Numpty tyre question

Several points here:

A common cavalier size is 195/60 x 14

Barum tyres are absolute sh**

New tyres should be fitted to the rear wheels and the rear moved to the front.

In conclusion, if you had 195/70 then they were probably wrong for your vehicle. (185/70 would have been more likely and about the same rolling radius as 195/60)

MrCheerful

In article , MrCheerful writes

Cheers.

They seem to get good writeups if you google for reviews. The fitter said they were made by Continental, and again a google appears to confirm this. Could you tell me why you think they're s*it?

The car's FWD and I prefer new rubber on the driven wheels. But that argument's been done to death on this group recently.

My memory isn't wonderful at the best of times, so they could well have been 185/70s. At least I now have two tyres of the same make and model on each axle (the Barums on the front, Michelin MX2s on the back.)

Thanks again.

they were 185/70's

Because I have frequently seen barums broken up and distorted, they also wear very quickly and the sidewalls crack.

MrCheerful

Mike Tomlinson ( snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Quelle surprise.

Aha.

Because 195/70 14 is an unusual size. I used to have a CX that used that size - and Michelins were about £100 each, if you could get 'em. There was not a wide choice in brands.

Quick question, how would 185/70 have the same rolling radius as 195/60 ? The 185 - 195 is the width of the tyre correct? so that's got nothing to do with it! And 70 - 60 is the profile, the distance from the wheel rim to the outer edge of the tyre? giving a different rolling radius completely (assuming both tyres were both the same 14" etc). Please explain...

the 70, 60 is a ratio, distance from wheel to tyre edge = width x profile, e.g. 195*60/100 & 185*70/100

Cheers, I thought it was an actual distance or something. Explains why my front tyres are 55 and wider rears are 50 :)

he's right

I agree with that, I've never seen a 195/70R14.

I've had Barum tyres and I think they're s*it. I had one that blew out in the snow, just a few days old, and I had two put on the front of a Polo. They were so bad - the car understeered so badly - that I moved them to the back.

A standard tyre has an aspect ratio of 80 percent, therefore the wider the tyre the higher the sidewalls, so a 195 would usually be higher than a 185, however the 60/65/70 are various reduced sidewall percentages, so a 205/55 roughly equals the height of a 195/60 which is close to the height of a

MrCheerful

not even close it's goes

you may notice that all the tyres I mention are the 14 inch variety, bringing anything else in is irrelevant. I also mention that the size relation (reference height) is all approximation/simplification.

MrCheerful

which would mean that a 165/70/13 is going to be the same size as a

explanation please

For a 165/70/13 Tyre height=165*.70*2 + 13*25.4 = 561mm rolling diameter For a 195/60/14 =185*.60*2 +14*25.4 = 590mm rolling diameter So they're not the same size.

In article , Mike Tomlinson writes

I have Cavalier brochures dated August 93 and April 94, with the same wheel & tyre combinations in each. They could have been changes for the very last ones built, but it seems unlikely.

They show

HTH

that's the theory but in reality, when I put a 195/60/14 next to the 165/70/13 on the cav, they were the same size................................

Well you can get your money back under the trades description act then :-) Actually you could also get you money back of me as I've transcribed 195 to 185 & 185/60/14 is the same size