Support VWWC

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: 17" vs 18" honest viewpoints pros/cons

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    536
    Thread Starter

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel_vert View Post


    Haven't got a T5, but for what it's worth, I predict day-to-day driving (on Sydney's roads) will be bumpy, jittery, noisy, annoying & tiring, due to the lack of compliance from the tyre and from the suspension working overtime trying to keep the tyres in contact with the road. But when you hit a smooth road, it will be absolute heaven, joy & relief.

    General roadholding and grip will feel improved on smooth surfaces, but compromised on rough or uneven roads, for the same reasons mentioned above.

    The durability of any passenger tyre will probably be compromised compared to any commercial tyre, as I suspect their design brief and anticipated usage will be worlds apart.



    It's all very subjective - one man's sports car is another man's torture chamber.
    It's something you really need to test out for yourself. Visit the dealer for a "test drive" perhaps? (sorry dealers!)
    Thanks Diesel_vert, that's just the kind of feedback i was after. Having very little experience with lower profile tyres (my wifes car is a 323 with 55's and probably the lowest profile i have a long driving history with) my old falcon 1 tonner had steelie 16" 65's but i always wanted to put 18" on it and never got the chance due to the load rating yet again.

    I might wander down to mccarrols vw and see if they still have the spec25 with 18" and see what its like to drive if they will let me. a bit late now i suppose. looking forward to getting my wheels next friday! i will be one stoked vww driver!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mt Cotton
    Posts
    3,752
    I bought some alloys a few years back and they came with lo profile tyres that were in good nick so I decided to run them until they needed repacing , worst mistake I made I only lasted a few months and they drove me nuts so glad to get normal tyres on the alloys and bliss returned . rubber bands are for holding rolled up papers etc not supporting 1.8 tonnes of rolling transport , personal opinion please dont shoot me guys .

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    536
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunny43.5 View Post
    I bought some alloys a few years back and they came with lo profile tyres that were in good nick so I decided to run them until they needed repacing , worst mistake I made I only lasted a few months and they drove me nuts so glad to get normal tyres on the alloys and bliss returned . rubber bands are for holding rolled up papers etc not supporting 1.8 tonnes of rolling transport , personal opinion please dont shoot me guys .
    what size rim and tyre combo did you have sunny? was it the discomfort,noise,handling or something else?
    i am pretty happy with my choice... haha that being said i still have not even driven with them yet 55mm of rubber is fairly standard and should not be too bad. i dont know how these guys in the uk run 22" with 35 profile... madness!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    auckland NZ
    Posts
    77
    Users Country Flag
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxpuppet View Post
    what size rim and tyre combo did you have sunny? was it the discomfort,noise,handling or something else?
    i am pretty happy with my choice... haha that being said i still have not even driven with them yet 55mm of rubber is fairly standard and should not be too bad. i dont know how these guys in the uk run 22" with 35 profile... madness!
    I run 18" wheels on my van with a 235/45/18 tyre which on paper at least is the same rolling diameter as what the van had stock (215/65/16 from memory) Actual comparison makes the 235 a little smaller in height (about 5mm) and if I were to buy tyres again I'd go for a 245/45/18.
    Tyres are Hankook Evo12 with a 102 load rating and run them at 45psi, also chucked away the factory springs and replaced them with Eibach sportlines lowering 30mm.
    Both the tyres and springs have transformed the van from a wallowing disconected vehicle to something that actually rides nice and has responsive steering now, I was finding that taking corners was a 2nd gear affair on the stock wheels where as now its 3rd or even 4th in some cases.
    Ours roads here are nothing to write home about but the ride is fine, only very marginaly harder than stock.
    I think the biggest thing to a harsh ride is tyres, stiff sidewalls on mainly Jap tyres make them harsh.
    Overall I'm super happy with the combo I have.
    Last edited by vert1; 03-09-2012 at 08:11 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    4,304
    Users Country Flag
    I have the same 235/45/18 as above but have KU19 Kumho that are 103W load and speed rated for the Multivan.

    It is hard to tell you about what the differences are as I have KW V1 coils, but I find that as a modified car enthusiast and a family man - the car is acceptable to the mrs and kids for daily and long haul work. The tyres were about 180 each from memory.

    At the end of the day, it is simply something you want to pursue because you think it is worth it, or not.




  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mt Cotton
    Posts
    3,752
    Hi Foxpuppet it was a couple of years ago so the size of the tyres escapes me but I do DISTINCTLY remember that the ride was much harsher giving a jolting ride except for the best of bitumen surfaces , you could feel almost every small lump on the road and depending on road surface they were noisier . The van has stock suspension and with standards tyres back on the transformation was incredible , for myself never again . As I said in an earlier post I fit sunroofs for a living and repair as well and without fail the highest number of complaints I get from owners of factory fitted sunroofs and aftermarket sunroofs is rattles and noises and I can always say without fail its the cars with low profile wheel and tyre combinations are the biggest culprits , and its not just the hoon mobiles its cars that cost well over $60.000 plus that are built that way from factory that have issues . And then there is the tyre air pressure that is a contributing factor . I also like the look of a low riding car van but there is nearly always a trade off for this "look" I just wet myself laughing at some of the cars you see the drivers speed around and then come to a screaming stop at the first sign of a speed bump .
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxpuppet View Post
    what size rim and tyre combo did you have sunny? was it the discomfort,noise,handling or something else?
    i am pretty happy with my choice... haha that being said i still have not even driven with them yet 55mm of rubber is fairly standard and should not be too bad. i dont know how these guys in the uk run 22" with 35 profile... madness!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,605
    Quote Originally Posted by vert1 View Post
    I run 18" wheels on my van with a 235/45/18 tyre... Tyres are Hankook Evo12 with a 102 load rating
    Quote Originally Posted by mikinoz View Post
    I have the same 235/45/18 as above but have KU19 Kumho that are 103W load and speed rated for the Multivan.
    A 235/45 R18 passenger tyre has a load index of 94 (standard load) or 98 (extra load/reinforced).

    A 235/45 R18 passenger tyre with a load index of 102 or 103 doesn't exist, nor is there such thing as a 235/45 R18C commercial tyre.


    Quote Originally Posted by vert1 View Post
    ... which on paper at least is the same rolling diameter as what the van had stock (215/65/16 from memory) Actual comparison makes the 235 a little smaller in height (about 5mm) and if I were to buy tyres again I'd go for a 245/45/18.
    The correct fitment is 255/45 R18 103Y XL.

    The load index (and hence load capacity) of a 245/45 R18 100Y XL or 235/45 R18 98Y XL tyre is too low.

    Load index has priority over rolling circumference, in terms of safety, roadworthiness & liability.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    auckland NZ
    Posts
    77
    Users Country Flag
    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel_vert View Post
    A 235/45 R18 passenger tyre has a load index of 94 (standard load) or 98 (extra load/reinforced).

    A 235/45 R18 passenger tyre with a load index of 102 or 103 doesn't exist, nor is there such thing as a 235/45 R18C commercial tyre.




    The correct fitment is 255/45 R18 103Y XL.

    The load index (and hence load capacity) of a 245/45 R18 100Y XL or 235/45 R18 98Y XL tyre is too low.

    Load index has priority over rolling circumference, in terms of safety, roadworthiness & liability.
    What you are saying then is that the manufacturer is wrong and their specs in their books are wrong?

    I should add however that if you are loading your van to the max (which I never will) then passenger car tyres will not work.
    The tyres I have can do a max axle load of 1.5 tonnes.
    Last edited by vert1; 04-09-2012 at 06:40 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,605
    Quote Originally Posted by vert1 View Post
    What you are saying then is that the manufacturer is wrong and their specs in their books are wrong?
    You've either misquoted the size or the load index of your tyres

    Otherwise, take a photo and prove me wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by vert1 View Post
    I should add however that if you are loading your van to the max (which I never will) then passenger car tyres will not work.
    It doesn't matter whether it's a passenger or commercial tyre, as long as one ensures the load index (and hence load capacity) is equal to, or exceeds that of the vehicle manufacturer's original fitment (recommended) or exceeds the vehicle's gross axle weight (at the very least, as a bare minimum).

    Also, the Land Transport Rule: Tyres and Wheels 2001 (NZ) says:


    2.3 General safety requirements for tyres

    2.3(10)

    The sum of the load ratings of the tyres fitted to an axle of a motor vehicle must be
    equal to, or greater than, the maximum load that is specified on the certificate of
    loading for that vehicle, taking into account the speed at which the vehicle is being used.


    ... and...


    2.3(12)

    The laden weight on any axle of a motor vehicle must not exceed the sum of loads that
    are allowed for the tyres fitted to the axle, taking into account the speed at which the
    vehicle is being used and the pressure to which the tyres are inflated.


    I'm not entirely familiar with the legal situation in NZ, but that would look pretty convincing in front of a magistrate (if it were to go that far), and I bet there is no jurisdiction amongst the OECD countires that would allow the fitment of tyres with a maximum load capacity per axle which is less than that of a motor vehicle's gross axle weight.


    Quote Originally Posted by vert1 View Post
    The tyres I have can do a max axle load of 1.5 tonnes.
    Um... okay...

    A load capacity of 1500 kg per axle is 750 kg per tyre, which equates to a load index of 98, which would confirm what I said earlier...
    Last edited by Diesel_vert; 04-09-2012 at 09:18 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    4,304
    Users Country Flag

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel_vert View Post
    A 235/45 R18 passenger tyre with a load index of 102 or 103 doesn't exist, nor is there such thing as a 235/45 R18C commercial tyre.
    My mistake, I actually have 255/45 R18... Which do exist.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
| |