Corner Country 2014 Tyre discussion

^ would be safer to install some small spacers; illegal I know but a more practical way to resolve the issue at least temporarily.
 
Im a mechanic (unfortunately) that works at a tyre shop (better not say which one). It seems to me that most brands have good and not so good tyres. I have been trying to decide on some A/Ts for my foz for some time now and after much debate i have chosen the D697's. Great tyre, quiet, tough, long life and looks good. I would not recommend any other tyres in the dueler range, all rubbish. Other finalists were firestone destination a/t and general grabber at2. Both great tyres .
 
I would have probably got the destinations if they made a 215/65r16 but they only have a 70 profile which i decided was not worth possibly voiding my insurance :(

On a side note the 'c' in 215/65r16c for the d697's means commercial, hence the high load rating.
 
The 697s seem to have a great reputation
 
I've had my 697s for a few months now and they are great tyres, as good as my road tyres in the dry but a bit less grip in the wet. Acceleration is definitely worse due to the increased unsprung weight, particularly noticeable after swapping the road tyres with alloys back on after the steelies with ATs...

Greeno is right, they are commercial tyres, mine say 'Light Truck' on the sidewall.

Offroad, grip is great. Nice sharp tread blocks, very tough sidewall (best on any AT tyre out there IMHO) and a pattern that clears mud nicely and works on grass, gravel, rocks, riverbeds etc. Tread gaps are wider than they look for the tread pattern.

I'm glad I got the 697s. I was tossing up on Destinations, but no 215/65 was a deal-breaker. Grabber AT2 are impossible to source here in NZ. I was thinking Yoko Geo, but the 697s are more aggressive. And the price was unbeatable, $600NZ fitted and balanced for 4 brand new AT tyres!!!
 
Gidday NL

If you look at the Bridgestone D697 data sheets and sizes you will find that there are two types of this tyre. One has the suffix "LT", the other has the suffix "C". I would suggest that this might refer to differing applications such as Light Truck or Car ... .

The 215/65 16" is only offered with the suffix "C" ...

That's interesting what you say about the 215/65r16 D697 only being available in C grade - mine have 'Light Truck' writ large on the sidewall.
 
^ Interesting, KF.

I have never actually seen these tyres. Going on spec and talking to Shane up at my local Bridgestone dealer.
 
Just bought a set of NEXEN AT PRO RA8 225/75/15

Might powdercoat my rims before I fit them but will update my views on them as soon as I fit and test them.
 
That's interesting what you say about the 215/65r16 D697 only being available in C grade - mine have 'Light Truck' writ large on the sidewall.

Must be a kiwi thing, cuz im pretty positive they are not available over here, atm at least. Whats the load rating of yours?

I was a bit concerned that the 106 load on the 215/65r16c's would give an unnecessarily harsh ride as the forester is so light. I found out they make a 697 in 235/60r16 with a 100 load so im going with them. Should get them in the next couple of weeks:ebiggrin:
 
^ Greeno, watch out for your insurance.

My company is quite happy for me to go from 215/60 16" to 215/65 16", but will void my policy if I go to 225/60 16"!

It's the increased risk of aquaplaning. A 215 mm wide tyre is already very wide for a 1.5 tonne vehicle. It's wider than the OEM tyres on my 2 tonne '68 LC (7.5" or 190 mm). Better rubber compounds these days, and tread patterns, but I can see their reasoning.
 
RB, aquaplaning really isn't an issue with modern tyres, unless you're driving fast through water a foot deep lol. I think most insurance companies wouldnt have a prob with going only 1cm wider! Well within legal increase
 
^ ??

Aquaplaning is always a problem, regardless of tyre compound, width, tread pattern, etc. Merely a matter of degree.

My insurer, Allianz, will not insure if I go wider than the placarded value. They were absolutely categorical about that, and fitting of other than OEM rims.

If one is going to do these things, one should get approval in writing from one's insurer. This usually takes the form of verbal assurance followed up by an amended policy document.

Aquaplaning is dependent on lots of factors, but two main ones are tread pattern, damp/wet road surface and how long since it has last rained heavily. It is caused by road grime molecules clinging to the road surface with their hydrophylic tails in the air, with water molecules hanging on to that tail.

A narrower tyre with a "better" tread pattern will be less likely to slide over those bound water molecules than will a wider tyre with a "worse" tread pattern. e.g. a good quality road tyre is more likely to cut through that layer of road grime + water molecules than will, say, an A/T tyre, or a bald one.

Regardless of tyre type and tread pattern, a narrower tyre will be more likely to cut through than a wider tyre. It's one reason that formula one cars switch from wide slicks to narrow treaded tyres if the rain starts to fall.

Simple physics and chemistry really.
 
So im getting these 697's next week in 235/60r16. Just wanted to confirm that these will fit without the need of spacers. Sticking my head under the car, it looks like the front will be ok but the rear, i cant fit my fingers between the strut and the tyre on the inside edge with the standard 215/60r16 tyres and standard 2004 alloy rims :S

I got some spacers lying around if i need them but would rather not have to use them.
 
There's a few things that could be going on here.
- I have 215/65r16 Kumho KH18 road tyres on GC8 WRX rims (+53 offset, 7" wide) and I can't fit my finger between the strut and tyre either. However, with the OEM X trim steel wheels and same tyres (+48 offset, 6.5" wide) I could easily fit chains. So I suspect your wheel offset could be causing issues.

- Also, my D697s (215/65r16) have a less bulgy sidewall than the Kumhos. I currently have these mounted on the OEM steels (+48 etc) and I can again easily fit snow chains. I believe there is sufficient room to fit a tyre 1cm wider on these wheels, but there may not be, and you won't fit chains!

Front strut will likely cause issues, as the Kumhos just barely clear the spring perch. Even with the wider offset +48s and the 697s, I can't fit chains/my finger between the spring perch and tyre.

You may also have rubbing on the pinch weld at the rear of the front wheelwell.

IDK, IMO 235/60r16 seems escessively wide, although the float would be nice for beach work. I suspect you'll need spacers or at least new wheels.
 
If you go too wide you're going to get rubbing from tyre flex on the perch; I wouldn't go above 21565R16.
 
Fitted the tyres today, haven't really driven it yet but they fit! And without spacers too :)

So for the record 235/60r16s fit an unmodified sg. Seems like plenty of clearance everywhere, will post photos when i get home
 
Back
Top