Posted By |
Discussion Topic:
redials tires on the '49
-- page:
1
2
|
|
trjford8 |
11-24-2017 @ 5:06 PM
|
|
|
Senior
Posts: 4203
Joined: Oct 2009
|
I found that radial tires made a big difference at slow speed in my '54 Mercury. The '54 Mercury was the first year for ball joint suspension, so that could have had an effect on it also.
|
TomO |
11-24-2017 @ 7:12 AM
|
|
|
Senior
Posts: 7243
Joined: Oct 2009
|
Don, it is not a dumb question. You need the information in order to make the choice of tires that suits you best. I doubt that there will be much of a difference in slow speed steering effort between the bias ply and radial tires on your 49 Mercury. Alignment will have much more effect. Have your alignment checked when you install new tires or see uneven wear pattern. I am not a fan of radial tires on old cars. My main objection comes down to cost and durability. Radial tires cost more new. Radial tires can fail suddenly as they age, the tires should be replaced at 7 years. Most antique cars are driven less than 3,000 miles a year, so you would get 8-10 years out of a set of bias ply tires. If you drive less you may get 12 years, but no longer as the tire rubber would be too hard for good traction. Get the size closest to the original size. If you go "up" a size, you will make your speedometer more inaccurate. Tom
This message was edited by TomO on 11-24-17 @ 7:13 AM
|
oldfordman |
11-23-2017 @ 6:06 PM
|
|
|
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Oct 2017
|
Will the equivalent size radial tire be really harder to steer at slow [parking] speed than the bias ply? Is this a really dumb question? Sorry, this has probably been discussed before... Thanks, Don [oldfordman] ps; if I go radial, should I go up a size?
|