Tires, is there a right answer?

[straight5]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I had a Saab 9-5 turbo that did 33.5mpg over the last 19k miles. It also had a big tank. I once went 700 miles on a tank of gas. So this S10 feels like a gas hog - even though it really isn't too bad.
I didn't believe that I needed LT tires because of the weight. I was looking at those thinking the higher air pressure would = better mpg. I wasn't considering that the extra plies would add more drag, but I should have.
Yes I read that the LRR was a comparison to similar tires.
I'll probably get a more common size than the 205 it calls for.
Thanks again everyone.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

Your S10 certainly doesn't need LT tires, most full size half tons don't even call for LT tires, at least the years I'm familiar with. My 94 F150 4wd stock tire size is a P235/75/15XL. The XL is a slightly higher load rating than without the XL designation, but it's still a P tire, only 6-plies.

I would never put an LT tires on something as small as an S10, because if you're looking to carry that kind of weight you need something bigger, or you will be way overloaded.

In order for the Post Office's smallish mail trucks to have a 1000 pound cargo ability, they need LT tires. We tried to order snow tires for them and the only available tires in the size were P series and thus would be under the weight capacity by 30 pounds per tire. So no snow (pun intended) tires on the 300,000 mail trucks in the US. Those smaller tires, in this case a 14" wheel, really aren't that high of a rating when going to LT, and the mail truck is basically a Chevy S10 with an aluminum body on it. Oh and the dedicated snow tires cost 1/3 the price of the LT tires we buy (Goodyear Wrangler almost $300 each because why wouldn't a government agency use a tire size/spec nobody else on the planet is using?) Even better we get to run chains in the winter that cost $75 a set and last 2 weeks tops tearing up the roads.

On a side note, I don't think the LT tires are necessarily that much worse RR, but by far most LT tires also add aggressive tread designs which will be bad for RR.

[Ecky]

I can't speak for truck tires specifically but I was impressed with Michelin Defenders last time I had a set. Fuel economy was only marginally worse than the l famous Bridgestone RE92 165 (probably the lowest RR passenger tire), they lasted twice as long, and weighed less. I felt the traction was "fine" in the 70,000 or so miles I had them, though undoubtedly they were using a very hard rubber compound.

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

In order for the Post Office's smallish mail trucks to have a 1000 pound cargo ability, they need LT tires. We tried to order snow tires for them and the only available tires in the size were P series and thus would be under the weight capacity by 30 pounds per tire. So no snow (pun intended) tires on the 300,000 mail trucks in the US. Those smaller tires, in this case a 14" wheel, really aren't that high of a rating when going to LT, and the mail truck is basically a Chevy S10 with an aluminum body on it. Oh and the dedicated snow tires cost 1/3 the price of the LT tires we buy (Goodyear Wrangler almost $300 each because why wouldn't a government agency use a tire size/spec nobody else on the planet is using?) Even better we get to run chains in the winter that cost $75 a set and last 2 weeks tops tearing up the roads.

On a side note, I don't think the LT tires are necessarily that much worse RR, but by far most LT tires also add aggressive tread designs which will be bad for RR.

This is the government we're talking about, I doubt that they need LT tires. Even the itty bitty 12" tires on my Geo are rated for 908 lbs a piece, and going up to a reasonably large 14" tire I'm sure you would be in the 1,600 pound range on a passenger tire, and those mail trucks can't be all that heavy.

A quick google search for P205/70R15 shows that they are usually rated for between 1,600 and 1,800 pounds, so about 3,200-3,600 on the rear axle, and you'll not convince me that the rear half on that S10 weighs more than 2,200 pounds. For that matter, My 4X4 F150 doesn't have that much dry weight on the rear axle.

OP, unless you are crazily overloading that S10, you will be just fine with a P designated tire.

[ksa8907]

I can only provide my own tire decision matrix which is: What is the highest level of wet traction can I get for the best price.

Why wet traction? Well dry traction is a given for everyone except Mr. Street-racer but we all butt-clench when we break traction on wet pavement. Wet traction can also be a predictor of snow traction.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

I can only provide my own tire decision matrix which is: What is the highest level of wet traction can I get for the best price.

Why wet traction? Well dry traction is a given for everyone except Mr. Street-racer but we all butt-clench when we break traction on wet pavement. Wet traction can also be a predictor of snow traction.

Agree about wet traction.

I've read that in tread design, though, that wet traction and snow traction are often *inversely* related in tread design.

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Agree about wet traction.

I've read that in tread design, though, that wet traction and snow traction are often *inversely* related in tread design.

I had never heard that, note taken.

[rmay635703]

https://www.tirebusiness.com/article...ing-tire-specs

Funny to think they were only getting 3500 miles from a tire

[fusion210]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

https://www.tirebusiness.com/article...ing-tire-specs

Funny to think they were only getting 3500 miles from a tire

What the heck!

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

https://www.tirebusiness.com/article...ing-tire-specs

Funny to think they were only getting 3500 miles from a tire

They must be doing daily burnouts. Something smells fishy about that one