Carcass design and construction also has an impact on a tyres longevity/ability to handle
"Bruises and bumps"
The D697 has a thicker, stronger sidewall and tread base.
Printable View
Carcass design and construction also has an impact on a tyres longevity/ability to handle
"Bruises and bumps"
The D697 has a thicker, stronger sidewall and tread base.
Fair call Jon, I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting to go bigger. In my situation, I am going to 18s for a second set, so it has to be alot more tyre than my current 19s or I wouldnt have spent $3500. What I am after is the biggest tyres I can fit without too many dramas, which is 285/60/18, as well as being strong and more aggressive than my Hancook ATM.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon3950
Besides rubbing, wear to parts through said rubbing, difficulty getting them everywhere, increased drag and fuel consumption and risk to rear diff and CVs you will gain 11mm clearance 'from the hub'
Can't see the gains you're referring to.
The benefit of the 18s is cheaper rubber cost (3 sets nearly covers the savings) and potential stronger carcass construction (not just load rating)
Cheers
I just did a round trip to Charmhaven and back, about 200 odd ks, I still can't believe how quiet the D697s are over the GG AT2s we used to have, the GGs had a slight hum, all you get with the 697s is wind noise from the roof platform, shovel, awnings, pole carrier:Rolling:
Baz.
Pretty much sums it up, but you can add the affect they have on handling, braking and acceleration too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
Cheers,
Jon
Speedo also outQuote:
Originally Posted by jon3950
And the spare may not fit under the vehicle,which can be a PITA.
Or has to be deflated to fit.
Yes i know some of you guys have RWC's,but for me,i don't like them.
Just my 2 cents worth...
And if you are able go to 17's,tyre choice and $$$ you are way ahead.
But only with the 2.7l.
Not sure wha you mean by the biggest tyre. If you are looking for an LT rated tyre then the highest load rating I have seen is the bFG TA at 122. A widely used tyre with a relatively low tech compound that will change in March when the new version arrives in Australia. It will have the same compound as the KA series which is a very good tyre in our experience. But the higher the load rating the heavier the tyre. A 122 weighs around 5kg per tyre more than something < 118 which is around 2.5-3.0 kg more than a standard HT. So there is a trade off in fuel consumption, ride and handling and steering response. We've operated LT and AT across Australia on our tours and the best observation I can make after 20 years of that is there is no such thing as a puncture proof tyre. Anyone can puncture any tyre if you fail to look after it. One of our fleet clients uses the Bridgestone 661 which is a quarry tyre on their LC70 fleet. They have a 12.5mm sidewall and yet I have seen them shredded. On the other side of the table we have used D693 and 694's in the Cape and Kimberley with no problems at all, just adjust pressure and speed and in a general sense all should be right given Murphy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelan
So as I have stated in an earlier post I have ordered a set of GOE rims and we will be fitting the 697's in 114 load rating and my vehicle will do at least one Simpson, two Central Australia and one West Coast tour over the next year and I don't see the need to move to anything higher in load capacity at this point. But in saying that I am watching with interest to see when the new bFG TA arrives as that may just become a test set
Regards
Rob
Sooo, To throw a little diverse opinion in on the GGs I have run GG AT and AT2 tyres on my D3 for the last 230,000 KM. The ATs are a slightly better road tyre and don't get noisy when worn like the AT2s are prone to do but do not handle high country touring as well, with reduced pressure they seem more prone to cuts in the sidewall. Whether these cuts are an issue is debatable as I took one to my local tyre supplier and he just vulcanised it with a comment that the rubber is nearly an inch thick where the rim protector is.
The ATs are also not quite as good offroad on loose shale where they will lose traction on steep descents more easily than the AT2.
I am looking to go back to AT2s next time as they are a bit better off road IMHO.
The issue for me is to change to oversize tyres in order to fit the D697s then I am up for 6 new tyres at once.......
As an aside I am running D697s on my Falcon RTV ute as they are the only load rated tyre with some grip. Whilst they are OK I find them susceptible to punctures when getting low on tread and the set that I am currently running have about 30% tread after 70, 000 KM which is about the same as the OEM Goodyears on that vehicle.
Regards,
Tote
I've found that exact same issue in my experience with the 694's - Once the tread level was down I started to get rock fracture punctures in the tread section of the rear tyres when I was towing my camper trailer (that was in my 80 series with 265/75/16's) Seemed to happen once I was below around 7mm tread depthQuote:
Originally Posted by Tote