on 6" rims with no problems.
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Doutre" <cdoutre@attglobal.net>
> To: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>;
> <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: FW: Original Tire height
>
>
> > Gordon,
> >
> > This tire discussion has been extremely helpful. One of the things
> I
> haven't
> > seen discussed is what wheel size you are using. Is that a valid
> question?
> I
> > have some 165/SR14's that I need to replace on 6" (outside-width)
> aluminum
> > wheels. Is that what everybody else is running? Is it really OK to
> run a
> > 185/65/14 on a 6" wheel, probably 5.75" inside-width at the bead
> edge? It
> > seems wide to me, but I'm really in the dark about this stuff.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Chris Doutre
> > Scottsdale, AZ
> > 1967 1600
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>
> > To: <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:53 PM
> > Subject: RE: FW: Original Tire height
> >
> >
> > > A tire's effective radius is different than the calculation from
> it's
> > diameter.
> > > R&T's test reported revs per mile and I calculated back from
> that.
> > >
> > > Gordon Glasgow
> > > Renton, WA
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John F Sandhoff [mailto:sandhoff@csus.edu]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:08 AM
> > > > To: Gordon Glasgow
> > > > Cc: datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > > Subject: RE: FW: Original Tire height
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gordon writes:
> > > > > My calculations were based on an aspect ratio of 82%, which
> might
> > > > > not be correct.
> > > >
> > > > I HAVE a 5.60x14 on the rim. I know its circumference is at
> least 3
> > > > inches larger than the calculated 73.1 (5280 ft/mile * 12 in/ft
> / 866
> > rev/mi).
> > > >
> > > > Maybe R&T was running their tests using flat tires :-)
> > > >
> > > > -- John
> > > > John F Sandhoff sandhoff@csus.edu Sacramento, CA
> > >
> > > ///
> > > /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> > > /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> > > /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> > > /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > ///
> >
> > ///
> > /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> > /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> > /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> > /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > ///
>
> ///
> /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> ///
>
=====
Adam
'70 1600 SPL311-28181
http://www.picturetrail.com/abend
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
///
/// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|