I am sure that most of you looking at new trucks on the lots have seen the F150s sitting there on the tiny little 235/75-16s

I am embarressed for the salesmen, the dealership, Ford AND all the members here everytime I see a Full size truck running around on tires that appear to be to small for a compact truck.

Actually I have seen many a STOCK toyota on much larger tires, cheby too.

I think it goes back to the dark days of the firestone recall and Ford's scramble to get them replaced with anything the other tire manufactures may have availible.

Now I think they are doing it soley as a cost issue.

My questions to all of you are:

1. Do you think Ford is lossing 'curb appeal' by doing tires on the cheap?

2. Have any of you had success in having your dealer swap them out for some real rubber at no extra cost?

 

You do not have to tell me that the tires are way too small on the F150 2WD. Now if you look at a FX4 they have bigger and better looking rims and tires. But the 235 70R16 is the only option on the F150 ExtCab longbed that I just bought. And I did ask the dealer about switching wheels "Oh we can not just take a set of wheels off a car on the lot and trade them with another truck, it is against the law. We would have to see if there are any lying around in the service dept." Maybe not a direct quote but very close to what he said. So I will be looking for a set of 17 inch Expedition rims for my F150. fd

 

Ford has always put too small of tires on their cars and trucks I think. I remember my parents saying this exact thing about new cars in the '70s and '80s

Jon
1989 F-150 XL- 4x4, 302, M50D
1995 Bronco Eddie Bauer- 351W, E40D

 

>Ford has always put too small of tires on their cars and
>trucks . . .

I do agree with you on this. However, Ford HAD been installing 255/70-16 as the 'standard' wheel/tire package up until the firestone fiasco.

The (too small in my opinion) 255/70-16 is 30.2" overall diameter.

The WAY to small 235/75-16 at 29.9" is over 1/4" smaller in overall diameter and makes the trucks look comical , in a sad way. I recently saw a lot full of them, including a few 4WD super cab models. Talk about a big wheel well that is just screaming for a bigger tire, man it was sad.

I would have liked to see Ford go the other way and spec a slightly larger tire. A quick check of most any online tire vendor will show very little cost differance bettween the 235/75-16 and a 245/75-16 BFG LongTrail TA. I think this is a size which should be the minimum OEM size for these trucks and at 30.6" overall is still within 10% of the original 255/70-16 and as such should present no odometer or speedometer problems.

I guess my questions still stand and I will add another:

If you agree that the tiny tires and the 'wimpy' look that they give an otherwise tough truck could be 'Hurting' the sale of Ford Trucks, what do you think that we could do to get this message to Ford in a positive way?

 

While the tires might appear small on the new F150s, I think part of that is the way they look in the larger wheel openings - because the older F150s had tires that were even smaller yet. I remember in the '70s and '80s they were using 235/75R15 and even 225/75R15 - which are 28.9" and 28.3" tall. I think they were using the 235/70R16 even before the firestone fiasco on the base model trucks, and the XLT and such were using the 255/70R16. According to their website, the base-model trucks still use a 235/70R16, but the XLT and Lariat get the larger 255/70 (or the 17s). My F150 uses the LT245/75R16, but it's a 7700 which uses different wheels and tires.

Ford had been under-tiring their cars and trucks for years - heck, my '89 Towncar came with P215/70R15 tires - which look tiny on there, and can barely support the weight of the car (which weighs more than a lot of F150 pickups). I upgraded it to P225/75R15s which are about 2" taller, and they both look and handle a lot better.

I assume part of the reason Ford does it is cost, but a big part it probably also gas mileage - small tires with less rolling resistance get better mileage, and Ford needs every MPG they can get to meet the CAFE ratings. I looked it up, and GM uses a 235/75R16 on their base-model pickups - and Dodge uses a 245/70R17 on their newest trucks. So, Ford's tires are the smallest...but I personally don't think it reduces sales all that much. From what I've seen there are very few trucks on the lot with the smaller 235s on them - most that I've seen have the 255/70, because the lots around here rarely seem to have base-model XL trucks.

LK

 

Keep in mine gas mileage with bigger tires for the epa.......and the wheel wells are larger on the new trucks.


Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Flowmaster American Thunder Exhaust, Sunroof, Clear corners w/ Diamond headlights, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds .

Check out my Gallery for a look-see.

Then theres:
99' Mustang GT 4.6L
88' F-250 Heavyduty 4x4 351/c6
95' Mercury Cougar 4.6L V-8
80' E-350 300/6 with a
3 spd column shifter. Weighs around 7,000lbs w. 65mph top speed, who wants to race me!

 

>Keep in mine gas mileage with bigger tires for the epa.......and the wheel wells are larger on the new trucks.

Yep, that's what LK said...

Jon
1989 F-150 XL- 4x4, 302, M50D
1995 Bronco Eddie Bauer- 351W, E40D

 

I have factory 275/60 R17's on mine (Sport Package). I think they are about right. I agree that many of the 16" look bad. Unfortunately they are working very hard to lower their costs. Sometimes it shows.

MrBSS

 

I have a set of 17in rims for sell from my 2000 expedition. In great shape. Just got a new set of rims.
Let know if your interested.
djk

 

Don't know that I, as a customer, would gauge the seat-of-the-pants test drive against the looks of the truck as much, but along with all of the good points made (mileage, EPA, cost, etc.), I'll throw another guess in for the heck of it..... acceleration? Not that it would make a huge difference, but the smaller tires (for a given gear ratio) would allow the truck to get up and go from a standing start better than taller tires. Maybe the marketing folks get feedback from the salespeople that this is a big deal for test drivers. Ditto on passing power. There could also be warranty / frequency of repair plots at work, also. Larger tires increase wear on brake pads, bearings, etc. Maybe not enough more to where you or I would care, but I can imagine that some group of industrial engineers has probably studied it and given enough data back to the corporate bean counters to influence them.....

 

Does it really matter, I know once the put bigger tires on people will be complaining about the size of the tires because of gas mileage, so why not go the cheaper route and if people want to upgrade great rather then going the expensive route and people wanting to downgrade. That would make sence to me.

 

>Does it really matter . . . so why not go the cheaper route . . .
and save $5 per truck by installing the tiny car tires instead of real truck tires.

I can see it now. . . the ad reads 'Ford Tough' and the PIC shows a F150 4x4 Supercab with 14" of gap in the wheel wells.

Have any of you ever seen how the transport monster truck? They remove the big (72")wheels and tires and install 35" rubber to make it possible to get them into the transporter. . . Yes, it is very practical but the truck looks very silly.

Give us some reall rubber and switch from 3.55 to 3.73 or even 4.10 gearing as std. equipment.

 

Guys...come on. Smaller tires for better fuel ecomony? No way!

Anyone should know that a larger tire spins fewer times to travel the same distance. That means the driveline turns less to travel the same distance. That means the engine turns fewer RPMs at the same speed...which results in BETTER gas mileage, not to mention a better looking truck.

Don't believe me? The Ranger with the off-road package has 245/75s on a 16" wheel, right? The Chevy S10 with the ZR2 off-road package has 265/75s! (Actually , they have 31x10.5s which is the same thing). The result, the S10 ZR2 looks forty million times better than the Ranger 4x4 Off-Road, and it's also got a better fuel economy rating (21 highway vs. 20 highway for Ford last I checked).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Ford man....but I totally agree that Ford uses tires that are WAY too small for their trucks...and they have no good reason for it.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-Oct-02 AT 10:58 PM (EST)]What you say is true, in theory, and would probably hold for long, flat, straight stretches of highway. The taller tires do reduce the effective gearing (numerically), and thus reduce RPM's for any given speed as compared with smaller tires. However, in stop and go, city, towing, (real world driving) that reduction in effective gearing (numerically, resulting in a tighter ratio) actually results in the driver having to put his/her foot into it more to move the truck up the road. The result? Worse fuel economy. I can speak from the experience of running 33" X 12.50" X 15"'s on a previous truck, and then dropping back to 30"'s. Yes, the truck did rev higher at speed with the 30"'s, but, my gas mileage actually got better. Why? I constantly had my foot in it to keep the 33"'s rolling, especially with a load. The 30"'s reduced the amount of work required of the engine to turn the tires, and thus improved my fuel economy. All of this, does of course, assume that the same axle gearing is kept from one tire size to the next. (Otherwise, all bets are off! )

 

Put 4.10's in and watch the mileage drop big time. I am driving a Ranger with a 4.0L V6 and 4.10's in the back and there is 1 mpg differnce between that and an F150 with a 4.6L V8 with 3.55's and the same size tires. I still think that your not gonna make everyone happy so why not go the cheaper route? Now if someone was to buy an F150 for towing a fifth wheel how happy would he be with a very big tire on this truck?