A couple years ago I read an analysis by the NHTSA which attributed [something like] 4% of all accidents to tire failure. Of those, the vast majority (75%?) were caused by under-inflation. Incorrect tires wasn’t even mentioned as measurable cause of accidents.
I’m not advocating utter nonchalance regarding tires but statistically they barely move the needle as far as safety goes…at least in the USA.
Cheers
DD
**
I take wash once a year, Paul - whether I need it or not…
Frank
xj6 85 Sov Europe (UK/NZ)
**
In Germany it’s mandatory that the summer tyres exceed the car‘s capability. For winter- and all-year tyres you have to place a sticker on the dash if otherwise, so people have „do not exceed 240/210/190kph“ stickers in their cars.
I don’t see any reason to do more than 200 in all situations, so it doesn’t matter. Sidewall strength should not be an issue and one could instead go to an 98 or 100 losd rating etc.
H = 210km/h - 130mph, indeed just enough for city driving !!!
Fastest I ever took the Jag was 180km/h, and I can say it behaved very well.
Fastest I ever went was 24Okm/h with a Mercedes Taxi in Italy on a small stretch of highway to the Airport in Rome (they are crazy alright), the big Merc felt paper thin…
210km/h with my motorbike, a 1978 Yamaha XS750, a bit scary,
and 200km/h with my old 1974 Fiat 124 coupe, also a bit scary !
Unfortunately 98 load index 215/65-15 tyres are not that common.
But 96 (710kgr per tyre) is adequate indeed me thinks.
Yes David, es ist ein Federal car… from Canada, my father in law bought it in 1997 and it came to me in 2006. It was a mess and destined to go to the scrapyard…
They are as wide David but a bit shorter.
In my SIII both fit well.
Thanks for correcting my bad memory: H is definitely OK!
Tyres should be safe in any case. More of a legal question to me. Mind you I also have H‘s and wouldn’t use Vs if not absolutely needing them.
The Jag feels better at high speeds. 180 is definitely no issue - I have done 250 in an older 7 Series, 240-ish in a newer Audi and never felt scared or anything uncomfortable.
150 in an older A Class is another story, that is when you feel
Don’t know about motorcycles, did 80+ in a two-stroke and my friend declutched out of fear that the Motor would seize or overheat without
The load index should also be just fine, that might give you sidewall stiffness but I can’t see why that should be so important, anyways.
I chose “T” rated touring tires a few years ago for my SIII. Well within any peed I was or wouod drive at.
Add on, the limits are “at extended periods”. So 125 for more than an hour is risky!!
Then more PSI’s for tour at “high” speed. Yes, the Jaguar handbook speaks to that.
I am with Doug. stiffer sidewalls, less flex, = less heat or cord vs rubber parting.
And, indeed, from time to time we see complete treads on the road. Tossed at speed.
The big USA sedans in the fabled Mexican Road race of the 50’s were limited to "off the shelf{ bias tires of the time. Extended periods of 100 MPH + in very hot weather. The tams dealt with that by more PSI’s and new rubber at pit stops.
The 215’s on Kent wheels stand about an inch proud in my spare well. The same size on the Lattice XJS sourced wheels, just much too proud. I kept the best of the tires n a Kent for the spare well
Going to market a it later. I doubt that my tires on whichever car I choose will get a speed test…
Pete:
Circa 81, my son and a pal bought new Suzuki 1100’s. Said to be the fastest road bikes of the time. And, the last of the classic bijke look, not the Star War machines that came the next year… And, after the Suzuki tech messed it up, he rebuilt it. Bigger bore, hotter cams, and a four into one pipe. Even faster. His Mom and I were glad to see it go!!! Sold to a CHP motorcycle officer. He was impressed with it’s power and speed.
Carl
Those treads you see on the road- I call’em ‘road alligators!—are almost always off of retreaded truck tires.
There’s a reason there’s a law, disallowing their use on the front…
Agree. Most are. But not all. And, for sure , tossing a tread on a front steering axle on a big rig can cause mayhem.
Carl
Aristides !!! thank’you for sending here! like reply here.
Readed all , however my English now it’s like 30 years petrol founded on xj6 tanks…
so,
White DD s3 have 215/65/15 right?
Aristides SS3 have 215/65/15 right?
I don’t undestand , why White chassis appear lower (rear particularly) than your that appear similar to your older 215/70 ??
DD s3 is lower depending on size tire ?
t h a n k ’ y o u !
same think now i do decide , you will change wheels right?
DD has lowered the front on his White.
Aristides
Pic often misleading , appear me down rear .
OT have a discussion with all you cars pictures?
F
Right, the front of my car is intentionally lower than spec
I’ve done nothing at the rear. I believe it is at spec or close to it but I’ve never measured. Photos can be deceptive, yes, and there is also car-to-car variances due to spring sag
Cheers
DD
Not altogether relevant here, but as an example:
When my 83 was still powered by the DOHC, it had a definite “nose down” stance I liked it!!!
When swapped in a lighter engine/transmission, the nose came up !. Now at spec’s… I resisted the temptation to drop the nose.
In USA car guys, “stance” is of great import!!
The relation of nose to tai\l and the total to ground level.
Enjoy !
Carl
FRED,
No. Wheels will remain stock. A slightly larger (higher) tyre will fill the wheel-well better and thus look better (IMO).
Phillip
Dears !
Finally buyed 215/65 15.
never tested on the road, however my doubt about more “belly” isn’t true. New tyres have a lower belly
than older Michelin XVX with 205/70
i will inform you about road test !
Thank 'you for patience & info!
Hi Aristides
I’ve finally got around to having my Steel Wheels refurbished and am off to fit new 215/65/15 to replace the original 205/70’s in line with your experience.
I have one niggling doubt so can you confirm that the Kent alloys you have are 6" rims?
Thanks
Mark
Yes, they are 15" X 6"