Date:         Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:26:11 -0400
Reply-To:     Mike S <mikes@FLATSURFACE.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Mike S <mikes@FLATSURFACE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Reinforced tires - what about other vans?
Comments: To: Chris S <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <5ebe10a0903151830x523cfacfxc76a42852eb42564@mail.gmail.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 09:30 PM 3/15/2009, Chris S wrote...
>I looked up tires for these vehicles, all 2003 models except one.  I
>used Tire Rack too look up their recommended tires.  Guess what?  None
>of the vehicles requires reinforced tires...
>
>Toyota / Sienna / 3933 / 215-55r15 / 1477@44
>Honda / Odyssey / 4310 / 225-60r16 / 1874@49
>Ford / Windstar / 4290 /  225-60r16 / 1874@49
>VW / Eurovan / 4288 / 225-60r16 / 1874@49
>VW / Routan / 4620 / 225-65r17 / 1764@44

VW specifies a reinforced 185r14 (passenger car tire) or a 184r14c
(light truck) tire for the Vanagon, and all OE tires have had a load
rating of at least 1580 lbs (97 rating). What does the specification
for a different vehicle have to do with that? Dodge/Mercedes Sprinters
use a 109 (over 2200 lb. load) tire, so why not use that figure?

I'll point out that other than the Sienna, all of those tires have a
higher load capacity than VW specs. That is what the last number
indicates, isn't it (load@pressure)?

For the Sienna, Toyota specifies P215/65R16 96T,  P225/60R17 98T, or
T155/80R17 101M 420 (a compact spare size). Source: 2004 Toyota Sienna
Owner's Manual. A load rating of 96 is only slight less than the
minimum VW has used (97), which is not entirely surprising, since it's
of unibody construction with a significantly lower center of gravity
than a Vanagon.

What's your point?