Tyres

modification?

I had some 235/85R16's one my 86" Series One a few years ago, they are now on an old 2a SWB with no modifications needed.

Yes.

Pretty much - you might get something a bit taller, but not much without mods.

Very good - not the most aggressive design about anymore, but good in the mud, good on road, last a long time and have tough sidewalls. The

|| Paul Coleman wrote: ||| Hi - ||| ||| A couple of tyre questions: ||| ||| 1/ Will BF Goodrich MT 235/85 R16 fit my standard 90 without ||| modification? 2/ Are the above tyres the tallest available that will ||| fit my 90 without modification? ||| 3/ Are the above tyres any good?

|| Before you go spending your hard earned cash, have a look at ||

I would be a little cautious about these surveys. The favourite off-road tyre on this list is the Firestone, based on 32,000 reported miles. This looks to me like one purchaser reporting his experiences. The BFG MT, on the other hand, is based on almost 1½ million reported miles: perhaps 40-50 respondents. Statistically, that's not very sound evidence. Plus it's an American site, and the Yanks tend to play off-road a little differently and have different requirements.

On the basis of this, I wouldn't shell out 400GBP-odd on a set of untried tyres. Ask around British users. Everyone I know who has BFG MTs in British conditions rates them very highly.

To the OP, I would say that 235/85 are possibly the best size for a 90 - no mods, and they fill the arches very well. You get an inch or so extra ground clearance over standard. Any taller and you get into suspension lifts and the like. I rate BFG tyres very highly - had 235/85 Trac-Edges on the 90 and have put ATs on the RR. No complaints.

On or around Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:45:41 +0100, "Paul Coleman" enlightened us thusly:

check the speedo calibration and the steering lock stops, and ideally put'em on LWB rims.

but apart from that, yes. I wouldn't go much wider than that on a 90 unless you're looking for serious amounts of flotation.

The Goodyear MT/R's result is based on 2.5 million reported miles?

The survey refers to use on wet & dry roads, snow, comfort, wear and stability. All things we are interested in too?

My set cost me £320 inc vat at Pro Tyre.

LROI journos seem to rate them quite highly?

|| I would be a little cautious about these surveys. The favourite ||| off-road tyre on this list is the Firestone, based on 32,000 ||| reported miles. This looks to me like one purchaser reporting his ||| experiences. The BFG MT, on the other hand, is based on almost 1½ ||| million reported miles: perhaps 40-50 respondents. Statistically, ||| that's not very sound evidence. || The Goodyear MT/R's result is based on 2.5 million reported miles?

Fair enough. I just have a distrust of these "consumer" surveys - too many imponderables. I much prefer to ask a few people - for which this NG is excellent.

|| ||| Plus it's an American site, and the ||| Yanks tend to play off-road a little differently and have different ||| requirements. || The survey refers to use on wet & dry roads, snow, comfort, wear and || stability. All things we are interested in too?

But no category of "mud traction", which is what the tyres are intended for. You have to sort of infer it from the "snow" figures. I would suggest that a similar British site would have wet tarmac, wear, snow, and mud traction. Stability, comfort and so on are not really relevant on a page devoted to "Off Road Maximum Traction" tyres. In fact, I'm not sure I trust the judgement of anyone who takes the most aggressive road tyre he can find and then rates it for "comfort" ;-) Seriously, any American I have spoken to regards extreme mud usage as a bit "special", the way Brits tend to regard rock-crawling. So I am not surprised that there is no "mud" category on the site, but it does rather reduce its usefulness in my eyes.

|| ||| On the basis of this, I wouldn't shell out 400GBP-odd on a set of ||| untried tyres. || My set cost me £320 inc vat at Pro Tyre.

Lucky you. Did you take advantage of the "buy one, get another half-price" deal that BFG had running recently? I paid just over £300 for a set of BFG ATs a couple of months ago. But a hundred a corner isn't far out for a real-life purchase, including fitting, valves etc. And "400-odd" does mean "approximately".

||| Ask around British users. Everyone I know who has ||| BFG MTs in British conditions rates them very highly. || LROI journos seem to rate them quite highly?

Is that a point in favour or a point against?

:-)

The OP asked for some advise on chosing some tyres. I don't pretend to be an authority on anything "off road" but I have just spend many hours trawling the net for info on exactly this question. The post I made just scratched the surface of my search for that information. My intention was to offer a source of comparison between various options, not to say this is write and this is wrong. I looked at various sites in different countries and made a decision based on what I found. As a newbie off roader myself, nobody I know uses either Goodrich or Goodyear or any other MT type tyres so, having read many favourable comments, I chose the Goodyear's. It's a choice I may regret later. No point getting older if you don't get wiser eh? How many of your friends who use Goodrich MT's have tried anything else recently? I did look at quite a few previous threads for this NG on tyres. There are plenty of differing opinions on most tyres. I too am very suspicious of jouno's and their comments. Perhaps that wasn't a good example. Point taken!

I've used both makes - the Goodyears are a bit softer and wear more quickly than the BFG's, but are a little better in mud.

|| How many of your friends who use Goodrich || MT's have tried anything else recently? ||

This is an interesting question. Looking around, the range is roughly as follows:

Serious off-roaders (rich) - Simex Jungle or Extreme Trekker Serious off-roaders (less rich) - Bronco Diamondbacks or similar People who actually need to drive on the road (like daily drivers) - BFG of some kind.

I'm terribly conservative. Once I find something that works, I tend to stick to it. Like Land Rovers ;-)

On or around Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:09:39 +0100, "Richard Brookman" enlightened us thusly:

reasonably impressed with the Nankangs, for the money. Done about 4000 miles on 'em. Questionable wear initially seems to have been largely cured by upping the pressures a bit, they now look to be wearing fairly evenly - I think the carcass is less stiff than the pirellis, perhaps. Currently running about 34 lb all round (31x10.5R15 size) which is a tad more than the previous pirellis were running, and they wore as if slightly over-inflated.

good grip on the road in the dry, probably not quite so grippy in the wet as the Pirellis were, but there's very little in it. Better feel now that they're running proper pressures, mind.

On or around Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:39:37 GMT, "Exit" enlightened us thusly:

may argument was that the 110 is at least 50% heavier, so needs 50% wider rubber. They look good, too :-)

Mind, I had to make an adapter for the local garage's wheel balancer, 'cos the wheels wouldn't fit it...