Radial Tires and Judging

[Restorer32]

Amoco Premium was always lead free.

[RivNut]

Yeah, but to be authentic, it should be leaded. Remember telling the guy to "fill it with Ethyl" or "regular", both were leaded. If you're going to be correct, you'd better be correct all the way. Would that also include air in the tires?

1975 - New US car models made with catalytic converters require unleaded gasoline.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 mandate the elimination of lead from all U.S. motor fuel by January 1, 1996. This

represents the final step in a gradual reduction of lead in gasoline since the early 1970s. "Regular" gasoline typically

contained approximately 4.0 grams of lead per gallon; average lead content was reduced to 0.5 gram/gallon in 1985, and

still further to 0.1 gram/gallon in 1986.

So, depending on the year of your car, to be "as produced" you should be running leaded gas in your car as to not loose points when being judged.

[Guest my3buicks]

I think Restorer32 said Aamoco !! While most oil companies were switching to leaded gasolines en masse during the mid-to-late 1920s, American Oil chose to continue marketing its premium-grade "Amoco-Gas" (later Amoco Super-Premium) as a lead-free gasoline by using aromatics rather than tetraethyllead to increase octane levels, decades before the environmental movement of the early 1970s led to more stringent auto emission controls which ultimately mandated the universal phase out of leaded gasoline. The "Amoco" lead-free gasoline was sold at American's stations in the eastern and southern U.S. alongside American Regular gasoline, which was a leaded fuel. Lead-free Amoco was introduced in the Indiana Standard marketing area in 1970.[6] The Red Crown Regular and White Crown Premium (later Gold Crown Super Premium) gasolines marketed by parent company Standard Oil (Indiana) in its prime marketing area in the Midwest before 1961 also contained lead.[7]

So how do we know they didn't use Aamoco lol

[60FlatTop]

Our village Buick dealer was next door to the Amoco station. I remember a big poster on the Buick dealer's wall showing the clean internals of an unleaded fuel engine in 1973. It was a big deal to the typical Buick buyer of the time, that age group who usually want to avoid any kind of change.

The other day I was in the garage and ran across the ICS correspondence automotive course study booklets I used in 1969, between trying to rescue a captured ship from the Koreans and catching Apollo shot splash downs. Young minds are impressionable and I always remembered the cresyl phosphates replaced the lead in those early unleaded fuels.

To the original topic, I used the original biased tires because the stance of the car changes with the aspect ratio and sidewall height of radials. Sometimes the wheel well radius is not filled. And I have my old cars for aesthetic reasons. If they don't look right I just don't like it.

If I was to consider a 12 point loss for judging I guess I would have a different attitude, if all the other components left me at 388 points.

Bernie

Oh, the Amoco- I didn't use that for aesthetic reasons. Growing up with logos from Mobil, Gulf, ESSO, Sinclair, and the like, the modern style of the Amoco always looked cheap and foreign to me. I never stopped unless I coasted in. Now there's an attitude for you.

Edited August 13, 2014 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[cjp69]

I was going to enter my car for judging at the Nationals, but realized that I had stopped at Costco and bought gas and had my tires topped off. I figured I would lose too many points for using gas with Ethanol and having my tires filled with Nitrogen, so I just put it in "Driven", rather than risk losing my Senior Gold status.

[Bill Stoneberg]

Chris, I just answered your question on scoring sheets, and you realize there is no scoring sheets for the driven class.

[cjp69]

Chris, I just answered your question on scoring sheets, and you realize there is no scoring sheets for the driven class.

Thanks Bill. My request was for a couple in our local chapter who had their car judged.

[Mr Riviera]

Interesting about the original topic - http://www.dbtires.com/rimstress.html

[bhambulldog]

I was going to enter my car for judging at the Nationals, but realized that I had stopped at Costco and bought gas and had my tires topped off. I figured I would lose too many points for using gas with Ethanol and having my tires filled with Nitrogen, so I just put it in "Driven", rather than risk losing my Senior Gold status.

Very Noble of you !!!

Haha!

Funny!

[NTX5467]

I was thinking about this topic the other morning . . . so here's a point of perspective on this subject. Back when we were driving on bias ply tires, we DID have good sense about us. It was also during a time in US history when the road system was being expanded, locally and nationally, which meant most of the main roads were in good repair and condition . . . except possibly in some areas where "civilization" was older than in other areas, which means "older roads" in generally poorer conditions. And then came the Interstate Highway System! Almost any type of tire would work pretty well on such highways.

Still, there were some lesser highways which did not have "improved shoulders", but normal dirt shoulders . . . with unmarked edges of the main roadway. If a car with bias ply tires might drop a wheel off of the main roadway, the design of bias ply tires could make it harder to get back on the main roadway, "at speed". Even if the driver was careful and slowed down significantly, the car should lurch back onto the roadway when the tire got enough traction to drive over the drop-off, which can and did cause many wrecks. Radials, by comparison (especially the earlier radials which were, in my orientation, "more" radial than what we now have) would drive over the elevation change with much less drama greatly-reduced chance of loss of control of the vehicle. The "radial belt" was the reason for this, compared to the angles of the bias ply tire's cords in relation to the direction of travel. As time progressed, more improved shoulders were installed and more lane edge markings were also installed, so the driver could better see when they were getting out of the main roadway area of the pavement.

Also, the bias ply tires (circa 1966) in a 8.55x14 size carried a Federal Excise Tax of between $2.80 and $3.00 per tire, at 10 cents/pound. This was one way to gauge the "substantiality" of tires, back then, IF you knew about this tax (which was later repealed). In more current times, the stated weights for similar-sized radials are more like 24-25 pounds. Even comparing an HR78-15 GM-spec radial (of 1975) with the later P225/75R-15 tire of current times, it's obvious much of that weight reduction came from the sidewall area of the tire, by my observation. I suspect the basic carcass also lost some thickness, too,

On those earlier radials, if you had one unmounted and leaned on it, the sidewall would flex. As we have progressed into the P-metric age, doing the same thing results in not only the sidewall flexing, but also the tread deflecting too! Using air pressure more as a reinforcement rather than the "build of the tire", it seems. I feel this is the result of some "tuning" out of the objectionable traits of earlier radial tires, especially when used with the higher inflation pressures of today. Kind of like we made them a little "un-radial" so they blended the softer low-speed ride of bias ply tires with the better highway ride/handling of radials. And, if you look at some of the cut-away pictures of modern radials (on the manufacturers' websites), you'll see that the main radial belts are no longer a true 90 degrees to the carcass base plies of cord, many now needing a "ply cap" of plies at a more-true 90 degrees compared to the base carcass plies. Compare the later pictures to the earlier ones (circa 1975) and I believe you'll see the differences. Even in the earlier times, some radials had a more muted "radial feel" than others, with Michelins usually being the benchmark in that area of "radial feel".

So, back when the roads were newer, our collector cars were "used cars", and many knew what "may pops" were, bias ply tires worked well for us, providing safety and a nice ride on our vehicles. Plus, back then, getting 40K miles out of a bias ply tire and still having "legal" tread depths was something of an accomplishment and testament to the maintenance of the vehicle by its owner. I recall being shown a lower-quality tire, unmounted, whose tread was "legal", but when on the wheel and aired-up, the tire stretched enough that the tread was not of legal depth.

As I stated in an earlier post, there was an extensive discussion of this subject (in this forum) several years ago. Many of the same issues were raised and discussed. People who didn't think it was "fair" to get dinged for radials stated their case and others offered their input on the situation. As I stated then, as now, if a Buick vehicle is good enough to receive a high-level award in spite of the radial tire deduction, then it probably deserves that high-level award. Additionally, if the owner is really concerned about getting a higher-level award with their vehicle, then they might consider getting a set of wheels/tires "for shows" and another set for "non-show use", as Derek mentioned doing. And . . . "The beat goes on . . ."

Many years ago, in the Phoenix meet, one of our chapter members had just restored an early Riviera. He got the correct, equivalent P-metric bias ply tires for it. His complaint was that he got dinged for "incorrect tire size" (as they were P-metrics rather than the original size designation). He got steamed about that and changed over to Cadillacs as his collector car focus. Perhaps there might need to be some expanded guidelines in this area? But then, too, the repro tire industry was not quite as big then as it is now, yet there are still some 1966 sizes which are not supported for some of our cars. Finding some of them in Asian-brand radials can be done, though, even narrow whitewalls.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[packick]

Dick (Mr. Riviera), thanks for referencing that information. I am sticking to my original statement which started this thread. I feel radial tires are safer to drive on than bias ply tires. Yes I can probably drive thousands of miles with bias ply tires and have no problems (I actually have done that); but I would rather drive those thousands of miles on radials.

Other safety items are allowed on cars that didn't originally come with them (i.e., turn signals, seat belts, stop lights) with no point deductions, so I hope some day radial tires will be in that group too.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

[Caballero2]

Packick: Amen!

In my last comment, all but the green Caballero with the red rock background were shown with reproductions. In that photo, the wagon had new top line Remington radials. That configuration made that car an absolute pleasure to drive cross country. And the fuel mileage was far better than expected. At times up to 22 MPG.

Dan

Dick (Mr. Riviera), thanks for referencing that information. I am sticking to my original statement which started this thread. I feel radial tires are safer to drive on than bias ply tires. Yes I can probably drive thousands of miles with bias ply tires and have no problems (I actually have done that); but I would rather drive those thousands of miles on radials.

Other safety items are allowed on cars that didn't originally come with them (i.e., turn signals, seat belts, stop lights) with no point deductions, so I hope some day radial tires will be in that group too.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

[NTX5467]

.

Other safety items are allowed on cars that didn't originally come with them (i.e., turn signals, seat belts, stop lights) with no point deductions, so I hope some day radial tires will be in that group too.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

There can be several orientations as to what constitutes a "safety item" on our vehicles. Yet, physically, the best "safety item" is keeping that "nut behind the steering wheel" in good physical condition (even pharma-enhanced!) and not over-extended as to endurance issues. Not to forget about "moving eyeballs" to keep a watch on the rear view mirrors!!!

As for the vehicles themselves, depending upon the model year of manufacture, if we keep adding "safety features", you might soon end up with a vehicle which would be classed as "modified" in nature or even as "street rod/street machine". Therefore, "restraint" might be needed in such safety upgrades (as evidenced in many clubs' judging criteria/rules). Finesse in adding these upgrades (to look "factory") is not the issue, it's whether the particular item was available as a "factory-approved Buick option (dealer-installed or assembly line installed for the particular model year of vehicle)" that is the key issue.

Naturally, as vehicle features have progressed, the number of "safety items" has tended to increase . . . all the way to the aftermarket Tire Pressure Sensor Monitoring Systems now available. Adding some 4x6" rear tail light/stop light illumination to the rear of the earlier cars would certainly classify as "safety item", (for the driver, the vehicle's occupants, the vehicle itself, and those who might be driving behind the vehicle on the roadway . . . who might be looking for "real" tail/stop/signal lights rather than hand signals or the quarter-sized lights which many of the earlier vehicles of certain eras were equipped with), but would not be "assembly line installed).

In the later 1950s, power steering and power brakes were also touted as options due to their "safety value" (quicker response time to emergency inputs by the driver), not to forget about power seats (better and more comfortable driving position), air conditioning (keeping the driver "fresher" and more alert), sound systems (helping keep the driver alert, but also possibly being a distraction in later times), tinted glass (to reduce sun "glare" and heat), power door locks (occupant safety and protection), push-button/search-tune radios, High Mounted Stop Lights, 12 Volt vehicle charging systems (with or without alternators or electronic-modulated voltage regulators), plus various types of windshield wiper upgrades (electric, variable-speed, interval-wipe). Most of these things can now be sourced via the street rod industry vendors for "factory-style" installations on almost any type of vehicle. Therefore, if you're going to discuss "safety items", it can easily get a lot deeper than just radial tires, added seat belts, accessory turn signals, or halogen headlights, with all due respect.

On the subject of wheels/tires, what about upgrading to a "safety rim" wheel that did not come standard on a particular, earlier model year vehicle? Definitely a safety issue in a sharp turn! Even before radial tires were an issue in North America!

Still, though, the biggest "safety item" on the vehicle is the item which manually modulates the vehicle's various functions to start, stop, and turn the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion. And THAT item is not a BCA-judged item, many times taken for granted as a "universally-given/constant item".

Each of the "judging games" one might desire to play has a cost to them. How an owner might choose to equip/configure their vehicle is their own decision. In some cases, having a "show car" that's also a "driven car" can result in vehicle configurations/judging rules with might have some dissonances. Your vehicle, your judgment call of which game you might choose to play and how to play it.

Regards,

NTX5467

[bhclark]

Other safety items are allowed on cars that didn't originally come with them (i.e., turn signals, seat belts, stop lights) with no point deductions, so I hope some day radial tires will be in that group too.

Don't forget a modern battery, as long as it says AC DELCO on it, which aren't approved because of safety, but for convenience. But to me a quality battery is a safety item.

That is an item, like tires, that is available as a repop, correct looking item for many years, but any modern AC Delco battery is accepted if of the right size/shape, IIRC.

Many still choose to buy a correct looking battery, even if it's not necessary for the points. I'm sure MANY proponents of the bias ply tire would do the same.

[buick5563]

Speaking of which, I got my Senior without a Delco battery. Mine was a time constraint / money restricted / oops, I forgot to order it in time before driving to it's first National (on bias ply tires). I bought a repro battery shortly thereafter which lasted about three years. I now have an Optima in it for reliability.

I still have that Delco repro for when my convertible is finished. It will be strong enough with a jump to limp onto the judging field. Sometimes we go for ease and reliability. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to spend $400 on the world' crappiest battery. FWIW, my Special still drives straight down the road on bias-ply tires. My wagon is running radials because I don't show it (for points).

[cjp69]

Very Noble of you !!!

Haha!

Funny!

huh?

I wasn't trying to be funny, that really happened.

:>)

[cjp69]

Don't forget a modern battery, as long as it says AC DELCO on it, which aren't approved because of safety, but for convenience. But to me a quality battery is a safety item.

That is an item, like tires, that is available as a repop, correct looking item for many years, but any modern AC Delco battery is accepted if of the right size/shape, IIRC.

Many still choose to buy a correct looking battery, even if it's not necessary for the points. I'm sure MANY proponents of the bias ply tire would do the same.

Or a black battery with a battery topper will work too. :>)

[Restorer32]

May pops...haven't heard that in years.

[bhambulldog]

huh?

I wasn't trying to be funny, that really happened.

:>)

Of course I meant not funny funny....

I meant funny ​funny ....

[Ted "Wildcat65" Nagel]

Don't forget a modern battery, as long as it says AC DELCO on it, which aren't approved because of safety, but for convenience. But to me a quality battery is a safety item.

That is an item, like tires, that is available as a repop, correct looking item for many years, but any modern AC Delco battery is accepted if of the right size/shape, IIRC.

Many still choose to buy a correct looking battery, even if it's not necessary for the points. I'm sure MANY proponents of the bias ply tire would do the same.

Where is the logic?

Modern AC Delco battery acceptable because AC Delco was original equipment;

if Firestone Tires were original equipment why would a modern replacement Firestone tire be acceptable?

a 885/15 tire is not available for my 65 Wildcats, I would certainly have a set if they exist.

I have no problem driving with bias ply tires.

ted

[NTX5467]

The 8.85x15 size was something of an in-between size between the 8.45x15 (later 8.55x15, a year or so later after the 8.45s came out) and the 9.15x15 size (think Lincolns and such of that weight range, later L78x15). It was replaced by the J78x15 size, which is equally-absent from the repro ranks! I suspect that's why it's not been supported in the repro industry?

One area where the J78x15 size came in was when replacing H78x15 tires with radials on cars with factory dual exhausts and weaker rear springs. I did this on a '70 Dodge Monaco Brougham I have. I figured the sidewall flex of the radial would consume any larger diameter the JR78 tire to keep the factory dual exhaust pipes from rubbing the concrete on certain drive-in approaches . . . which worked. Compensating for the speedometer error was a minor deal to not dragging the rear pipes, to me! As the more modern radial sidewalls now have "stiffeners" in the bead area, there's not quite as much bulge in the sidewall as the '75-era radials usually had, by observation.

As for equivalent sizes, take the section width (in inches) and multiply that by 25.4 to get millimeters. You'll probably find that the P225/75R-15 size is closer to your 8.85x15 size than you might suspect (dimensionally). The larger P235/75R-15 is just a little to big, cosmetically, to look like a good replacement, to me. This "physical size strategy" can work well with sizes from about model year 1965 and forward, not working too well with the prior sizes as the aspect ratio (not specified, back then with the taller tires) was not stated (and most probably higher than "80").

When the whole P-metric sizing came out, one orientation for replacement of older tires was to use the load capacity, which was a good strategy, but also resulted in tires of smaller diameters being used to replace physically larger tires. With the P-metric sizing having a higher-rated inflation pressure, the smaller tires could carry more weight than the larger tires they were replacing, so that was one criteria (which also resulted in speedometer errors of "not enough actual speed for indicated speed on the speedometer reading). To me, as long as the aspect ratios are similar between the earlier letter-designated sizes and the later P-metric sizes, with the other numeric sizes usually having an aspect ratio similar to the "78" or "75" relationship, then multiplying the numeric section width (in inches) by 25.4 to convert it to millimeters can yield a better "close match" tire size situation.

I KNOW that in a judging rules situation, it's very easy to use the "assembly line-correct" orientation for "stock" vehicles. This requires owners to authentically replicate that situation in how they "fix" their vehicles. Personally, I like that orientation greatly, BUT I also understand the realities of what's available in the repro parts arena, the replacement parts arena, PLUS how these things have changed/expanded/shrunk over the past 30 years. In so many cases, what we scrounged salvage yards for 35 years ago is now available by a computer message and "waving the plastic" . . . in many, but not ALL, cases. Additionally, that such situations can vary depending upon which part of the country one might be in at the time of the car getting "fixed" AND by whom (the efforts that might be made to find "the correct part"). In earlier times, even the brand of replacement part could be critical to that "stock look", too!!!

In this HUGE vortex of swirling scenarios and situations, there has to be some sense made of it all . . . which is what the judging rules (for the respective organization) generally try to accomplish. Personally, it would not bother me to see a '66 Wildcat on the show field with P225/75Dx15("D" for "diagonal ply, i.e., bias ply) whitewalls on it or even P225/75R-15 radial whitewalls as the look of the car would be "factory", but I'd also respect the owner of the car next to it with repro 8.55x15 whitewalls as I KNEW that owner "went the extra mile" to ensure a more-correct car resulted, for the particular show class or not. As a side issue, it's been my observation that an owner which will spend the extra time and money to procure such correct parts for their vehicle typically had a mind-set to do the rest of the car that way, too. When I was going to lots of judged car shows (not car club related, but like the ISCA shows), when I saw an outstandlingly-done vehicle, but it also had an "auto supply brand" battery under the hood, it also made me wonder in what other areas of the car did that owner not spend the additional money/time to put "the right stuff" in it? Was the engine completely rebuilt or just "ring and bearing'd", for example. How much original sheet metal (which was "straightened via filler" rather than being replaced with good, used items or later repro sheet metal) was there? In other words, seeing such "corners cut" raises the "What else did the owner cut corners on when they were doing that car?" flag. Similarly, seeing an OEM-brand battery might not engage those thoughts, just as seeing an Optima battery might engage some "What kind of other hot rod parts (which can be good, IF they all compliment each other . . . bad if they don't) suspicions. But that's just me.

In my way of thinking, if there might be two Wildcats (for example), one with the correct repro tire size and one with close-match size radials (of appropriate type, i.e., highway tread, aspect ratio, sidewall graphics), both cars could receive a Gold Award . . . provided the tire situation did not result in enough additional deducts (by itself) to knock it out of being a "Gold" car. Having the correct tires on the other Wildcat could give it enough "breathing room" in the possible deducts the judges might find for it. Still, though, having a Gold-level car with radials (as replacement for the OEM bias ply tires) would possibly mess with some BCA members' sensibilities in the 400 Point Judged vehicle realm of things, which I fully understand. Still, though, if the vehicle's good enough to score in the Gold range with appropriate-replacement radial tires, then it deserves that Gold Award . . . in my orientation of things.

Still, though, it all goes back to the vehicle's owner KNOWING the rules the vehicle will be judged under, be they AACA, BCA, or otherwise . . . BEFORE the car hits the show field . . . rather than trying to change the judging rules/criteria so their vehicle might be more competitive in the desired "class". Be that as it may . . .

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Thriller]

Still, though, it all goes back to the vehicle's owner KNOWING the rules the vehicle will be judged under, be they AACA, BCA, or otherwise . . . BEFORE the car hits the show field . . . rather than trying to change the judging rules/criteria so their vehicle might be more competitive in the desired "class". Be that as it may . . .

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

I think this is the crux of the argument. Go in with your eyes open and determine how much you want to spend to get extra points. Whether or not it is worth it is an individual decision.

I dont on to think bias ply tires are inherently unsafe, so I'm not sure a safety argument flies. Some care ride betterin bias ply tires than radials.

[Ted "Wildcat65" Nagel]

Ok Team! What would be "more correct" bias ply tire set for the 65 Wildcat, a 8.55 x 15 or a L-78 that has the 8.85 width?

PS Willis, I have gone the extra distance with battery and tires and have received "Gold Senior" status on my 65.

I'm restoring another car to this level, but tires are a conundrum.

[Guest my3buicks]

Ted, without pulling my books out and checking, many times there was an optional size tire available in the option list. Is that a possibility?

[Ted "Wildcat65" Nagel]

Ted, without pulling my books out and checking, many times there was an optional size tire available in the option list. Is that a possibility?

Standard size was 8.45; optional 8.85. That is my dilemma, as both are not available as repro's.

My 67 Wildcat has a perfect original 8.45 spare tire, I wish I could clone it!

[Thriller]

Ted,

I will try to make note of what is on my Wildcat tomorrow. I believe it got the optional 8.85 originally.

From a judging perspective, putting the bias ply tires on saves points, even if they aren't the correct size. It seems to me there is some latitude given to judges for issues like this. Tires are consumable so there has to be something on the car, but isn't expected to be original equipment (now that would be a real safety issue riding on fifty year old rubber ).

[NTX5467]

Ted, thanks for the updates and time and money you've spent to get correct items for your cars!

8.45x15s became 8.55x15s a few years later, if that helps.

Take care,

NTX5467

[cjp69]

Standard size was 8.45; optional 8.85. That is my dilemma, as both are not available as repro's.

My 67 Wildcat has a perfect original 8.45 spare tire, I wish I could clone it!

From the Judging Manual:

In situations where neither the standard nor

alternate tire size is currently being reproduced, the next closest

tire size up or down may be substituted without a deduction

for wrong tire size.

[NTX5467]

Thanks for posting that information, Chris!

8.45"x25.4 = 214.63mm 8.55"x25.4 = 217.17mm 8.85x25.4 = 224.79mm

Going into Tirerack's website www.tirerack.com, the 215mm section width would put you at P215/75R-15 in Hankook H724 whitewalls, with 8.85s being P225/75R-15 whitewalls.

Cosmetically, I think either tire size would look good, with the P22575R-15 being a little larger. P235/75x15 would be too large, diameter-wise, to look "correct". In all cases, we're talking about a 6" wide rim width, as that can affect mounted section width a little. In the case of the particular Hankooks, their tread width would be "period-correct" for tires of the '68-era "normal" tires. Cooper used to build a Trendsetter SE with similar narrower tread width, which looked correct on the '60s cars, too, but I don't know if it's still available. When I discovered the Coopers, they were on a '66 Chrysler Newport P225/75R-14 (another non-supported tire size!) and they looked to be of the same physical dimensions as the Goodyear's Custom Power Cushion 8.55x14s which came on those cars from the factory. NO endorsement of the Hankooks, just a mention of their product in a size we might need.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[RivNut]

Thanks for posting that information, Chris!

8.45"x25.4 = 214.63mm 8.55"x25.4 = 217.17mm 8.85x25.4 = 224.79mm

Going into Tirerack's website www.tirerack.com, the 215mm section width would put you at P215/75R-15 in Hankook H724 whitewalls, with 8.85s being P225/75R-15 whitewalls.

Cosmetically, I think either tire size would look good, with the P22575R-15 being a little larger. P235/75x15 would be too large, diameter-wise, to look "correct". In all cases, we're talking about a 6" wide rim width, as that can affect mounted section width a little. In the case of the particular Hankooks, their tread width would be "period-correct" for tires of the '68-era "normal" tires. Cooper used to build a Trendsetter SE with similar narrower tread width, which looked correct on the '60s cars, too, but I don't know if it's still available. When I discovered the Coopers, they were on a '66 Chrysler Newport P225/75R-14 (another non-supported tire size!) and they looked to be of the same physical dimensions as the Goodyear's Custom Power Cushion 8.55x14s which came on those cars from the factory. NO endorsement of the Hankooks, just a mention of their product in a size we might need.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

I looked at those tires (you can get a great deal on them through Wally World) and had one shipped to the store. The white wall is only about 3/4" wide. Only about half the width of a '67 white side wall.

[superbuick]

Joe, you have started a great discussion here. It is sad to see remarks from folks saying "some chose to cut corners" or "I drove for years with no problem" . I can say without a doubt they don't know what we are talking about!

I also live in Washington state and have the same problems with handling on our rutted blacktop roads. I own and drive over 25 older Buick's all 1967 and older. I also have over 10 prewar cars of different makes. All my cars have good steering and suspension parts but the safety greatly suffers on my cars with bias ply tires. I own and operate a repair shop for 35 years and service vintages cars and have help sort out many club members cars, so I know all about steering and suspension parts. I took 5 Buick to the Portland nationals and needed drivers to help. The people that drove my cars with radials had no complaints, but the ones that drive the bias ply cars were worn out and tired from a three hour drive fighting the car when it hit ruts and several close calls with trucks and other vehicles on the way to and from Portland. With different drivers each time.

My 41 Limited does well with bias, but has long wheel base and a lot of weight. The roadmaster does kind of well, but some of my supers and specials are a challange to drive. When I get on the older paved concrete roads it greatly improves.

As far as saving money?? I research the correct tire size and whitewall width , then contract Diamond back classic tires. I have then make the correct width white wall tire on the closest size to stock. When they are installed they look correct and no money was saved over Bias , but the handling and safty is wonderfull.

So I am upset to some of the remarks when they havent felt or drivin on our freeways. I dont cut corners, my cars have the correct hoses, clamps, batteries on so on. But I have chosen to not have two $1350 set of tires for each car I want judged. I was was happy to learn the deduction has gone down for radials. I recieved a gold sienier on my 1966 GS convertible with new radial red lines. But the rest is about perfect.

Anyone that says there is no differance or thier car drives fine, I challange you to drive on our freeways, relaxe and gaze around at speed. Cant be done! I like to drive my cars and tour with them, so after a 3-8 hour trip it is nice to not be worn out.

I had a great time at the nationals and Buick friends are the best.

Steve Fisher

[packick]

Thanks for the comments Steve. Apparently only you, Old-Tank, and I are the only ones who responded to this thread have driven the rutted Washington State roads. I guess, as the old saying goes, "You had to be there."

[pirate]

I bought a set of tires recently from Coker. The claim is that it looks like bias but is actually radial. Even the sizing is old bias. I got 820-15 (820R-15). Well, when they showed up at my door they sure looked bias and I wondered if I made a bad choice but replaced the modern radials that were on my 47 Roadmaster with these bias looking radials. I took the car down the road and was quite impressed, First thing I noticed is that I am able to turn the steering wheel with about half the effort it took with those old fat radials I had on the car but my best impression was as I heading down the road at speed there was no typical bias follow the road cracks problem. In fact the Buick handles better with these tires than the tires I had just taken off. These tires will pass the judging muster as bias and go down the road as a radial.

[JohnD1956]

Thanks for that report Pirate. I was wondering how those tires would be. Were you able to verify the date of manufacture? Are there different whitewall sizes too?

[60FlatTop]

They look pretty good. I found them at Summit Racing for 260 each and no shipping fee. I like the sidewall height (aspect ratio). That is my biggest dislike of the radials. They just look wrong. These tires are actually .4 inches larger in diameter than the biased. The shoulder of the tire is done well also.

I didn't see 7.10-15's that I will need for the Riviera next year. Maybe they will be available by then. I would give them a try.

Bernie

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/cok-700306

Edited August 31, 2014 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[buick5563]

Pirate, what tires are they specifically? The tires Bernie referenced above are good looking tires (I installed them on a friend's 60 Electra), but they don't look like bias ply tires.

[old-tank]

http://www.cokertire.com/brands/american-classic-tires/american-classic-bias-profile-radials.html

I have not seen these tires. The tread design appears the same as Amstrong tires in the 1960's and later as Sears Allstate in the 1990's. In the 760R-15 size the available whitewall is wa-a-a-ay too big and you may get a deduction for that along with the 'R' in the size designation if a judge is real picky. It is a nice concept, but I probably would not use on a car that did not get driven much, since like all radials around here would start falling apart after 5 years.

Hmmm....maybe Diamondback radials....apply a sticker with raised black letters (7.60-15)...hope the tire judge is young, flexible and inexperienced...

[buick5563]

Plus, those 7.60's are $280!!!

[old-tank]

Plus, those 7.60's are $280!!!

...Yep, and due to my 'frugal nature', that is another reason I would not buy.

[60FlatTop]

Two things have yet to experience; frugal nature and vapor lock. I had the five collector cars out yesterday and it was 88 degrees.

About ten years ago I gave a needy woman a car and she gave me a profound wish of good luck. Since then I have changed two nailhead water pumps without a broken bolt and, as global warming progresses, haven't experienced vapor lock.

Bernie