Waddya think of mytyres.co.uk ?

Have you tried

?

I've used etyres the mobile people and they are excellent but whether or not they do what you are looking for, I don't know.

HTH Andy

I have indeed and I thought I had a result with some "Fateo Range Runner HT" (as they were an AT style tyre)

but a phone call to them found they were 6 or 8 ply or summat .. ;-(

Similar with many of their 185/80/14 offerings, being 6/8ply, reinforced or 'van'.

They were very friendly / helpful though.

All the best ..

T i m

I believe I have checked them out also Andy ... and whilst they do suggest they offer the right size they don't show specific models / tread patterns, doing the "ECONOMY - (BRANDS MAY VARY)" type option.

Also I think I might go for a supply only option as I have access to (free) tyre fitting / balancing via a mate and as the wheels will be off at that point anyway ...

I might give etyres a ring anyway, in case they have summat 'nice' up their sleeves ;-)

All the best

T i m

In message , Andy Cap writes

Same here.

were a bit cheaper but couldn't do mobile fitting in my area. It was worth a few quid difference for the lack of hassle.

I got that far and gave up.

Wanli, ffs.

You've obviously never experienced the terror that is a Wanli-shod car on damp roads.

I've used mytyres a couple of times with no problems at all. I usually buy Nankangs as I find them pretty good all round tyres.

Mike P

;-)

No I have to say I haven't had that pleasure (yet) Steve!

Bottom line. The Colway M&S (remoulds) were very well behaved, wet or dry on what is a fairly underpowered shed. Where it was actually important (to me) off road, (muddy tracks, trails, fields etc) they made the car feel like it was on the dry (or certianly in comparison with any std road car shod with std tyres) and especially considering this is actually a MKII 1300 Escort that is!

The object of this excersise is to put 4 'fresh' tyres on shot-blasted / re painted rims (that are currently leaking air under the flaking paint) just so that I can be happy that the tyres aren't going to fail because of perished sidewalls or other general deteriation. If I put the cheapest I can find on now, then if / when the new rules re fitting 'winter' tyres come here like I believe they are in Europe I might find a more suitable tyre becomes available (as demand ramps up)?

If anyone can find a 'better' [1] 185/80/14 then I'd be very apreciative . ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

[1] That actually exists, is in stock, is a reasonable price and not an 8ply van tyre! ;-)

Hi Mike and thanks for the feedback.

I guess if you go for std stuff then most systems can cope.

I think when we built this kit ~17 years ago 185/80/14 was a fairly common size. ;-(

All the best ..

T i m

Not taking the piss or anything..... but can't you just drop to a

185/60HR14? - 'cos they're common as muck.

Alternatively, I think you can get a Marangoni Meteo Grip E+ in the right size - they're a studdable mud and snow tyre.

I'd happily 'change' to something more common Steve but the Ranger was sorta designed to take that size tyre. I *could* potentially go to a

195/70/15 (same rolling radius) *if* I could find suitable rims and the knowledge that the 195 wouldn't foul anything. A 185/60/14 would increase the rpm / speedo reading by 11% (wheel diameter drops by a full 3"), not something I really need, especially if I replace the 1300 for a 1600 in the near future.

Ooooh, they are nice and "Meteo Grip E+ is available in 13?-16?, 55-80 series, with speed ratings Q and T."

I wonder how expensive though ...?

If this is anything to go by then not too bad ..(£33) As usual a search on that site for my size Marangoni's yields "We don't have stock.The dimensions you are looking for might not exist.?" ;-(

Also, if I understand it right a 'winter' tyre is made of a different (softer?) compound than would say be found on an 'all season' M&S tyre?

They also say "The tread pattern, which optimizes the transmission of torque, and the staggered positioning of the spikes, ensure that Meteo Grip E+ provides exceptional performance on snow and ice, with or without studs."

So snow and ice but no mention of mud .

All the best and thanks for your help Steve ..

T i m

To be fair, though - it's based on MkII Scrote running gear, which means you'd be able to get the gearing sorted quite easily, 'cos the MkII would have been available on a tyre pretty much sized at 185/60HR14.

Shame 'cos Marangoni tyres are, IME, bargains for the level of performance you get. I put a set of Vantos on the 75 a while back and was surprised at how good they are.

My mistake. But still worth a look, I'd have said.

Biggest tyre fitted to a Mk2 Escort by the factory was the 175/70/13 Pirelli CN36 Cinturato fitted to the Mk2 RS2000.

The RS also had a 3.54:1 diff which the Rickman definately won't have, the diff will either be a 3.9:1, 4.1:1 or even the 4.4:1 van diff.

If it has the 4.4:1 diff there are probably rallyists who'd swap a 3.54:1 for it, bit of a bargain when the 3.54:1 is worth around £200 in decent condition.

Personally I'd go for the 15's off something like a Mondeo (if they'll fit) and see how far out the speedo is using satnav.

Which is almost *exactly* the same overall size as a 185/60/14. (0.4% difference)

This is a handy site to play around with sizes:

When I first went up from the std 155/13's to the 185/80/14's the 1300 couldn't pull top, not surprising as I'd effectively up-geared by quite a bit! Swapping the 3.89:1 diff to a 4.44:1 brought the revs / mph back as std (and the speedo is pretty close as calibrated by a GPS etc).

Well, I will follow it up Steve .. they seem to be the best offering so far! ;-)

Yes indeed and no apologies needed Steve, it was more me thinking out loud re what the real world difference might be for me using 'winter' tyres all year round. I guess faster tyre wear in the summer but as we don't do many miles in it .. ? (or not while the 50 mpg Rover keeps going anyway). Also I guess if the tread pattern is suitable for snow (bigger 'self clearing' voids between the blocks) then it should be good for mud?

All the best ..

T i m

;-)

Yup, it's the 4.4:1 ;-)

Yikes! Well, the little 1300 doesn't seem to mind a few revs and the low(er) gearing comes in handy when doing some pretend off road stuff, muddy tracks and trails etc. I guess if we went up to the 1600 Xflow then a 4.125:1 might drop the revs down a bit, not that it really matters (I'd still like to have the low stuff) unless it helps the mpg (it's not very aerodynamic and heavier than the std 1300 Escort by quite a bit).

I believe 15" alloys off some Pugs seem to be the preferred alternative Pete (and I have some here I've been playing with) but then we have the extra issues with offset (the Ranger is a bit fussy and in fact typically ran 'special' Wellers) wheel nuts / studs, spigot rings etc etc, all of which cost money, money I'd rather put towards some 'correct sized' tyres ... a known quantity etc.

All the best ..

T i m

I had the 1100 Mk II Escort ages ago. My mate had the 1600.

I tried to be economical, he thrashed his.

I got 25-30 MPG. He got 30-35.

Get an engine that's big enough for the car. More torque *and* low gearing is far better off road.

You should be just off stalling on the steep bits, not revving the nuts off it...

Ok ..

Yobbo!

Hmm.

Understood. When I was getting a new Company car (Sierra) the 2L was the most economical in the range (1.3, 1.6, 2, 2.3 from memory?).

Understood. But of course the Ranger can't go up any steeper bits than the std Escort could (because it's heavier) apart from where the grippier tyres make a difference.

A low range box would be nice ;-)

The problem with having a 'big' engine in a car you don't use very often is the TAX and insurance cost more for just having it parked there and even more of an issue when you want to get yer teenager on the policy!

I would love to put my 2L Pinto in there (for the fun of driving it) but it's just too complicated (compared with the 1600 Xflow) and would be a deal breaker re young driver insurance .. ;-(

All the best ..

T i m

Better on road too, I recently put a 2.0 into my Mk2 Golf GTi and it's actually better on fuel than it was as a 1.8 - unless I thrash it.

My Range Rover has a Janspeed turbo conversion doubling its power output from 165 bhp to around 330 bhp, if that's driven sensibly it is also better on fuel than a standard one because there's that much torque available I never have to thrash it. It does between 17 - 25 mpg whether unladen or towing a trailer - something a standard 3.5 V8 drinks fuel doing. My last

3.5 V8 did 11 mpg when towing a trailer loaded with a Jensen Interceptor on, this did 20 mpg with the same Jensen behind it.

Yup, although the 1.8 CVH 'powered' one was pretty good on fuel.

You should be able to get a classic or kit type limited mileage policy on the Rickman, they're normally dirt cheap.