Coast Resorts Open Roads Forum: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

Print | Close

Topic: Tires E-350/450: Stock 225/75? Tall 215/85? Wide 235/85?

Posted By: BigToe on 10/22/22 09:03am

Tire Choices for Ford E-Series Cutaway Class C Motorhomes

What replacement tires did you put on your Class C motorhome built on a Ford E-350 or E-450 (aka E-Superduty in older rigs) cutaway chassis, and what were your reasons for your tire selection?

Did you stick with the stock tire size of LT225/75r16 ?

Did you go taller and skinnier, changing to LT215/85r16 ?

Did you go taller and wider, changing to LT235/85r16?

Did you upgrade to 10 ply rating Load Range "E"? (If you have an older E-350 originally specified with 8 ply rated Load Range "D")

Did you switch to European style 225/75r16C, such as what is specified for Euro van cutaways like the Transit and Sprinter?

Have you had an experience with any particular brand and model of tire for your E-350/450 RV that caused you to swear "never again"?

Do you have a particular brand and model of tire that is your trusted "go to"?

Thank you!

Posted By: Grit dog on 10/22/22 09:12am

Just buy some new tires.
No advantage going larger or wider unless you need greater weight capacity.

2016 Ram 2500, MotorOps.ca EFIlive tuned, 5” turbo back, 6" lift on 37s
2017 Heartland Torque T29 - Sold.
Couple of Arctic Fox TCs - Sold

Posted By: MDKMDK on 10/22/22 09:17am

Michelin has always been my go to make. However, Falken Wild Peak AT/3 hybrid may be my next replacement on my Sprinter. 215/85R16 Load Range E. I put a set on my Wrangler and they're great, ride well, and gnarly tread design for all weather and road conditions.

Mike. Comments are anecdotal or personal opinions, and worth what you paid for them.
2018 (2017 Sprinter Cab Chassis) Navion24V + 2016 Wrangler JKU (sold @ ????)
2016 Sunstar 26HE, V10, 3V, 6 Speed (sold @ 4600 miles)
2002 Roadtrek C190P (sold @ 315,000kms)

Posted By: BigToe on 10/22/22 11:03am

MDKMDK

Did your Sprinter come originally equipped with 215/85R16, or did you change to that size. If you did change, what was the original size?

What brand of tires are on your Sprinter now?

Why would you go with Falken Wild Peak AT/3 hybrid for your next Class C tire purchase, even while Michelin has always been your go to make?

Are you at all concerned about "weather checking" sidewalls of Michelins?

Have you considered the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate tire (available in 215/85R16 LRE)?

Thanks in arrears and in advance for your responses!

Posted By: MDKMDK on 10/22/22 11:09am

Yes.
Continentals, I believe.
They're good tires on my Wrangler. They're a hybrid rubber compound, good in cold and hot, so no need to change from summer to winter. Why not on my Sprinter?
I don't know "weather checking", so no. I had a set of AT2s suffer tread separation a few years ago. Just beyond the average upper mileage limit.
Yes.

Posted By: bobndot on 10/22/22 02:46pm

Im thinking of swapping to the taller 215 tire.
I could use the 1/2” height difference.
My metal hitch protectors scape my sidewalk if i back into my driveway. I think i could clear it having the extra 1/2”. I’m able to pull into the driveway not scraping but not backing in. Strange, but thats the way it is.

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/22/22 04:22pm

On my 30' Class C RVs I have upgraded to Commercial rated tires which each have ~500lbs more carrying capacity compared to the E-Load rated tires. On the 30' Class C RVs, I feel that the E-load rated tires don't offer enough buffer vs the possible max load on the back axle.

Just to be clear...I never recommend overloading your rear axle. But I sleep better knowing that the Commercial rated tires can carry ~2000lbs more so it hopefully reduces the likelihood of a blowout. I have two 30' Class C RVs. On E-load rated tires I've had 2-3 blowouts over a 5 year period (all minor). Since switching over to Commercial rated tires I have had zero blowouts. I did not notice a difference in the ride quality or noise.

Note: C-load rated tires are NOT the same as Commercial tires.

Since I know my tires are not likely to "wear out" and will more likely "age out", I try not to overspend on high end brand tires. Over the last 5 years I've been able to find reasonable tires at ~$125 each at Big-O tires nearby.

Safe travels!
Chris

San Jose, CA
Own two 2015 Thor Majestic 28a Class C RVs

Posted By: BigToe on 10/22/22 09:06pm

SJ Chris

What are "Commercial rated tires which each have ~500 lbs. more carrying capacity compared to the E-load tires?"

Can you please tell us the size, numerical load index, (eg 115/112R), manufacturer brand, and model name/number of the tires that you picked out for your 30' Class C Thors?

The term "Commercial" is used to broadly across too many sizes and types of tires for me to find the type of tires that you recommend.

Thanks.

Posted By: CapriRacer on 10/23/22 06:21am

One of the problems is one of clearance. Typically motor vehicles equipped with duallies don't have enough room to change tire sizes without difficulties, such dually spacing.

Be very careful here.

********************************************************************

CapriRacer

Visit my web site: www.BarrysTireTech.com

Posted By: BigToe on 10/23/22 07:00am

In addition to dual spacing clearance between the tires when loaded, changing tire sizes also results in changes to final drive ratio gearing, affecting acceleration, shift points, and gradeability in a given gear.

Still, I've read several stories (not sure if they are all from the same member or from several members) over the years on RV.net of Ford Class C owners changing to 215/85R16 (which actually results in more clearance between the duals).

Moreover, I've also read of at least one member who upsized to 235/85R16, as that was the tire size that Ford used on their SRW E series vans in the late '80's and early '90's.

I think that these owners were looking for a bit more ground clearance. They might have been looking for more weight capacity across the back axle too. I didn't pay much attention to the details when I stumbled across their posts, figuring that a keyword search would always retrieve their reasoning and results, whenever life presented a "need to know" demand.

Well, I was shocked at how sparsely few results revealed themselves in search, so I was hoping a fresh topic would unearth the considerations and motivations of E-350 and E-450 based Class C owners who have changed their OEM tire size.

Thank you for your words of caution on dually spacing.

Posted By: bobndot on 10/23/22 08:19am

I have better luck to NOT use the rvnet search box. I use my own search engine and type in :
‘Rv.net , class c tire upgrade’. I do this to find all rvnet posts on various subjects.

Rv.net, then ask your question.

Posted By: Grit dog on 10/23/22 10:27am

Measure the clearances you have currently and then compare to your tire and other sizes specs (on paper).
Not likely 1cm wider will kill duals clearance.
235/85s may be a tad big in front considering the larger diameter

Posted By: BigToe on 10/23/22 11:43am

Thank you for that suggestion, which did work to reveal more threads than RVnet's internal search engine.

Posted By: pnichols on 10/23/22 07:10pm

BigToe wrote:

We have a smaller (24 ft.) Class C for just the DW & myself. We wanted a Class C which provided all the comforts of home for two in varied weather conditions, while at the same time providing enough travel/camping flexibility and chassis ruggedness so as to almost match what a 2WD TC could provide. We do take our Class C carefully offroad at times.

As such, we searched for and bought it new built on the optional-for-it's-weight heavier duty E450 chassis instead of the common E350 chassis usually used for small Class C rigs.

At the first tire change opportunity we did not go for the stock LT225/75R16 Load Range E tires that came on it. We instead chose LT215/85R16 size Load Range E tires. These tires are rated for the same weight carrying capacity - but are taller for more offroad ground clearance. Plus as a bonus they are slightly narrower so as to both provide more space between the dually sidewalls for improved sidewall air cooling when on the highway during high ambient air temperatures and ... they "punch through to the underneath hard road surface" better under slush and snow conditions due to their higher pounds-per-square-inch downwards tread pressure.

As for "guaranteed quality", our Class C came with Michelin LT tires, so we bit the expense bullet and replaced them with Michelin LT215/85R16 tires.

* This post was last edited 10/30/22 12:07am by pnichols *

2005 E450 Itasca 24V Class C

Posted By: BigToe on 10/23/22 11:24pm

Thanks PNichols.

If you have an E-450, then you must have 4.56 gearing?

What transmission does your rig have? How many speeds?

Did you notice any difference in shift points on grades with the taller tires?

Posted By: pnichols on 10/24/22 11:09am

BigToe wrote:

I "think" that our E450 has a 4.56 rear differential, but am not absolutely sure as some E450's may have been available with a 4.30 rear differential. I tried researching this using the codes on the door sticker but was never able to determine the rear differential gearing for sure.

Our 2005 Itasca Class C's E450 chassis has the 5-speed 5R110W transmission. As I understand it, this transmission actually has 6 distinct internal gear ratios, with the computer invoking one of the two internal ratios for one of the transmission's gears - depending upon (outside air ambient?) temperature.

I have not noticed any difference in shift points with the taller tires, but any effect purely due to tire size may be masked because I mainly travel in Tow/Haul mode.

The speedometer reads a bit on the "too-slow" side with the taller tires, but this is of no concern to us (a dealer could maybe tweak this). We cruise with a speedometer reading in the 58-60 MPH range, with the tach reading around 2200 RPM ... and hopefully our mileage being in the 9-10 MPG range (but I don't keep records on this).

Of course the larger diameter tires somewhat compensate for the high 4.56 rear differential by moving the overall drive train's ratio lower. However we do prefer the E450's overall drive train's ratio - even with our taller tires - being higher than that of a stock E350's because we prefer the improved low speed pulling power during occasional offroad travel.

* This post was edited 10/24/22 11:21am by pnichols *

Posted By: BigToe on 10/25/22 11:08pm

Thanks for your responses pnichols.

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/27/22 04:13pm

BigToe wrote:

Sure, no problem. Here are the tires I put on my 30' Class C the last time I needed tires:

LT225/75R16C 121/120R (the 121/120 load rating is what you are looking for if you want more weight carrying capacity). You should never overload your rear axle. These Commercial rated tires give an extra 2000lbs carrying capacity on the rear axle which is big given the E-load rated tires have very little buffer in their max carrying capacity vs the max rear axle load rating. This is ESPECIALLY important if/when your rear tires are not optimally inflated.

Specifically the ones I got were Nexen Roadian CT8 HL (google it if the link doesn't work)
https://www.bigotires.com/tires/sku/nexen/roadian-ct8-hl/lt225-75r16c-121-120r-e/000000000001100191

At this time, they are ~$150-160 per tire (not counting all the other **** they add on when you get tires, which you will pay regardless of what tires you buy).

I have had zero problems with them for 2-3 years now. Personally, I didn't notice a difference in ride comfort or noise (...Class C RVs are pretty noisy when driving to begin with...).

Question: Does a CASUAL RV USER who will only put 2,000-10,000 miles per year on their RV need tires that will "last 80,000 miles"? Nope! Your tires will "age" out before they "wear" out.

Hope that helps.
Chris

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/27/22 04:19pm

pnichols wrote:

BigToe wrote:

We have a smaller (24 ft.) Class C for just the DW & myself. We wanted a Class C which provided all the comforts of home for two in varied weather conditions, while at the same time providing enough travel/camping flexibility and chassis ruggedness so as to amost match what a 2WD TC could provide. We do take our Class C carefully offroad at times.

As such, we searched for and bought it new built on the optional-for-it's-weight heavier duty E450 chassis instead of the common E350 chassis usually used for small Class C rigs.

At the first tire change opportunity we did not go for the stock LT225/75R16 Load Range E tires that came on it. We instead chose LT215/85R16 size Load Range E tires. These tires are rated for the same weight carrying capacity - but are taller for more offroad ground clearance. Plus as a bonus they are slightly narrower so as to both provide more space between the dually sidewalls for improved sidewall air cooling when on the highway during high ambient air temperatures and ... they "punch through to the underneath hard road surface" better under slush and snow conditions due to their higher pounds-per-square-inch downwards tread pressure.

As for "guaranteed quality", our Class C came with Michelin LT tires, so we bit the expense bullet and replaced them with Michelin LT215/85R16 tires.

For another vehicle (non-RV) I was recently at the tire shop talking with the sales person. I asked about changing the tire size (taller tire). On my particular vehicle, he mentioned that if I changed the tire size it would make the speedometer off (speed and distance) as the car/computer/etc is calibrated for the manufacturer's recommended tire size. I found that interesting. The same could/might apply on an RV (not sure). Whether that matters to you when selecting tires is purely up to you.

Safe travels!
Chris

Posted By: BigToe on 10/28/22 01:21pm

Thank you SJ-Chris for your detailed response!

Posted By: BigToe on 10/29/22 02:57pm

The Ford E-350 DRW and E-450 DRW E-Series Cutaway Chassis OEM 16" x 6" wheels that were manufactured in Canada by Accuride, identified by eight circular hand holes, are rated to 80 psi.

I haven't personally verified the wheel psi rating of the current 4 hand hole 16"x6" OEM wheels made by Maxion in Mexico, but have every indication to believe that they match the original wheel specification of 80 psi Max cold inflation pressure. I have personally verified the OEM wheels made by Accuride in Canada.

The interesting, informational, and arguably irrelevant aspect of the higher rating of the European Tyre & Rim Technical Organisation commercial tire standard developed for Euro Vans such as the Sprinter, Transit, Fiat, ProMaster, and VW equivalents marketed under various names depending on country... tires which we in the United States can identify as "C-Metric" tires (as very distinct from "LT-Metric Load Range C" tires... is that the "500 lbs." higher rating per tire in the 225/75R16C size is at 83 psi.

The stock wheels are only rated to 80 psi.

So the "margin" of weight capacity per tire must be reduced by the C-Metric tires rated capacity at a reduced pressure, which in this case is no higher than 80 psi.

Nexen doesn't offer any Load Inflation Tables. I even called Nexen tech support for this information, and spent 30 minutes on the phone with an Andrew at Nexen, who was not able to locate a Load Inflation Table for any of the five offerings that Nexen produces in the LT225/75R16 or 225/75R16C sizes.

However, most other tire manufacturers do provide load inflation tables, which let the tire user know the weight capacity of a given tire when inflated to less than the maximum psi that the tire is capable of withstanding.

Due to tire industry standards organizations, there is generally consistency from brand to brand in load inflation indices for any given specific tire size.

In this case, to determine how much additional weight carrying "margin" a 225/75R16C C-Metric tire has over an LT225/75R16E LT-Metric tire when both types of tires are inflated to the maximum pressure that the OEM steel wheel is rated for when cold (80 psi), I reviewed the Load Inflation Tables of several different brands of C-Metric tires in this size, and all tables from every brand checked were consistent with each other.

When inflated to 80 psi, a 225/75R16C tire is rated to support 3,085 lbs in single wheel configuration, as opposed to 3,195 lbs when inflated to 83 psi.

In dual rear wheel configuration, the C-Metric 225/75R16C is rated to support 2,975 lbs at 80 psi, as opposed to 3,085 lbs when inflated to 83 psi.

By contrast, the LT225/75R16E tire, when inflated to 80 psi, is rated at 2,680 single, 2,470 dual (per each individual tire).

So to stack the weight carrying capacity differences up neatly in a row:

3,195 lbs Single / 3,085 lbs Dual - C-Metric at 83 psi

3,085 lbs Single / 2,975 lbs Dual - C-Metric at 80 psi (OEM wheel psi rating)

2,680 lbs Single / 2,470 lbs Dual - LT-Metric at 80 psi

On the steer axle, there is a 405 lbs difference between C-Metric and LT-Metric at 80 psi, and on the drive axle, the difference grows to 505 lbs. at 80 psi.

Where the point in REDUCING the mental margin afforded to the C-Metric tire by ignoring the tire's maximum weight capacity at any pressure beyond the pressure rating of the wheel is arguably irrelevant, as all of these ratings exceed the weight capacity of the rear axles of all Ford E-350/450 cutaways, which range from 7,800 lbs to 9,600 lbs, depending on model and year.

However, it seemed to be an interesting observation to make... keeping the pressure limits of the wheel in mind.

Posted By: pnichols on 10/30/22 12:25am

BigToe wrote:

That's good data above in your post.

However it raises one important question rarely discussed in any of the forums:

Does "2,680 lbs Single / 2,470 lbs Dual - LT-Metric at 80 psi" AS COMPARED TO "3,085 lbs Single / 2,975 lbs Dual - C-Metric at 80 psi"
mean -> for a given tire size between the two tire types that the C-Metric version is a more rugged/stronger tire?

i.e. That the C-Metric version has more plies? If so, if carrying capacity is not an issue ... should one use the C-Metric type tires if they wish for more puncture-proofness - as in occasional offroad travel with their Class C?

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/30/22 05:17pm

BigToe wrote:

Great info. I would summarize it (using your numbers) as:

225/75R16C rated duallies in the rear have a 80psi carrying capacity of 4 x 2975 = 11,900lbs

whereas 225/75R16E rated duallies in the rear have a 80psi carrying capacity of 4 x 2470 = 9,880lbs

Let's assume your rear axle was at a maximum weight of 9,600lbs. Would you rather have the E-rated tires that have only a 280lb margin, or the C-rated tires that have a 2,300lb margin? I would rather have the C-rated tires.

Next question: Does the typical RVer check your tire pressure EVERY DAY before they drive? I'm guessing 99% of people do not. (I have a TPMS so I can see always). What happens to these margins when the tires are actually at 75psi instead of 80psi? Or 70psi? Or 65psi? Answer: It spells trouble for E-rated tires.

What about when driving with your 75-80psi tires and you hit a pothole on the freeway? How much stress does that put on the tires? Seems like the C-rated tires would be able to handle it better.

Side note: Nobody should ever overload their rear axle, even with tires that can handle a heavier load.

Question: What % of RVers have ever weighed their RV fully loaded? We can probably agree that the answer must be "a very low % of RVers".

All of these reasons are why I choose Commercial rated tires with heavier carrying capacity on my 30' Class C RVs. (on my 23' Class C RV I have the E-rated tires, but might even upgrade those to C-rated tires next time they are needed "just because").

Safe travels all!
Chris

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/30/22 05:32pm

pnichols wrote:

However it raises one important question rarely discussed in any of the forums:

Does "2,680 lbs Single / 2,470 lbs Dual - LT-Metric at 80 psi" AS COMPARED TO "3,085 lbs Single / 2,975 lbs Dual - C-Metric at 80 psi"
mean -> for a given tire size between the two tire types that the C-Metric version is a more rugged/stronger tire?

i.e. That the C-Metric version has more plies? If so, if carrying capacity is not an issue ... should one use the C-Metric type tires if they wish for more puncture-proofness - as in occasional offroad travel with their Class C?

To me, yes...it means the Commercial rated tire is stronger and thus less likely to have a blowout. I think it is very important to consider that most RVers are probably not religious about checking their tire psi all the time. Many people are driving at 75psi or 70psi or 65psi and thus stressing the dually tires. Since the Commercial rated tires have much more buffer (~500lbs per tire carrying capacity), they are less susceptible to issues when the tires are not all the way up to 80psi.

Also, if you do get a flat on ONE of the tires in the rear, the other tire on that side is now carrying DOUBLE the load that it should. 4500lbs?? In that scenario, I'd rather have a stronger tire (the commercial rated one) to give me a better chance of not blowing BOTH tires and then driving on and destroying the rims as well.

Would anyone like to share the downside of getting Commercial rated tires at least on the rear? The cost (in my experience) is minimal. Personally, I haven't noticed a difference in noise or ride comfort. I see very little downside. I place a huge value on safety. Another way of looking at it...blowout vs non-blowout sure makes for a big difference on the day it happens (or doesn't happen).

Safe travels!
Chris

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/30/22 05:34pm

PS: I have no opinion/insight/experience on CHANGING the size or width of the tires themselves. I personally wouldn't do it unless I had a good reason/need and even then only after consulting with a few RV and tire experts.

Posted By: BigToe on 10/31/22 01:24am

pnichols wrote:

That's good data above in your post.

However it raises one important question rarely discussed in any of the forums:

For a given tire size between the two tire types that the C-Metric version is a more rugged/stronger tire?

i.e. That the C-Metric version has more plies? If so, if carrying capacity is not an issue ... should one use the C-Metric type tires if they wish for more puncture-proofness - as in occasional offroad travel with their Class C?

SJ-Chris wrote:

To me, yes...it means the Commercial rated tire is stronger and thus less likely to have a blowout.

Would anyone like to share the downside of getting Commercial rated tires at least on the rear? The cost (in my experience) is minimal.

Chris

The potential downsides to getting a C-Metric tire depend on the brand and model of tires being compared.

But first, to clarify, the term "C-Metric" is used instead of "Commercial", because there are a plethora of Commercial tires in the LT-Metric size and Load Range E rating that are not C-Metric.

To suggest that only C-Metric tires are "Commercial", whereas tires in the same size without the appended "C" after the rim diameter are not, does not properly reflect the long standing tire offerings available in North America for decades prior to the importation of Euro Vans, beginning with the Sprinter, and continuing with the Fiat (Ram Pro Master) and Ford Transit.

In Europe, these Euro vans are fitted with tires specified by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO), which developed a Commercial tire standard to distinguish tire characteristics from Passenger car tire standards.

We have the same distinction in North America, where we have P-Metric passenger car tires, and LT-Metric light truck tires. "C" is to Europe what "LT" is to the United States. It isn't as if an LT tire is not a commercial tire. And it certainly isn't as if to get a "true" commercial tire in the United States, one must look for, or insist upon, a tire size appended with "C". That is not the case.

None of the Commercial tires on Peterbilts, Kenworths, Freightliner Medium and Heavy Duty, Navister International light, medium, heavy, or severe duty trucks use tires that are C-Metric. Does that mean that these trucks are not specified with "Commercial" tires? Of course not.

The same holds true for 3500/4500/5500/6500 and 350/450/550/600 trucks from the Big Three domestic pickup and chassis cab manufacturers. These trucks are specified with commercial tires that do not have "C" appended after their rim size. In otherwords, they do not use C-Metric tires. But they do use Commercial tires all the same.

Some examples of LT-Metric Commercial tires include, but are not limited to,

Americus Commercial LT All Season Tire -
LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY

BFGoodrich Commercial T/A All Season 2
LT225/75R16 115/112R LRE 10 PLY

BFGoodrich Commercial T/A Traction
LT225/75R16 112Q LRE 10 PLY

Bridgestone Duravis R238 Commercial Summer Tire (LRE)
LT225/75R16 115R LRE 10 PLY 14/32nds 50.5 lbs. $311 Steel Sidewall Casing

Bridgestone Blizzak LT Commercial Winter Tire (LRE)
LT225/75R16 115R LRE 10 PLY 17/32nds 36.9 lbs. $204

Bridgestone Blizzak W965 Commercial Winter Tire (LRE)
LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY 17/32nds 42.5 lbs. $144

Bridgestone Duravix M700 HD

Firestone Transforce HT2 Highway Terrain Commercial Light Truck Tire
LT225/75R16 115R LRE 10 PLY

General Grabber HD Commercial Truck Tire
LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY

In creating the list above, I simply worked my way through the alphabet, and grew "tired" of adding tires to this list by the time I reached letter G in the alphabet. And I didn't even cover all of the tires available by brands beginning with A-F (Falken just came to mind as I type this), but it seems certain that if I made it as far as the letter "G" without mentioning Goodyear, the Goodyear Blimp will probably dump their holding tank over my house next time they go floating by, so let me add the following two tires to the list:

Goodyear Endurance RSA ULT 16"
LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY 50 lbs

Goodyear Endurance RSD ULT 16"
LT225/75R16 115Q LRE 10 PLY 49 lbs.

These Endurance tire casings are so tough, Goodyear states that they are re-treadable. Not that this means a hill of beans to owners who time out their tires before they wear out, but still, the Endurance RSA ULT is in Michelin XPS Rib and Bridgestone R238 territory.

Lateral scrub-resistant tread compound
Premium enhanced casing
Reinforced shoulders and steel-steel belt package.

All of the foregoing are Commercial tires, listed for last mile delivery, school bus, emergency services ambulance, urban utility, etc.

Hence, to distinguish the Euro Centric designation for the 225/75R16C tire, the "C" shall be referred to as "C-Metric", which is Europe's near equivalent to what in the USA is called LT-Metric.

There are no downsides to getting commercial tires, as there exists enough variety among commercial tires available in North America, whether designated as LT Metric or C Metric, that the plethora of alternative choices effectively cancels out any downsides.

So to focus only on any downsides of getting "C-Metric" tires, one has to consider the question brand by brand, where a given tire brand may make an 225/75R16 in P-Metric (out of the question), LT-Metric (as specified by Ford, the E-350/450 manufacturer), and C-Metric (as recently applied with tires specified for Euro vans).

Some tire brands don't even offer a C-Metric tire in North America. Moving up a letter in the alphabet to "H", consider Hankook. Ford specifies and equips new E-350 and E-450 cutaway motorhome chassis with the Hankook Dynapro HT LT235/75R16E tire as standard equipment.

Every year it seems, Ford works with Hankook to tweak the specs on this tire. The details of the changes are propietary, but the evidence that changes have been made are found in the material product code. Currently, the following product codes for this tire might still be available at any given tire distributor:

2021163 (36 lbs)
2020873 (39 lbs)
2020694 (39 lbs)
2001831 (40 lbs)

If one were to take delivery of a 2023 Model Year Class C motorhome built on a Ford E-350/450 cutaway chassis today, then the standard tire would be the 2001831 material product code of the Hankook Dynapro HT LT225/75R16E LRE tire.

UNLESS... the motorhome manufacturer took advantage of Ford's FIN option to have Michelin Agilis Cross Climate tires fitted instead. Unlike Hankook, Michelin offers the Agilis Cross Climate tire in both LT Metric and C Metric variants.

However, Ford will only supply the LT-Metric variant on the E-350/450 cutaway, if the ordering fleet specifies (and pays for) that option.

This post is getting long in the tooth, and may soon reach the character limit, so I'll stop here and examine the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate comparison between the LT225/75R16 versus the 225/75R16C in my next post.

Posted By: BigToe on 10/31/22 02:54am

pnichols wrote:

For a given tire size between the two tire types that the C-Metric version is a more rugged/stronger tire?

i.e. That the C-Metric version has more plies? If so, if carrying capacity is not an issue ... should one use the C-Metric type tires if they wish for more puncture-proofness - as in occasional offroad travel with their Class C?

SJ-Chris wrote:

Downsides of a C-Metric tire are brand specific.

With the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate tire, a tire which has been vetted, approved, and installed by Ford Motor Company on the E-Series Cutaway motorhome chassis in production as fleet orderable upgrade option, there are some differences between the C-Metric version of this tire, versus the LT Metric version that Ford installs on the E-Series Cutaway.

The main downside is that the C-Metric version is DIRECTIONAL. With 6 tires on the ground, and one on the spare tire rack, the spare is only good to replace 3 of the tires without playing musical tires on the side of the road in order to have all tires rolling in the right direction.

And unless one carries two spares, fitted with a directional tire facing each direction, there is still a 50% chance that the tire that blows will be a tire which is in the opposite direction of the spare, leaving one with 4 tires in one direction, and 2 tires in the other direction, when one really needs 3 tires in each direction.

Not having to worry about which tire faces which direction simplifies a lot of factors with tire procurement, maintenance, rotation, and emergency replacement in a pinch. For a dual rear wheel application, the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate in C-Metric designation having a directional design is a significant disadvantage in convenience, that to my mind outweighs the C-Metric versions overcapacity in weight rating.

Now to refer to what Michelin has to say about their two versions of Agilis Cross Climate tire in the 225/75R16 size:

Q: What is the difference between the MICHELIN® AGILIS® C-Metric sizes vs. the LT sizes?

A: The C-metric convention can be thought of as the European equivalent of the LT-metric. Just as LT-metric describes a tire with a higher load rating and higher pressure than the equivalently sized P-metric tire, C-metric describes a tire with a higher load rating and higher pressure than the equivalently sized European Metric tire.

Q: Why is the MICHELIN® AGILIS® CROSSCLIMATE® tire offered in two different tread designs?

A: The MICHELIN® AGILIS® CROSSCLIMATE® C-Metric tire was designed in Europe specifically for the European style vans that are also offered in the North American market. The C-Metric is a directional tread pattern. The LT sizes are non-directional and were designed by the North American Research and Development team to best suit ¾- and 1-ton
pickups and vans. Both treads offer comparable performance.

The PNichols question is whether or not the C-Metric version of the tire is "tougher" traversing unavoidable potholes at speed than the LT Metric version of the same tire.

Well, the C-Metric version weighs 37 lbs, while the LT-Metric version weighs 39.9 lbs, making the LT-Metric version 2.9 lbs heavier than the C-Metric version. If this extra weight is due to there being more ingredients in the LT version of this tire, does that make it tougher?

If so, then the toughest tires in this size range might be the Michelin XPS Rib, the Bridgestone R238, or the Goodyear Endurance RSA ULT... all weighing in at more than 50 lbs per tire, due to the additional steel belting in these tough commercial tires that traverses the carcass from bead to bead. Heck, the Endurance RSA is over $500 per tire in the LT225/75R16E size, and is retreadable, so it had better be tough. Yet the tread on some of these ribbed all position steer tires is designated as "Summer" only.

That's fine for a lot of RV users, but what about those who travel through the rains of the Pacific Northwest, or those whose Chalet branded coaches serve as ad hoc ski chalets in the Sierra? These usage cases need not be blazing through blizzards, but light snow flurries where no 4WD nor chains are required shouldn't send a coach skidding into an embankment for lack of tread traction or sufficient sipes in the tires.

So for all season recreational uses, an all season tire would be preferable over a "summer" tire. And for more adventurous RV'rs, an all terrain tire might even be considered. At the very least, a tire with a Three Peak Mountain Snowflake Rating (3PMSF) should be considered as minimum verified threshold of wet and unexpected light snow performance.

And the lack of a 3PMSF symbol introduces another potential downside of some C-Metric tires. While both versions of the Agilis Cross Climate have 3PMSF certificaton, neither version of the Nexen CT8 HL are certified 3PMSF.

Like Michelin, Nexen offers their commercial CT8 HL tire in both C-Metric and LT-Metric versions, neither of which are 3PMSF rated, but both of which are heavier in weight, at 42.76 lbs, than either version of the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate.

Note that both C-Metric and LT-Metric Nexen CT8 HL's weigh exactly the same, at 42.76 lbs. So which tire has more ingredients? Which tire has more belts? Which tire is tougher? And unlike the directional versus non directional tread design difference in the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate, to my understanding, there is no difference in tread between either version of the Nexen CT8 HL.

However, Nexen makes 5 commercial tires in the 225/75R16 range (not including their snow tire that receives studs). Other than the two CT8 HL tire versions, the three remaining Nexen light truck tires are 3PMSF certified. Nexen's latest tire, their new ATX, weighs in at 43.50 lbs, which is about a pound heavier than their C-Metric CT8 HL.
So which is tougher on the day to day, irrespective of weight rating?

I'm not qualified to answer to that question, but will close with one more interesting difference between the two versions of the Michelin Agilis Cross Climate.

As previously discussed, the peak weight carrying capacity of a C-Metric tire is rated at 83 psi, which is also the maximum cold inflation pressure rating of the tire.

Typically, an LT Metric load range E tire has a maximum cold inflation pressure rating of 80 psi. However, the LT Metric Michelin Agilis Cross Climate has a maximum pressure rating of 90 psi, which is higher than the 83 psi max of C-Metric version of the same tire.

Now get this... there is no change in weight carrying capacity rating between 80 psi and 90 psi on the LT Metric version of the Agilis Cross Climate. The tire is simply designed to withstand more internal pressure. One would think that means that the tire is tougher...to be able to hold nearly as much pressure as a steel sidewall load range F tire, at 90 psi. Yet no additional load capacity is stated for when the tire is inflated past 80 psi, and let's not forget that the OEM wheels on this platform are limited to 80 psi cold inflation rating.

An advantage that an LT-Metric version of this brand and model of tire may have over a C-Metric version of the same tire, is that in the summer, while traveling for hundreds of miles on hot Arizona roads, with heat expanding the air within the tire while increasing the tire's internal pressure... having a 10 psi margin of allowable pressure build up all fall within the 90 psi rating of the tire, offers some comfort not unlike the comfort felt with having a larger margin in tire weight carrying capacity.

Posted By: Grit dog on 10/31/22 08:35am

Grit dog wrote:

Just buy some new tires.
No advantage going larger or wider unless you need greater weight capacity.

Just throwing this back out there. Appreciate the dissertation on tires, but why?
And why would one intentionally use tires (225-75-16C) that are far less popular and less available than all the applicable comparable tires that are commonplace and can be found at any tire shop virtually anywhere in North America?

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/31/22 09:13am

I'm not a tire expert.

The simple way I look at it is....

LT225/75R16 115/112R <---- E-Rated load tires that come stock on most 30' Class C RVs. Very little load carrying buffer, especially if not cold inflated to 80psi.

vs

LT225/75R16C 121/120R <---- What I am calling "Commercial tires". (the 121/120 load rating is what you are looking for if you want more weight carrying capacity). These give you ~2000lbs of extra load carrying capacity on the rear axle. I put them on the front also.

You should never overload your rear axle per the amount on the sticker on the driver side door jam. The "extra" buffer, in my mind, especially comes in handy due to the fact that people (myself included) sometimes drive on tires that are less than cold 80psi inflated.

Just what I do and what I would recommend to family/friends.

Safe travels!
Chris

Posted By: Grit dog on 10/31/22 09:19am

And to dispell another myth posted by BigToe, there is no harm in using directional tires backwards other than less than “optimal” traction that is provided by the design of the tread.
There are about 5 other reasons to maybe carry 2 spare tires. This is absolutely not one of them….

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/31/22 10:11am

Grit dog wrote:

And why would one intentionally use tires (225-75-16C) that are far less popular and less available than all the applicable comparable tires that are commonplace and can be found at any tire shop virtually anywhere in North America?

LT225/75R16C 121/120R: The reason I use them is because they have 2000lbs of extra carrying capacity at 80psi. Gives me peace of mind. I believe they are safer. Safety is important to me.

I carry a spare LT225/75R16C 121/120R. I've yet to have a flat with these, but if I do I have a replacement in my spare. If for some strange reason I got 2-3 flat tires at the same time, well I'll deal with it if it happens. If I got two flat tires and was somewhere that only had the E-load rated tires for sale, I would have them put those on the front axle and move the Commercial rated tires to the rear.

Personally, I see no downside in having extra weight carrying capacity. In my opinion, they are less likely to blow. If one does go flat, the remaining one that is temporarily carrying the full load will be less likely to also blow.

Note: You should never intentionally overload your rear axle.

Safe travels!
Chris

Posted By: BigToe on 10/31/22 10:12am

And your recommendation was greatly appreciated, Chris!

I was unfamiliar with Nexen tire's offerings in this size until you identified it.

The CT8 HL that you use is the OEM tire that Stellantis fits to the Ram Pro Master, in the 121/120R load index that you are highlighting. When a tire is produced as original equipment for an OEM vehicle manufacturer, it stands to reason that the CT8 HL has been put through an extra layer of engineering and vetting by the vehicle manufacturer, for the sake of their own liability. That says that while Nexen may not be as well known of a brand as Michelin or Goodyear, that particular CT8 HL Nexen tire has been approved by VW and Stellantis for their new vehicle brands to ride on it.

I'm not a tire expert either, so the questions that PNichols asked above are questions that I was curious about as well. Where a given brand of tire produced in two iterations for the same application and usage has the same material weight, why would one tire have a higher weight capacity than the other? What makes the higher rated tire stronger, even while having less material weight?

Michelin claims to use over 200 different raw materials to produce a tire. while another tire manufacturer claims to use only 17 different materials. While it can be assumed that Michelin, being the oldest tire company, and having introduced significant innovations to the industry such as radial tires, is more advanced... some of the ingredients introduced into tires today are to make them more environmentally friendly at end of life, and that sophisticated soup of materials may not necessarily translate into tire longevity.

RV tire purchases are not routine for the long term RV owner who does not regularly trade in their RV, but rather are a once every 7 to 10 year expense now exceeding $2,000.00 to replace tires that have plenty of tread left but simply aged out. Blow outs are a much bigger deal on an RV than in a car, for reasons which SJ-Chris already mentioned. These factors inspire more questions on the selection of RV tires versus daily driver tires that may see more frequent replacement.

Earlier, I failed to mention that Firestone, the manufacture of the Steeltex R4S that used to be Ford's OEM tire on the cutaways 20 years ago, now offers the Transforce CV tire in the 121/120R load rating.

Unlike the F-53 Class A motorhome chassis, or any given modern day 1 ton and higher pickup or chassis cab, the Ford E-Series cutaway chassis challenges the limits of the Ford recommended LT225/75R16E tire size. I began this thread asking if any Class C owners have changed tire sizes, whether it be for increased tire capacity margin, increased ride height/ground clearance, increased approach/departure angle, increased tire contact patch, or decreased contact patch to penetrate through light snow to the ground.

The relatively recent emergence of the C-Metric tire being offered in the US, with higher load index ratings, have broadened the weight capacity margin... but a tire still has to do other things besides carry weight.

Wet traction comes to mind. Not skidding out in the rain. Not spinning wheels and burrowing in on grassy slimy surfaces at unimproved campground. That sort of thing. A tire must still be a tire in all other respects besides carrying weight.

It appears that the ETRTO standard calls for Curb Guards (anti abrasion buttresses on tire side walls where they might repeatedly grind against a sidewalk curb in urban parcel delivery applications) in all C-Metric tires, and this is another benefit that is useful when navigating Class C RV's through destination cities.

Asking about what tires people use and reciprocating the favor by posting what tire explorations I have made, is part of the process of learning, and I appreciated the opportunities to learn from you.

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/31/22 10:28am

I appreciate the kind words BigToe!

We are all here to learn. Because of the expert information from many many people on this and other RV forums, I have learned quite a bit and have been able to do many projects/fixes on my RVs that I otherwise would not have been able to do. Saves a lot of $$$ not having to go to the local RV shop. And helps me be safer. I enjoy sharing what I have learned so that others can benefit and avoid problems/issues.

One last thing about tires... It may be putting too much faith in a government entity, but I also naively think that the Department of Transportation (DOT) must test/verify all tires that they are putting their stamp on prior to them going on the market/road. Or at least have some sort of monitoring system in place for reports/complaints. The DOT must have as part of it's general mission something to the effect of "We don't want tires on fast moving heavy vehicles falling off all over the place causing tons of accidents and deaths". This makes me (again, possibly naively) a little less worried about brands.

Safe travels!
Chris

Posted By: BigToe on 10/31/22 10:50am

Grit dog wrote:

And to dispell another myth posted by BigToe, there is no harm in using directional tires backwards other than less than “optimal” traction that is provided by the design of the tread.

Here is the Product Bulletin Issued by Michelin on April 29, 2019:

The C-metric sizes of the MICHELIN Agilis® CrossClimate® tire line utilize a directional tread pattern. These tires have arrows molded into the sidewall of the tire to indicate the intended direction of rotation. To maximize tire performance, it is important that directional tires be mounted correctly on wheels to ensure that the directionality is respected when mounted on the vehicle.

Pairs of steer tires and pairs of drive tires should be mounted such that one tire has the arrows pointing clockwise, and one tire has the arrows pointing counter-clockwise. For vehicles equipped with dual rear wheels, two rear tires should have the arrows pointing clockwise and two rear tires should have the arrows
pointing counter-clockwise.

To optimize wear performance, it is recommended to operate directional tires exclusively in their indicated direction, at least during the first 50% of treadlife. However, once directional tires are worn to greater than 50% of their initial tread depth, there is no negative effect of running them in a direction opposite to the indicated direction of rotation.

_________________________________

Not a myth. Simply the straightforward (haha) directions (haha) from the tire manufacturer.

1. Optimizing wear performance sounds like a good idea, because tires to be too expensive to waste by not following the instructions, thus increasing the likelihood of the tires wearing out prematurely.

2. Optimizing tire performance sounds like a good idea, because lives are too important to put at risk by not taking advantage of all the tire wet traction engineering one paid for with the price of the tire from installing them the wrong way.

3. In my RV usage case, the tires will never reach 50% tread wear before the tires age out. Therefore, if I were to buy directional tires, I would be stuck using them directionally for their entire service life, as they will never wear down to the point where directionality no longer matters.

4. The tire manufacturer knows more about the tires that they engineered and built than I do, so I'll follow their instructions.

Edited to add URL Link to Michelin's Agilis Cross Climate C-Metric Product Bulletin:

Agilis C-Metric Rotation Bulletin pdf

Posted By: Grit dog on 10/31/22 10:50am

SJ-Chris wrote:

LT225/75R16C 121/120R: The reason I use them is because they have 2000lbs of extra carrying capacity at 80psi. Gives me peace of mind. I believe they are safer. Safety is important to me.

Personally, I see no downside in having extra weight carrying capacity. In my opinion, they are less likely to blow. If one does go flat, the remaining one that is temporarily carrying the full load will be less likely to also blow.

Note: You should never intentionally overload your rear axle.

Safe travels!
Chris

No downside other than availability and price. Sure, if one needs the added capacity, great. But based on your last statement, that's not likely unless one is actually overloading the "real" axle capacities (aka the 10-11klb range) of the vehicle.
And if the extra capacity is needed, barring some obscure tire clearance issue on the RV, there are other options that are of similar or same capacity and not an obscure Euro tire size (albeit not as obscure as years past with the amount of Sprinter type vans running around.

Overkill is fine, it's one person's own money vs peace of mind I suppose. Just pointing out the (not obvious to everyone) differences and costs/challenges for little to no real world gain.

Posted By: SJ-Chris on 10/31/22 12:37pm

Grit dog wrote:

SJ-Chris wrote:

LT225/75R16C 121/120R: The reason I use them is because they have 2000lbs of extra carrying capacity at 80psi. Gives me peace of mind. I believe they are safer. Safety is important to me.

Personally, I see no downside in having extra weight carrying capacity. In my opinion, they are less likely to blow. If one does go flat, the remaining one that is temporarily carrying the full load will be less likely to also blow.

Note: You should never intentionally overload your rear axle.

Safe travels!
Chris

I hardly consider it overkill...

I went through ZERO hoops/effort to buy tires that each have an extra 500lb carrying capacity. They aren't Euro tire size. I believe they are from South Korea or Japan. They have similar Commercial load rated tires (121/120 load rating) at Big-O tires, Firestone, America's Tires, Discount Tires, CostCo, etc. AKA just about everywhere. I think the ones I got were $15 more per tire when I bought them compared to a corresponding E-rated load tire.

Here's why it isn't Overkill...
225/75R16C rated duallies in the rear have a 80psi carrying capacity of 4 x 2975 = 11,900lbs

whereas 225/75R16E E-rated duallies in the rear have a 80psi carrying capacity of 4 x 2470 = 9,880lbs

Let's assume your rear axle was at a maximum weight of 9,600lbs. Would you rather have the E-rated tires that have only a 280lb margin, or the C-rated tires that have a 2,300lb margin? I would rather have the C-rated tires. 280lbs is 2.8% of buffer/margin. 2300lbs is 23% of buffer/margin. 10x more buffer/margin. I consider that a significant gain and worthwile (at least for me).

Personally, I don't feel comfortable with potentially only 2.8% of buffer/margin.

Next question: Does the typical RVer check your tire pressure EVERY DAY before they drive? I'm guessing 99% of people do not. (I have a TPMS so I can see always). What happens to these margins when the tires are actually at 75psi instead of 80psi? Or 70psi? Or 65psi? Answer: It spells trouble for E-rated tires, but the Commercial load rated tires still have plenty of carrying capacity buffer.

Side note: Nobody should ever overload their rear axle, even with tires that can handle a heavier load. What % of RV owners know (weighed at a scale) how much their rear axle weight is? Probably less than 5%.

All good. Just my opinion. I'll pay a tiny bit more for what I perceive to be a large extra margin for the potential safety of family and friends. Have yet to have a blowout on my two 30' Class C RVs that have these Commercial load rated tires on them. Everyone is free to choose whatever tires they want for their RV.

Safe Travels!
Chris

Posted By: pnichols on 10/31/22 01:36pm

What I would REALLY PREFER on my 11,800 lb. (~fully loaded) 24 ft. Class C are Mud/Snow tires that are so over-spec'd for my MH such that if I blow a rear tire in the dually set - I can drive aways without changing it in situations where it blows and it is inconvenient or unsafe to stop and change it!!

i.e. I had an outside dually Michelin M/S LT LRE blow once years ago on a hard surface 4-lane road with light traffic. I was only a few miles from a small town, so I slowed down to ~10 MPH and drove all the way into the town and had a gas station attendant change it. Of course the other Michelin tire within the dually set was drastically overloaded while I traveled on it. That tire went on as if it had never been overloaded and provided several more years of service.

In other words - another parameter to shoot for in choosing tires for the rear of a rear-dually Class C is ... "can 3 tires in the rear (when one is flat) safely carry you along for aways at low speed until it can be changed?" This is what I call having a "redundancy" tire arrangement in the rear of a dually chassis - and it takes very rugged tires back there that have a generous-as-possible weight carrying margin over what they normally carry day-in and day-out.

P.S. I keep 80 lbs. of pressure in the rear tires all the time. I've compensated for the resulting stiff ride in the rear by installing variable rate shocks in the rear that function as "no shocks" on highway cracks and as "heavy duty" shocks on roadway curves and in side-winds.

* This post was edited 10/31/22 03:38pm by pnichols *

Posted By: Grit dog on 10/31/22 02:12pm

All I can say is there are more options than the E load version of 225-75-16s.
And I don’t recall the OP (who the thread is about) even surmising much less knowing what his axle weights are.
If you need the tire capacity, you need the tire capacity.
And if you found them for basically the same price that is great as well.

And to be fair, the guess I have a bit of a different perspective than most weekend warriors whose experience with heavily loaded vehicles is a camper, some extra home improvement materials from Home Depot or a load of Moo Doo for the flower beds.

Posted By: Grit dog on 10/31/22 03:36pm

@bigtow
What part of what you quoted makes using a directional tire unsafe or undesirable to use as a spare tire?
The difference between the right or wrong direction is literally not getting “optimal” traction. Sort of like a brand new tire vs one that is 50% worn out. Hardly worth the consternation about using one as a spare tire.

Posted By: Grit dog on 10/31/22 03:38pm

pnichols wrote:

What I would REALLY PREFER on my 11,800 lb. (~fully loaded) 24 ft. Class C are Mud/Snow tires that are so over-spec'd for my MH such that if I blow a rear tire in the dually set - I can drive aways without changing it in situations where it blows and it is inconvenient or unsafe to stop and change it!!

i.e. I had an outside dually Michelin M/S LT LRE blow once years ago on a hard surface 4-lane road with light traffic. I was only a few miles from a small town, so I slowed down to ~10 MPH and drove all the way into the town and had a gas station attendant change it. Of course the other Michelin tire within the dually set was drastically overloaded while I traveled on it. That tire went on as if it had never been overloaded and provided several more years of service.

In other words - another parameter to shoot for in choosing tires for the rear of a rear-dually Class C is ... "can 3 tires in the rear (when one is flat) safely carry you along for aways at low speed until it can be changed?" This is what I call having a "redundancy" tire arrangement in the rear of a dually chassis - and it takes very rugged tires back there that have a generous-as-possible weight carrying margin over what they normally carry day-in and day-out.

P.S. I keep 80 lbs. of pressure in the rear tires all the time. I've compensated for the previously stiff ride in the rear by installing variable rate shocks in the rear that function as "no shocks" on highway cracks and as "heavy duty" shocks on roadway curves and in side-winds.

So basically your old tire did exactly what you “wish” for.
You could always go with 19.5s. But at almost 6klbs load per side it’ll still be overloaded a bunch.

Posted By: BigToe on 11/01/22 12:10am

Grit dog wrote:

Neither Michelin nor I said anything about reversing a directional tire being "unsafe."

Michelin said that reversing a directional tire within the first 50% of tread life can result in undesirable tire performance, as well as undesirable accelerated treadwear, as detailed in the url linked Product Bulletin posted earlier, where the relevant text was also quoted within the post.

On Edit, to address the "consternation" about the spare:

For my requirements, there is no difference between the spare tire and any other tire on the rig. All tires, including the spare, are qualified to be run full time. When there is a need to use the spare tire, there is no need to remove the spare tire later to put back the removed rim with a repaired tire. The spare tire becomes the service tire, while the repaired or replaced tire becomes the spare tire.

Hence, a spare tire that can be mounted in any position on either side of the vehicle is more desirable to me than a directional tire, which is limited to only half of the available mounting positions.

I rotate the spare tire with the steer tires, to keep the wear down of the spare tire the same diameter as the wear down of all other tires. Thus the spare is indistinguishable from a service tire throughout the life cycle of that set of tires. A directional tire would disrupt that preventative maintenance.

* This post was edited 11/01/22 12:35am by BigToe *

Posted By: pianotuna on 11/01/22 12:51am

BigToe wrote:

Tire Choices for Ford E-Series Cutaway Class C Motorhomes

Hi BigToe,

My oem tires were overloaded on the driver's rear side. Axle rating was not.

I chose to replace the wheels and moved to LT215/85R16 from Toyo. This corrected the overload situation.

This gave me a little more clearance.

It is extremely important to have the correct wheel size to width. A spacer is possible but....not as reliable (read possible not quite as safe).

Wider tires would not have fit on the rear duals.

Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, 556 amp-hours of Telcom jars, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.

Posted By: BigToe on 11/01/22 12:52pm

Thank you Pianotuna!

Print | Close