Do you run factory PSI on your tires?

[TonyC]

If you go look it up, you will discover that the original tires for the 60's slab side cars did not actually meet the load rating that Ford recommended because there was no such tire at at the time.

Indeed...? So all the talk in the articles of the day, about the tires being manufactured with the specs of the clap-doors in mind, were deceptive? Interesting; actually, that would not surprise me: I've come across a lot of little things in those reviews that actually were not the case for the specific years of cars being reviewed. Somehow I think I can remember my grandmother having to go through tires (the bias-ply types) fairly frequently, though I was still not yet in school when the conversion to radials began. I remember well chronic flying-saucer incidents after she went to radials, though...but that's another matter.

---Tony

[elcad70]

I remember well chronic flying-saucer incidents after she went to radials, though...but that's another matter.

Tony you can't possibly leave that statement without a DETAILED explanation.

[Lee]

If I know Tony, flying saucers are synonymous with flying hubcaps.

Well, here is yet another way to approximate modern radial inflation pressure, courtesy of Discount Tire. Take the load index off the sidewall, and the weight of the car front and rear, and voila!

1115-DiscountTireinflation.pdf

(114.14 KiB) Downloaded 13 times

So to use my ‘62 sedan as an example: the tires are load range 104. The weight borne by each of the front tires is 1459 lbs, and each of the rears 1166. Original inflation: 24 psi.

Since you don’t want to ever go lower than factory, that makes my calculation 24 rear, and 26 up front. I’m not going to do that…I just thought it was interesting.
I suppose if you add 4 passengers and a load of luggage, each tire might bear an extra 200 lbs. or 29 psi front but still 24 rear.

[TonyC]

Lee is right; it was a wheel-cover reference. Explaining that here would have veered off-topic, so I just left it at that, counting on vets knowing the reference.

I still don't agree with the way the chart from Discount Tire is being interpreted here, but that's just me. The chart itself is good; I'm saving it.

---Tony

Update, 30 May: After nearly two months I finally got around to recording the new brand and model of tires I have on Frankenstein's front wheels. Backstory first: After the "Killeen Welcome," I went to the local Discount Tire to have a damaged valve stem replaced, and they told me the outer edges of the tires were worn to the point that I had to replace them, which I agreed to. The techs there told me that Hankook tires are not the best when it comes to tread retention, but the equivalent they sold would be better at that. The new tires are Nexen N-priz AH5, fitted with the right-size whitewall strip, plus M+S certification. On top of that, two of them installed and balanced came to $240, which is actually less than I have been paying for equivalent Hankooks. Those will be my go-to tires now. They are holding up nicely, even though they have only a couple-thousand miles on them, if that. I think they were a great deal; Discount Tire was always very good to me.