Radials on 1952 Ford ?

[Guest]

Does anyone know for sure if it is okay to use radial tires on a 1952 Ford?<P>Somebody told me long ago that it was not advisable.Is this an old wives' tale?

[Guest]

See if this might help. Almost at the bottom it talks about tires and ya be why people say not to use radials.

[Guest]

i dont see why not!!!!!!!!! i have a set of 235/75r15's on my 56 Packard. The CHEAPEST that Pep=Boys sells carry out. The yrun JUST FINE at 85-90 mph on the I'state and 55-60 on these snakey Tn state routes.<P>There has been some talk about 'Radial Tuned Suspension' I think its just so much bullshit. The next time someone says radial tuned suspension i wish they would tell EXACTLY what that means!!!!

[Guest]

Sweet fancy Moses; I forgot to post the site. <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/fivelincolns/suspsteertiredriver.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.geocities.com/fivelincolns/suspsteertiredriver.html</A>

[Guest]

Guess I can't spell "may"

[wldavis]

Tom,<P>My Dad has two automobiles built before radial tires were made: a 1951 Plymouth and<BR>a 1965 Ford. He uses radials on both. Both<BR>have full wheel covers. The only problem<BR>he has (and I assume it is due to the tires)<BR>is that the wheel covers rotate a bit while<BR>driving, and they pinch the valve stems. So,<BR>he has to use some sort of glue between the<BR>wheel and the wheel cover clips to keep<BR>this from happening.<P>-Bill

[Guest]

yeah, the article talks about a $50 vs $100 tire. The REAL difference is in how long the tire will last mileage wise. Altho, a cheaper softer tire WILL hug the road better if its due to compounding. I'm no tire expert, BUT practicality usually overrules with tires. By the time the tire is 60-70% worn it has probably picked up alot of plugs, worn unevenly, or something that makes the owner start thinking about a new pair or set anyway. SO, why pay extra for the extra miles that wont get used????/ The best bet is to buy a tire AT LEAST 1 size larger than recommended by mfg. Buy the CHEAPEST such tire. I would rather have a CHEAP LARGE tire than premium inadequate sized tire.<P>REMEMBER: when all those trendy suburbanite hot-shots bought their SUV with Firestones they THOT they were getting premium too paid a big price and look what they got! Hindsight - Hindsight - Hind sight

[Guest]

ok, so u r implying that the rotating wheel cover problem was NOT an issue without the radials???????????? Hmmmmmmmm. i had a set of 53 or 54 ford full wheel covers on 88 ranger pu with Radials that rotated too. BUT, the 54 Pontiac full wheel covers held just fine. Also, 73 Impala from factory withOUT radials and has had radials for the last 10 years or so and no wheel cover problems with it.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Regarding wheel covers "walking" in the rim:<P>When I was a kid, I was "hub-cap happy" and collected a bunch of wheelcovers and hubcaps from various 1950'5 & '60's cars, and loved to swap 'em from car to car, much to the minor irritation of my patient parents ; anyway, I learned that all "wheelcovers are not created equal" when I put a set of 1958 Chevrolet wheel covers on the Family's new 1970 AMC Ambassador ; those '58 Chevy discs didn't stay on the Ambassador for more than a mile or two: they popped-off one by one! Further investigation "learned me" that the Chevy wheel covers had smooth rims where they mated with the wheel rim, instead of the "toothed ears" found on most wheel covers and trim rings. It seems that the '58 Chevy rims had a series of "bumps" which stuck up from the inside edge of the rim, and provided a "grip" for the smooth rolled edge of the wheelcover. The AMC wheels had no such bumps, so there was nothing to really secure the Chevy wheel covers.<P>Since that time, I've noticed variations on this "rim-bump" method of securing wheelcovers, and some wheel covers will "stay put" only on their respective OEM rim, and sometimes not even then!<P>I think wheelcover "walking" has more to do with the weight of the wheel cover and inertia (thinking of the Dodge Royal Lancer wheelcover with that heavy die-cast crossbar!) than it does with radial vs. bias tires.<P>Sometimes the teeth on "toothy" wheel covers need to be bent out a little to get a better bite on the rim; I've also had trouble with wheel covers that have gotten slightly distorted from mechanics with rubber mallets or rim-scrapes tending not to fit as well as they once did.<P>The earliest vehicle which I had run radial tires on was a 1961 Plymouth Belvedere, which had "modern" torsion-bar ball-joint suspension, and it handled OK.<BR>The issues you'll run into with earlier rims might be whether or not they're air-tight enough to go tubeless.

[rocketraider]

Radial-ply tires, by design, grip the road harder which puts more lateral stress on a wheel in hard cornering. A bias or belted tire will begin to skid way before a radial so they don't stress the wheel as much. Some earlier rims may not be able to handle the added lateral load without the tire coming off the rim or wheel itself deforming. That's why radials are risky on early cars.<P>Most wheels made since about the mid 60s or so are perfectly fine to run radials. Since I doubt many of us throw our old cars around hard enough to skid tires, using radials on earlier wheels is probably not an issue.

[Guest]

i've noticed that the radials seem to be a very loose fit on the rims as compared too bias belted tires. They seem to have become even looser fitting over the last 5-8 years. I have studied my 56 rims side by side with an 80 model ford rim (came from factory with radials) and i can see NO difference in the wheel. Perhaps its a metalurigical difference????? I do have a set of very early 50's jeep rims that seem to be stamped from VERY light sheet metal... but then agin the early 50's jeep was strictly a utility vehicle.