Hi Max,
I guess I'm confused.
The tire stores have always told me that the aspect ratio of the old
standard aspect ratio tires like 155R14 165R14 or whatever was 78. I
think Kelvin has confirmed that.
I simply do 155 * 78 = 120.9 and then do 175 * 70 = 119 and conclude
they are about the same height and therefore look pretty much the same.
I admit I am simply assuming that a 70 aspect ratio tire will not be too
wide -- maybe that is wrong. Feels like I am missing something here. Am I?
Most of the 155R14 tires on these parts cars are Michelin X, plus the
tires look about as old as the cars, so I think we would have to assume
that both the cars and the tires were in much better condition when the
tires were purchased and installed. I'm not sure what your point was
there about buying cheap tires for parts cars.
Don Malling
Max Heim wrote:
> on 7/25/03 2:50 PM, Don Malling at dmallin@attglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Kelvin and list,
>>
>>I have three MGB's. A 73 driver and 2 parts cars 68 and 69. Every tire
>>except one on these cars was a 155R14 not 165R14
>>
>>Was 165R14 more common that 155R14 or does everyone just prefer the
>>looks of the 165R14?
>>
>>155R14 translates to 175/70 14 correct?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Don Malling
>>
>
>
> Well, 155R14 would be a cheaper replacement (back when it was
available), so
> it's not surprising you'd find it on a parts car. I would think,
given the
> choice, any performance-oriented owner in the last 25 years would
have gone
> with the wider tire.
>
> It certainly doesn't "translate" to 175/70-14, being 20mm narrower.
It would
> also seem to be a tad taller.
>
>
> --
>
> Max Heim
> '66 MGB GHN3L76149
> If you're near Mountain View, CA,
> it's the primer red one with chrome wires
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|