Register now to get rid of these ads!

Whose running 165R 15 on full size cars

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Boones, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. Boones
    Joined: Mar 4, 2001
    Posts: 9,545

    Boones
    Member
    from Kent, Wa

    wondering who is running 165R 15 on full size cars (post 1940). (I have had them on a Model A but that is to light to compare.

    I need to replace my 6.00 x 15 bias plys on my 51 chevy with radials to keep the car from wondering in the NW Freeway ruts. or similar narrow tire (Hoosier ??)

    The 6.00 at 26" tall

    I am looking at either 165R 15 or 195/70/15 radial

    the 165R are 25.25 tall about 4.5 tread width
    the 195/70 are 26.25 tall (?? tread width)

    I really do not need to go shorter as I am down pretty low now (no airride) but I like the narrow tread of the 165R, the 195 are taller but I then have to deal with the wider tire (can not find info on actual tread width, only overall width) if someone has a pair can you measure the tread width for me.

    What worries me is can the 165R handle the weight on the big car and how do they drive on the freeway (long distance especially since I drive the car to California in August).

    [​IMG]
     
  2. JohnEvans
    Joined: Apr 13, 2008
    Posts: 4,883

    JohnEvans
    Member
    from Phoenix AZ

    Check the load rating ,weigh the the front of the car. Select tires that will carry the weight at max recomended pressure.
     
  3. Grumpy
    Joined: Jan 28, 2003
    Posts: 2,563

    Grumpy
    Member
    from NE Ohio

    Is there such a animal as a 185-75-15?
    That would be same height as a 195-70 but slightly narrower.
     
  4. I AM RUNNING BF GOODRICH SILVERTONES 165 75 15 ON MY 47 FLEETMASTER WITH A MUSTANG ii FRONT END, AND A SMALL BLOCK CHEVY MOTOR MUCH IMPROVERED OVER FIRESTONE 560 15 BIAS PLYS
     
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. chop32
    Joined: Oct 13, 2002
    Posts: 1,077

    chop32
    Member

    Ive run 165-15's on my OT big block '68 Camaro, a '64 Nova and on my '55 Chevy in both its big block and small block incarnations...all with no problems.
     
  6. 51farmtruck
    Joined: Jul 23, 2007
    Posts: 829

    51farmtruck
    Member

    Boones, I ran 165r 15's on my 51 chevy pickup for 3-4 years. I drove it to bonneville and back 2 times. It handled great, tracked great, drove awesome on them. Its a daily driver for most of the year.

    Then I switched to torque thrusts and only had 14's for the front. Now it has big ol balloon tires on the front.:mad: Sam
     
  7. rld14
    Joined: Mar 30, 2011
    Posts: 1,609

    rld14
    Member

    165R15s have a load capacity of 1,168lbs at 35psi.

    On a drag car? Fine. On a street driven car? That's cutting it close.. Doesn't that Chevy weigh close to 2 tons as it is? Hit the brakes and weight transfer will be putting you in jeopardy.
     
  8. chop32
    Joined: Oct 13, 2002
    Posts: 1,077

    chop32
    Member

    I just checked, and the 165/80R-15's on my '55 Chevy are rated at 1202 lbs. each, so not much difference there.
    My car weighs 3500 with me in it, so Id guess his H.T. would weigh about the same.
    I never really considered the momentary weight transfer during braking though, good point.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2013
  9. rld14
    Joined: Mar 30, 2011
    Posts: 1,609

    rld14
    Member


    Yup. That's what would scare me about using them... And yeah they look cool and all...but...

    Kind of a pet concern of mine, becomes a real issue on late 50s/early 60s luxury cars that use big 14s... The only radials available are way shorter than the stock tires and often have max capacity at 40psi, at 30psi these 215/225s can barely hold a Lincoln or Imperial or Olds 98 up.
     
  10. Ken, I run 195s on my 54. look good in the wheelwells. I would not be afraid of 165s, car weight 3400, same as an Accord, Corolla etc.........kills non car folks when I tell them that. They expect a 50s car to weight 6000 pounds or something.
     
  11. Boones
    Joined: Mar 4, 2001
    Posts: 9,545

    Boones
    Member
    from Kent, Wa

    rLD14 hit the point I was worried about, the loaded force on the tires under worse case scenerios. . If rated at 1600 lbs (looking at Michelins) it would probably do fine for normal. I would think the Mustang II is lighter than the factory stuff and the sbc has to be close to the same weight at the factory 6 cyl (maybe lighter ??) so the car is probably close to 3500 overall, especially on a road trip (that weight is in the trunk).

    I worry about the braking weight.. (most of the time on a road trip you are not at heavy speeds when braking hard, it is in traffic....) but that is why I am asking.

    has anyone had a blow out with a set of 165's.


    last night I found out that Costco offers a 205/75/15 (only sams, Costco etc, offer them.) they are 27" tall, thread is 5.3 wide, which means a 1/2 rise in the front (not really what I want). I also found a site that shows the 205/70/15 is 26" tall with a 6" tread width (no impact to ride height). and the 165/SR/15 is 25.3" with 4.3 tread width. (lowering the car a .33"
     
  12. 63comet
    Joined: Jan 31, 2006
    Posts: 508

    63comet
    Member

    Used to be.... I seem to remember thats what my TR6 ran stock?
     
  13. I have also run the 205s. Depends on what is in stock. Visually the 205s look the same as the 195s to me.
     
  14. rld14
    Joined: Mar 30, 2011
    Posts: 1,609

    rld14
    Member

    A 165R15 is about as tall as a 195-70-14 or 205-60-15.. They're right around 25"

    In my experience if you do get em you want the Vredestein Sprint Classics, had them on my (fuck you hurricane sandy) previous Porsche 356A and really liked them. A lot.
     
  15. Stevie Nash
    Joined: Oct 24, 2007
    Posts: 2,999

    Stevie Nash
    Member

    Sounds kind of skinny to me for a full size car. I run 215-75-15's on a fat fendered car and they look great.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2013
  16. Atwater Mike
    Joined: May 31, 2002
    Posts: 9,796

    Atwater Mike
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I used Goodyear Eagles (195/65/15 on the front of my '55 F100...6" tread, 7.5" wide at wall cross section. 24" overall height, they were the 'right stuff'.

    Tires were 'take-offs' at the BMW dealership where I worked in the '80s.
    Parts Mgr said, "Can you use these on that truck you're doing?"
    I answered, "Yes...on the front!"

    Times change, now the fronts are Tiger Paws, 205/65/15. Sits perfect, now with the new spring packs I built: flattened, 8-leaf reversed eyes, and the '57-'59 axle (1" lower

    F100 fenders are much larger than those pretty Chevys, so I can fill 'em up with more tire...but I tend to stay with 'smallish' size in front.
     
  17. pinman 39
    Joined: Oct 9, 2008
    Posts: 520

    pinman 39
    Member

    I don't like the look of 165 70 15's there isn't enough tire for the wheelwell
    they look short .If I had to I would go with 195s. I put 185 70 14s on my
    39 Chevy .
     
  18. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    I've been running them for years. I wouldn't say they "handle great" by any means, you will find their cornering limits REAL FAST, they will push like you wouldn't believe, and turning in more wont make a hill of beans of difference. But then, if you are playing Nuvolari on pizza cutters, you will warp the rims anyway. Use common sense, drive accordingly, and they are fine. I have been over 130 mph on them at the track on big heavy cars, and I aint dead yet.
     
  19. You know, when I first got the 54 on the road I had some 14" Fentons and they looked way to small for the stance and size of the front wheel arches. Ditched them for 15s.
     
  20. Ranunculous
    Joined: Nov 30, 2007
    Posts: 2,456

    Ranunculous
    Member

    I'm running 165SR15's on 5" rims on my truck and they have me wondering about going hard into a turn-whether they'll roll off of the bead or not? Sometimes I hold my breath.
    Just recently scored a set of MT front runners and the load rate is better,as is the height.

    Better sure than sore....
     
  21. I wouldnt chance it. They are rated really light duty tires.
     
  22. I got 1.65 on a 41 olds, don't like the look, too narrow, proabbly too low a load range
    but seeing they are wide whites I will make use the fronts when done, narrowing the rear to go bigger on tires
    got a 51 ford that had 1.95 all the way around, they at least look a little better, showing the car, I wanted to fill the wheel well and stuck something like a 225 on the front and I did this only for appearance and still will run the 1.95 on the rear, more wide whites
     
  23. Boones
    Joined: Mar 4, 2001
    Posts: 9,545

    Boones
    Member
    from Kent, Wa

    Well from the feedback, lots of others have the same concerns I do with the smaller tire.

    I will narrow it down to 205/70/15 or 205/75/15 and just live with fatter (70's series) or taller (narrow) that what I am running now.
     
  24. Ken,if you remember my black 39 Ford convertible I had them on the front of it. HRP
     
  25. Dakota
    Joined: Jan 21, 2004
    Posts: 1,535

    Dakota
    Member
    from Beulah, ND

    we put 40k miles on my dads 38 Chevy with those Tires... i dont think it would be an issue....
     
  26. Cortney
    Joined: Aug 11, 2008
    Posts: 371

    Cortney
    Member

    Not 40's or 50's and not a "full" size car but I ran them on my 64 Chevelle for many years and my Bro-in-law is still running them on that car and I sold it to him 10 years ago!


    Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
     
  27. need louvers ?
    Joined: Nov 20, 2008
    Posts: 12,912

    need louvers ?
    Member

    Don't forget 65 series tires as well. Some thing in the 195 or 205/65X15 will keep the lower height, but put more tread on the road. As low as you car is, and as deep as the fender wells are you'll never see the extra width.

    As I said the other day, I ran 165x15s forever on my car, and although I would never call them optimal, I certainly wouldn't ever call them dangerous. And, I am far from anybody that has ever babied his car.
     
  28. MikeRose
    Joined: Oct 7, 2004
    Posts: 1,563

    MikeRose
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I ran them on the front of a chevelle I had. They were ok except if I cornered hard. I could feel them roll up on the rim. At least thats how it felt. I don't think I would run them again on a heavy car like that.
     
  29. Boones
    Joined: Mar 4, 2001
    Posts: 9,545

    Boones
    Member
    from Kent, Wa

    65 series is to low profile and wide. I need a taller narrow tire which means a 70 series or higher. I do not want anything wider than 6" of tread.
     
  30. b-bob
    Joined: Nov 4, 2008
    Posts: 1,089

    b-bob
    Member

    I used to use the 165's on my Model A's. The last ones i bought, were two of the last four in Canada at that time. Had to have them shipped to B.C. from Ontario. They were used on VW beatles.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.