RE: [Chrysler300] 300F Tire questions - again!

[Anthony Rinaldi <awrdoc@xxxxxxxxx>]

There are well over 100 sets of Coker 235/75R14 on our cars today. Generally, they require alot of lead to balance. They have not been any of the other problems that have been associated with other size Coler tires. 

The ride and steering on mr "F" conv have been great at all speeds. My only problem recently was after having the tires rotated front to back. Radial pull occurred and had to swap the right to the left to have the car track straight again. 

The American Classic tire is not the same. Actually it's tread is oh so 70's Michelin and exremelt handsome. 

I personally had to get the 100 pre sell orders in order to get Coker to make this size. With that said, I would prefer the looks of the AC tire as my next choice. 

Hope Gil Cunningham chimes on on this discussion since he recently put a set of AC on his "F" conv and drove from FL to PA and back. He reported some vibration at high speeds and had a couple of tires swapped out at an AC dealer in Hershey PA. 

Hope Gil will report whether or not the AC are performing well and if he would recommend them. 

Tony

cpaviper@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
>    
> After reading the Club emails over the past few years discussing tires -  I'm still trying to zero in on what to buy for our F Coupe. 
> Re Coker, I'm still hearing issues - just about every Coker-related message talks to problems with balancing, and that they've hopefullly resolved their structural integrity issues. Re American Classics, their website gives no info - just refers to Coker, Universal, Lucas as distributors. Comparing the Coker and American Classic P235/75R14s, the load capacities, tread widths, section widths and overall diameters are identical - only Co ker catalog's UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grade) ratings differ between the 2 "brands " (American Classic's 540BB rating is apparently better than Coker's 400BB rating)  and the Coker tire price is a few bucks more. Sounds like we're still unclear whether American Classic and Co ker are one and the same tire - the tread patterns in the catalog photos appear identical. 
> I called Diamond Back this morning and spoke with one of their sales reps, Jim. He advised that there's no current maker of a quality P235/75R14 tire today - could be a dig against Coker? He did say that they're working on a 75 series 14" radial that will approximate the tire size we're all looking for. They just received their first test version of it, are were not at all pleased - he estimates that any such tire won't be ready to market until next summer [2010] or later. 
> He did offer up the following suggestion, and I'm wondering if any of you have tried this. Diamond Back sells a European Metric tire that's also used on vans and light trucks, and that he says works very well in automotive applications. He says handling and road noise are very good. The tire's height is 27.3", vs Coker's 27.87"; tread width of 6.3" is the same as Coker's; cross-section of 8.5" is 3/4" narrower than Coker's 9.25"; it's a 6-ply tire rated at 2464# vs Coker's 1930#, is manufactured by Federal, and it replaces 225/75R14 - is described on Page 6 of their 2009 catalog. The tire does come in a 2 1/2" wide whitewalls. 
> Is anyone out there running these tires? Or had any experience with them? 
> And there's also the continuing debate re installing new rims. Diamond Back's website quotes the 12/6/07 Old Cars Weekly article that we saw on our Club website a few months back, and says the claim is bogus, that there's no alloy difference, and no markings on rims to indicate use with bias or radial tires. DB's argument in fact states that radials absorb more impact and are therefore less stressful on rims than are bias ply tires. Any new thoughts on this, as we're still running the original 1960 rims on the F? 
> Th anks for your input, and apologies for again bringing up an old topic ! 
> Noel Hastalis 
> Burr Ridge, IL  
> And there's also the continuing debate re installing new rims. Diamond Back's website quotes the 12/6/07 Old Cars Weekly article that we saw on our Club website a few months back, and says the claim is bogus, that there's no alloy difference, and no markings on rims to indicate use with bias or radial tires. DB's argument in fact states that radials absorb more impact and are therefore less stressful on rims than are bias ply tires. Any new thoughts on this, as we're still running the original 1960 rims on the F? 
> Th anks for your input, and apologies for again bringing up an old topic ! 
> Noel Hastalis 
> Burr Ridge, IL  
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
>      



------------------------------------

To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm

For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:Chrysler300-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:Chrysler300-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/