Ride Softness And Tires ?

And that, I believe, is horseshit.

I have driven a number of cars which handle well and give very comfortable rides, and they are for damn sure not American superhogs.

Nate, that may be a generalization. It is not necessarily the fact in every case.

I think your case is valid that some of the reason for wider rims is appearance. Unsprung weight, and rate, does not necessarily follow.

Typically, a same-diameter wheel and tire package will weigh *more* with a larger diameter wheel but lower profile tire than a smaller wheel with a higher profile tire, if you use similar brand/model wheels and tires. e.g. if you switch from a 16" BBS RS or whatever with a 205/60R16 Michelin and replace it with a 17" BBS RS with a 215/50R17, the 16" package will likely weigh more. Of course, if you replace a clunky 16" factory wheel with a 17" BBS or Volk, that will not hold true (and if you have the ducats, I would highly recommend same. Real racing wheels are teh sexay.)

nate

Aw, crap, I did it again. Typo'd myself right into an inaccuracy. The

that much is accurate.

nate

(having a bad accuracy day.)

Well I guess you can believe whatever you like. But when you get fibromyalgia, and every little bump & vibration (that you don't even notice now) has the potential to cause you severe pain, come back and we'll talk about what kind of car rides best. In the meantime, maybe you should stick to technical points and not pretend you know anything about the kind of ride quality someone with a chronic pain problem needs.

This is true, I don't think any of us DO know anything about that kind of ride quality, because it's generally the sort of "softness" that most driving enthusiasts tend to avoid.

As a consequence, you might do better to look in a group with sufferers of similar problems and see what vehicles they like, rather than looking in a group of auto enthusiasts and seeing what vehicles we find comfortable.

--scott

My supposition is that the low TP on the Explorer was low enough that if the owner neglected the TP, they could easily fall into the too-low range, tires heat up at highway speeds and break down.

My 98 Ranger has label for 30 psi front and 35 psi rear. My brother's 99 Mountaineer (rebadged Explorer on Ranger frame) label has 26 psi front and rear. Specified tires are both the same (P235/75R15SL).

Ranger has GAWR front of 2510, Mountaineer has 2850; Ranger has rear GAWR of 2600, Mountaineer is 3000. Ranger GVWR is 4820; Mountaineer is 5540.

Considering that the Mountaineer is the heavier vehicle, why are the TPs lower for the same tire than on the lighter vehicle? My opinion is that Ford set the TPs low for a softer ride...

Apparently that was a bone of contention between Ford and Firestone.

Pete

Maybe you dont know how smooth some of the smaller and lighter cars really are nowadays.

I used to struggle in pain with vertibral disc problems driving a big old company Olds. Worst seats for lower back pain I have ever seen.

Good seats - particularly well engineered adjustable ones - can help this particular problem a lot. Lumbar support is far better than some of the old offerings.

Horse comment still applies, loquissimo.

Thanks. I see what you are getting at now. It was definitely a bone of contention. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Firestone Bridgestone were pretty adamant about not selling their tires to Ford after Ford put the blame on them.

I agree, however, with Mike Romain that Firestone tires have not been favorites of mine, and I wouldnt buy them for any car at this point.

I guess that was the point I was considering. The individual wheel can make a load of difference. I was checking out the weights of some wheels in the not too distant past and was a bit surprised that some of the pretty and expensive wheels were really no lighter than some of the cheaper and more mundane models.

There was, perhaps you remember, some time back a complaint on this group about a particular brand of expensive custom made wheel (the owner and driving force of that company now having passed away) which had rather poor eccentricity specifications. You may remember the case. I have wondered if we sometimes dont get sold on design and betrayed on specifications and quality.

I don't remember that coming up here, but I do remember some members of another group that I'm more involved with expressing similar sentiments. I do know exactly to whom you're referring, and some others who either knew him personally or had direct dealings with one of his companies generally didn't have a whole lot of nice things to say about him. Which is a shame, because he really did build some nice looking stuff. But I guess if you were building a car to DRIVE not to sit there and look nice, you'd be better served by going elsewhere.

There do seem to be a lot of aftermarket wheels, even some not so high end, that seem to be sold on the basis of style and not actual performance - they *look* cool, but they don't make your hub assemblies any lighter. Miata-centric web sites are a good source of info if you want to get an idea of who makes a "real race wheel" and who makes race wheel shaped objects. (especially so if you're like me and like watercooled VW's - there's a lot of crossover in wheel/tire packages there.)

nate

(builds cars to drive, but my current project sits on some really, really chunky 15" MoPar cop car wheels - 'cause I'm teh cheep. And dog dishes and trim rings really are the look I'm going for.)

The old form over function clash -- It's pretty but can it fly?

Pete

Exactly.

On the flip side, if you live somewhere like Detroit, you probably don't want to be running 3-piece BBSes unless you like replacing the lips every year or so. I even managed to slightly bend a set of Borbet C's, a reputedly very strong albeit not particularly light aftermarket wheel...

This does, of course, have nothing at all to do with wheels that are slightly egg shaped out of the box, and apparently are intended to look good on a turntable, not drive well on the street.

nate

nate

As I remember the old post, those Coddington wheels were .140 out of round. That is not very good.

On Aug 12, 2:26 pm, lugnut wrote: Hyundai Santa Fe.  It obviously rides much

"gave more support in her CASE"? What part of her body are you referring to as a case?

Sorry, I get confused sometimes.

-CC

_______________________ Yeah, and that German/Japanese caliber of engineering costs MONEY, something which America loves to always talk about saving more of. Makes my hair hurt! Build it - and build it RIGHT!

-CC

______________________ America is not a thinking nation when it comes to technology - automotive, aerospace, whatever category. We just do the bestest we can on the cheap.

If the Swiss had designed the Spaceshuttle, it would weigh 1/2 of what it does and be actually AERODYNAMIC - not sink like a brick once it reentered the atmosphere! And stuff wouldn't always be breaking every half-afreakin'-hour...

So a light but smooth & comfortable & well handling automobile won't be coming from these shores anytime soon - unless it's a BMW which is ASSEMBLED here.

-CC

On Aug 14, 2:20 am, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:  My opinion

______________________ Tire pressures were set low to improve the center of gravity, ratatouille. It had nothing to do with ride quality! The original Explorer's Bronco-II based front end suspension had an exceptionally high COG. Instead of spending the money to re-engineer a lower COG suspension, they figured on the cheap, and lowered specified TP into the mid-20s.

-CC