New Michelin tires

[Tom and Patty]

Originally Posted by rfsod48

My MH sticker calls for 275/70/22.5 G load rating. Michelin doesn’t make this size tire in G rating, it only comes as J rating. I have enough clearance to go to 275/80/22.5 G rating but that would change RPM/MPH rating because of difference in revolutions per mile. Which would be worse, J rating or RPM/MPH change?

6% difference in height. It's entirely up to you of it fits. But does it fit on turns with the suspension compressed, as in braking and turning sharp?

[DrDaveMA]

Originally Posted by Alpine03

My Toyos are 8 years old , look New but thinking of putting New Michelins on the front. Michelin does not make 295/75/R22.5 which is what the Toyos are. What size should I use? 34'FDD.

When I bought my ‘05 new, it came with 11R22.5 Tokyo’s. I replaced them with Michelins in the same size, my reasoning was if I was to have a problem with the 11R’s I had probably the most common truck tire on the road. Well since then I have been extremely lucky, no tire issues, but it is about time to replace them. I think since I have had such good luck I will stay with Michelins.

On a side note, I recently needed new tires for my pick up truck. At the chain store tire dealer I went (FMCA does not have the size I needed in the discount program) to we discussed the age of new tires. They did not have my size in stock, but brought in a set of 4 (from 2 different warehouses) new Bridgestones, the next day, you should have seen the expression on my face when I looked at the DOT date on them.

1312
4107
3210
1412

The store manager stated that they would not even service tires 6 year or older. I asked him which of these 4 he would service, he admitted he would not service any of them. When I had brought the truck to them for the new tires I had 2 that had steel belts that had separated, so he and I both agreed I would use the new tires and while he went out and get newer tires (he predicted it would be a week). That was 3 weeks ago. I keep chasing the store manager for resolution, his best offer has a set of Yokohama’s that are 1 year old and cost a total of $70 less and he added a $25 per tire discount for my trouble. I told him that was not acceptable. I am currently waiting for them to come back with an offer that we both will be able to live with.

Bottom line, whenever you buy new tires check the DOT date to make sure they truly are NEW before you give them any money. I would also suggest telling them you will not accept anything more than 6 months old.

[TheKassman]

Just make certain you get the same load range. The difference between the G and H load range is 1,000 lbs capacity.

[wolfe10]

We're getting a lot of answers from those with OTHER COACHES-- with OTHER OE TIRE SIZES.


Please filter out sizes that do not meet the OE specs of YOUR COACH.


That means at least same LOAD RANGE.


That means close to the same REVOLUTIONS PER MILE.


That means appropriate clearance to body and suspension components.


Going from a 295/75 to a 295/80 be aware there is a BIG DIFFERENCE in height, revolutions per mile and potential interference with body/suspension components.

[Old Scout]

Agree in full with Brett in term of OEM specs but as mentioned--I went from 295/75r OEM tires to 295/80r and then to the 11r on my 2003. some 10-12 years and 175k miles ago. Other than the modest changes to odometer, speedometer and RPMs, I have had no issues with clearance or fit. Debated the 275/80rs but they are in appearance anyway, considerably smaller.....but maybe that is just me......
PS--here is a spreadsheet I built for personal use during an earlier search for tires....used several different brand websites to compile data.....

[wolfe10]

Originally Posted by Old Scout

Agree in full with Brett in term of OEM specs but as mentioned--I went from 295/75r OEM tires to 295/80r and then to the 11r on my 2003. some 10-12 years and 175k miles ago. Other than the modest changes to odometer, speedometer and RPMs, I have had no issues with clearance or fit.

Dean,


Excellent. Without your first hand information, I would have been concerned to be the "guinea pig" to test the 295/80R22.5 for body and suspension clearance on the 2003. They sure give you a greater safety margin in terms of carrying capacity.

[gatorv]

Michelin has there own size that is the replacement for the 295/75/22.5. I bought mine 2 years ago. I crashed my 2000 alpine so I can't go out and look. Got mine at Pete's tire through FMCA. If I remember right it was something like a 300/75/22.5, but guessing. They worked great until I parked my MH in my two car garage and totaled it. I had Toyos too but they were noisy. Be sure to ask about road noise before you buy.

[tizzyfit]

Originally Posted by Tom and Patty

This is a good guide and will bring you close to the actual size. If you stay with tier1 and tier 2 tires your pretty good. but for more accurate sizing, check the manufactures data book.



Here is the formula:
275/80R22.5
275 is width in mm
80 is the aspect ratio - % height of sidewall in relation to the width


275*.80=220 mm height next convert to inches 25.4mm/inch
220/25.4= 8.66 inches in height if sidewall
8.66*2(sidewalls)17.32 inches
17.32+22.5 (wheel diameter) 39.82


Now you know more than many tire salespeople regarding calculating size.



Enjoy!!

THANKS Tom! Please remind me in 3 or 4 years when I'll need new tires. I have trouble just trying to remember how the date codes work.

[RVPioneer]

Originally Posted by gatorv

Michelin has there own size that is the replacement for the 295/75/22.5. I bought mine 2 years ago. I crashed my 2000 alpine so I can't go out and look. Got mine at Pete's tire through FMCA. If I remember right it was something like a 300/75/22.5, but guessing. They worked great until I parked my MH in my two car garage and totaled it. I had Toyos too but they were noisy. Be sure to ask about road noise before you buy.

How did the garage hold up?

[Tom and Patty]

[QUOTE= Debated the 275/80rs but they are in appearance anyway, considerably smaller.....but maybe that is just me......[/QUOTE]


I agree. The do look smaller because of the section width. Now Dave F. went with super singles on his 2001 a few years ago. Those looked BIG!! Don't know if he is still running those. Maybe he will chime in about his "Fat Rollers".

[TheKassman]

Your load rating will be determined by the GAWR of your axel. If you have a 10,500 axel you should not exceed 5,250 on either end of the axel. the 275/80R/22.5 LRG has a load capacity as a single of 6,175 and 5,675 as a duel. In this senario you would only need a G load Range. This is just an example and the actual load range you need will depend on your GAWR. Yes, you can use a higher load range but you will not be able to utilize the extra carring capacity if it exceeds the GAWR.

[Old Scout]

"Ifs and buts" notwithstanding..... lets deal with some facts--the older Alpines have a front axle rating of 12k and 19k rear. Starting around late 2003, WRV went to 13k front and 20k rear......Suppose you can debate shorter coach lengths and added carrying capacity, but with either case, I would never go with less than load range H for an Alpine coach--as always, opinions will and do vary.......

[wolfe10]

Originally Posted by Old Scout

... but with either case, I would never go with less than load range H for an Alpine coach--as always, opinions will and do vary.......

Agree. H rating, not G.

[TheKassman]

Scout. My Alpine is a 1998. 36SDS. My front Axel GAWR is 10,500, rear GAWR 17,500. LRG exceeds my axle limitations. LRH is not necessary on my coach.