Musings - Rear wheel/tyre choice and engine revs

Early Bay Forum

Help Support Early Bay Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ZedBed

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Location
Ely Cambs
When we lower our beloved buses, there's always a lot of discussion on front wheel/tyre size - avoiding rubbage, getting down lower with small diameter tyres and the effect on the speedo reading.

When it comes to the rear it doesn't get much of an airing, but this also has it's ups and downs.
At max revs for a T1 engine and standard wheels tyres I believe you max out at about 70 real mph. It'll go faster, but the standard crank will flex above this speed and wear the bearings quickly leading to failure. In extreme cases the crank will snap like this:
R0010056.jpg


To find out how fast we're really going if we have small fronts, which we nearly all do, takes a bit of calculation.
For mine, if the speedo reads 80, I'm really going about 70.
Fine for my bus because I have full size rears - I'm not so low as many of you.

If I put same tyres on the rear as the front, at 60 real mph I'd be tootling along at near max revs which is why I retained biggies on the back (and I like the look).

So the question my fashionable friends with your teeny tyres, is do you guys drive about at 50-55? Or do you say - what the heck, and bomb about hoping for the best?

I ask as much to warn the uninitiated that your engine may suffer catastrophic failure even driving at modest speed in the slow lane as from curiosity.

Me? My new engine will rev to 5,400 like a T4 engine, coupled with the std back tyres and 100HP I reckon I'll be cruising happily at 70 real mph and have rev room to hit 80-85 if required. That's with a standard gearbox.

Maybe this is why you have to fork out for up-ratio gearboxes. I was thinking about doing this, then realised I won't need to - in fact I wouldn't be doing my cooling any favours, but if you have teeny tyres, I guess this would get you more or less back to where you started?

Expensive fashion innit? :lol:

I think if I ever decide to go lower, I'd be tubbng my rear arches rather than down-sizing the tyres. Looks better and got to be cheaper than a new gearbox.

Please add your thoughts and feel free to correct my rough calculations. :)
 
got 185/65s all round on mine ,thats how I got it over 10 years ago :shock: helps when towing but its a pain on the mway.have some 195/70s on my hot rod a40 thats being rebuilt so thinking about fitting those,there avons and think they are jag spec so with those hd front you are using think a good combo.
 
Run the largest rear's you can and with the highest ratio box you can this will always aid cooling and performance.

I run a built 091 Box with an added taller 4th gear on 205/70/15's and do 70mph @ 3300 to 3400rpm.

Ideal cooling revs for a stock cooling fan i am led to belive is about 3400 to 3600 rpm.
 
:? I've got 175/55/r15 all round will this kill my engine?
I'm down one spline on horseshoe plates do struggle getting bigger tyres off

Mark
 
Mark6455 said:
:? I've got 175/55/r15 all round will this kill my engine?
I'm down one spline on horseshoe plates do struggle getting bigger tyres off

Mark
you won't be driving very fast i ran 175/55s on the back of my bus and honestly it was a stupid idea. wouldn't recommend it
 
sjc said:
Mark6455 said:
:? I've got 175/55/r15 all round will this kill my engine?
I'm down one spline on horseshoe plates do struggle getting bigger tyres off

Mark
you won't be driving very fast i ran 175/55s on the back of my bus and honestly it was a stupid idea. wouldn't recommend it

Zed has got has got me thinking. As a rule of thumb, is it a good idea to replace my 185s all round with, say, 195s, or even 205s? I am at stock height. What are the plusses and minuses then?
 
As with Alex I run the fattest rear tyres I can squeeze on.

195/65/15, likewise my box is built up. I see absolutely no point in running skinny rear tyres just so you can drop the back an inch.

Des
 
Delilahtoo said:
sjc said:
Mark6455 said:
:? I've got 175/55/r15 all round will this kill my engine?
I'm down one spline on horseshoe plates do struggle getting bigger tyres off

Mark
you won't be driving very fast i ran 175/55s on the back of my bus and honestly it was a stupid idea. wouldn't recommend it

Zed has got has got me thinking. As a rule of thumb, is it a good idea to replace my 185s all round with, say, 195s, or even 205s? I am at stock height. What are the plusses and minuses then?

That creates a large contact patch with the road the first number is width, the second number is the height of the tyre and the last is the rim size!
 
COME ON GUYS,185 is width of tread 70,65,55 ect is the hight of the side wall as a percentage of the width.as you go wider and stay with the same aspect ratio then the tyre is taller.standard is 185 -14 where the ratio is 80% if its not marked(some times its higher)so a 205/70 should be about the same.but then if you go to 15s it gives you extra dia to play with
 
when i imported my van it was running 185/60/15's on sprintstars, down on horseshoes and 1 spline i think (it's down enough to of needed notching and major mods to the support bar)
it used to top out at @65 doing 4000revs ...not cool :(
swapped them out to 165/80/15's now does 65/70 @3600...much better ;)
rolling diameter is as close as you can get to stock........but looking much cooler :lol:

still a bastard to get on and off, involving knocking out shock bolts and a special home-adapted jack to squeeze the arm down that last 1/2 inch.

jon 8)
 
185/C/14 has a rolling radius of 1965.18mm, I'm running 185/65/15 on the rear which have a rolling radius of 1874.4mm, the difference being -90.78mm or -4.62%.
So if travelling at indicated 70mph (assuming 100% speedo accuracy), you will actually be doing 66.77mph


Although the 175/55/15 on the front mean that I'm actually driving at 61.61mph (1729.63mm rolling radius, -235.55mm/-11.99%).
So an indicated 65mph is actually 57.2mph.
 
alex4057 said:
Run the largest rear's you can and with the highest ratio box you can this will always aid cooling and performance.
Do you really believe this? :shock: That's like saying lugging it up a hill in 4th will keep it cooler than knocking it down to 3rd (cooling) and acceleration is nippier in 4th than 3rd. You have this exactly the wrong way round Alex.

The faster the engine turns for a given speed, the less hard it has to work + the faster the cooling fan will be turning, so tiny tyres aid cooling, but the engine makes more noise and you can't go as fast.

Ideal for fashion (if you like low as you can), is smaller tyres compensated for by a longer box. Back where you started as stock as far as revs/speed but lower.

If you wanted to run your engine slower than stock but with more cooling, theoretically you could fit a slightly shorter or slightly thicker fan belt and a few more shims (if there were enough thread) to increase the fan speed which seems an obvious thing really - has anyone deliberately done this? I emphisise deliberately to make the next point. The fact that the fan speed is governed by the number of shims between the pulley halves makes for not quite knowing how much cooling you have? Buses came into my workshop with any number of slightly different sized fan belts - how about you 67panel? This is why serpentine pulley systems are popular - you know how fast the fan will go round.:)

I like stock dia back tyres, but I had to fork out for adjustable SP's to get the wheel off. Before that I used a brake caliper piston tool in the bump-stop to wind the wheel down, but if you have horseshoes this won't work as the springplate will hit the bottom stop (unless you grind it off). This is why I never fitted the horseshoe plates I bought - still in the packet...

For some perverse reason I preferred 2 splines and grinding off the top stop instead (for suspension travel) 2 splines is a bit lower than a horseshoe as well and as low as poss before anything hits the chassis (if you retain a smidge of bump stop). Grinding off the stop I thought better than notching the plates personally.

Complicated business this lowering lark if you think too hard. I guess the alternative is to slam it, whack on some small tyres and bumble about/risk the engine. I've got no problem with this either - actually it sounds quite attractive! :)

I've thought too much now - better go before my brain has a seizure...
 
sparkywig said:
185/C/14 has a rolling radius of 1965.18mm, I'm running 185/65/15 on the rear which have a rolling radius of 1874.4mm, the difference being -90.78mm or -4.62%.
So if travelling at indicated 70mph (assuming 100% speedo accuracy), you will actually be doing 66.77mph

Although the 175/55/15 on the front mean that I'm actually driving at 61.61mph (1729.63mm rolling radius, -235.55mm/-11.99%).
So an indicated 65mph is actually 57.2mph.

Or... Using your figures and looking at it a different way round:
Travelling at 66.77mph on your tyres, the engine will be doing the same engine revs as STD tyres at 70mph.
So for those std 70mph engine revs, you're going 66.77mph which would be indicated on your speedo as 66.77+13.62% = 75.86mph.
 

Latest posts

Top