Is there a market for near new radial tires?

[Dynaflash8]

When I was restoring my 1941 Buick Roadmaster I decided to put radial tires on the car.  I don't like the look of them, as they squat, nor do I like the feel of them when parking in the garage. They steer too hard.  Then I had open her surgery and now it looks like maybe six months before I can drive it again because of the hard steering. I'd rather fight the grooves in the roads down here in Florida. I paid $1600+ for five tires and they have about 100 miles on them.  I took the car on a local tour and then drove it two times around town.  I'd like to switch back to original 7.00x15 witewalls when I can raise another $1500 for five of them.  But, it's hard to digest throwing those new radials away.  I worked with Coker on the phone and 820R-15 measured the same width and height as 7.00x15 bias.  So, I have five 820R-15 virtually new tires.  If I made the move to go back to bias tires, does anybody think somebody would be interested in these radials and pay for the shipping?  I don't, but what do I know?  It would be awhile.  I only got permission to drive my new car locally as of yesterday.  I go back to the Cardiologist on the 27th.  Coker will come around with another free shipping deal on bias tires in the next couple of months I'm almost sure.

[Lebowski]

Sell them on Craigslist. Good luck on your recovery....

[MCHinson]

Earl, 

 

Whenever you are ready to buy the Coker Bia Ply tires, you can order them through Summit Racing for the same price as direct from Coker but Summit always offers free shipping.

[padgett]

If you inflate a radial to 40-45 psi it will feel like a bias tire.

[Frank DuVal]

Yes, try high inflation first to ease steering effort.

 

I have to say do not run them higher than the maximum pressure on the sidewall. Eventhough I always put 40 psi in the rear tires (35 psi max) on the rear of my F-150.....

[Matt Harwood]

2 hours ago, padgett said:

If you inflate a radial to 40-45 psi it will feel like a bias tire.

 

Yeah, but putting too much pressure in them means they'll ride like bricks. I know Earl did a lot of research to make sure he got the right-sized tires, but the moment he told me what he bought I knew they would be much too fat. There was a lot of discussion and many options were presented before the purchase, but somehow the wrong tires still got on the car. Coker should know better with their fitment guides and even though diameters and tread width are the same, section width is what makes radials look like radials and why his tires look too fat. There are narrower WWW radials that look right even though on paper they may seem too small. Not that any of that is useful now.

 

I think you should be able to recover maybe 60-70% of the cost to the right people. Those tires are best suited to large post-war cars; they're too fat for anything pre-war. Put them out there and see what happens or maybe a guy with an early '50s Buick or Cadillac might want them. Used tires can be scary for some folks which is what keeps prices down, but people will always leap at a bargain. Make them impossible to refuse.

[60FlatTop]

Six years ago the surgeon had to open me twice within 8 hours ("We do it nice 'cause we do it twice"). Even if you don't sell the tires you should be swinging on the wheel ahead of the projected date.

 

Ask the cardiologist about alligator breathing exercises. The exercise will keep your rib cage flexible at the cartilage joints, give strength , and help you breathe. Ever notice older people with their necks nearly horizontal. That can be caused by the ribcage joints stiffening up, might help you heal faster as well. Just don't go nuts with it.

 

New York State invented the tar strip two feet in from the shoulder. Pitman arm, tie rod ends, and steering box worm and sector all affect the handling on those surfaces. Really check them thoroughly. And look for pits in the worm gear surface. That is a sign of the hardness wearing off and overlooked at times.

 

Good luck with the healing. I feel better now that I did before I felt bad.

Bernie

[padgett]

"they'll ride like bricks" - just like a bias tire.

[Lebowski]

What size are they, how much do you want for them and where are you located?

[mike6024]

820R15

 

I don't even understand that size designation, but here it is :

 

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Coker-Tire-820R15-American-Classic-Bias-Look-Radial-3-25-Whitewall-Tire,104690.html

 

Coker Tire 820R15 American Classic Bias-Look Radial 3.25 Whitewall Tire

 

Position:    Universal
Tire Type:    Passenger Car
Tire Construction:    Radial
Tire Sidewall:    Whitewall
Wheel Diameter:    15 Inch
Tire Size:    820R-15
Tire Diameter Range:    29.00 - 29.99"
Tire Diameter:    29.91"
Rim Width Range:    6.00 - 7.00"
Section Width:    7.62"
Tread Width:    5.6"
Maximum PSI:    35 lbs
Load Capacity:    1920 lbs.
Load Index:    102
Speed Rating:    S
Tubeless Tire:    Yes
MFG. Part #:    700306
Sold in Quantity:    Each
GTIN Code:    00842199100808
Info
These American Classic radials from Coker Tires are made in the USA and are tested to ensure quality as well as durability. True whitewall construction, along with the "pie crust" shoulder and vintage-style tread pattern give this tire the original look, while the radial internals make it the perfect choice for a car that will see plenty of miles. This is a tubeless tire, but keep in mind that tubes are required on some OEM and reproduction wire wheels. You can trust that these tires are ready to hit the road!

Tread Width: 5.60"
Section Width: 7.62"
Overall Diameter: 29.91"
Max Load Capacity: 1920@35PSI
Tubeless
Speed Rating: S 

 

Lucas has the same one for the same price, as well as some other that size.

 

http://www.lucasclassictires.com/820-15_c190.htm

 

 

820R15 American Classic 3-1/4" Whitewall Radial

Bias Ply Radial tire. Great replacement for Cadillac, Lincolns and Packards. 

Construction    Tubeless Poly/Steel
Load Capacity    1920 @ 35 psi
Overall Diameter    29.91"
Tread Width    5.3"
Suggested Rim Width    6-6.5"
 

Manufacturer: American Classic

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by mike6024 (see edit history)

[mike6024]

I remember when dad's pickup had 7.00-15 tires on it. Those were some tall narrow tires. Truck tires, LT. As far as the aspect ratio, it seemed it must have been taller (higher) than 80-series.

 

Then the pickup got car type radial tires, 215R80-15 and those seemed to have a smaller overall diameter, wider tread. I think I have Bridgestone 235R80-15 on it now.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by mike6024 (see edit history)

[Bloo]

Its pretty safe to assume 90 on the old sizes that are pre-1965, and specify the rim size rather than the outer diameter. Truck tires may be a bit taller than expected due to the extra plies.

 

These tires on the other hand are a bit weird. They work out to about 7.60-15 with a 95 aspect ratio.

 

The first number is the section width , so something that has a section width of 7.62 isn't an 8.20 no matter how you cut it.

 

They are the correct outer diameter for an 8.20 though, just slightly narrower. Keep in mind that tires take a little liberty even today with the actual size, and 50 years ago they were all over the map. Maybe they made them just a little bit tall/narrow to increase the bias ply illusion. It would also make them more likely to fit in a spare tire well or a sidemount cover.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Bloo (see edit history)

[mike6024]

(29.91-15)/2 = 7.46 sidewall height

 

7.62 cross section width times 0.95 aspect ratio = 7.24 sidewall height.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by mike6024 (see edit history)

[Bloo]

Well, I was going for something they might have actually shot for at design. Yeah, in reality it is closer to 100.....

[Dynaflash8]

16 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

Yeah, but putting too much pressure in them means they'll ride like bricks. I know Earl did a lot of research to make sure he got the right-sized tires, but the moment he told me what he bought I knew they would be much too fat. There was a lot of discussion and many options were presented before the purchase, but somehow the wrong tires still got on the car. Coker should know better with their fitment guides and even though diameters and tread width are the same, section width is what makes radials look like radials and why his tires look too fat. There are narrower WWW radials that look right even though on paper they may seem too small. Not that any of that is useful now.

 

I think you should be able to recover maybe 60-70% of the cost to the right people. Those tires are best suited to large post-war cars; they're too fat for anything pre-war. Put them out there and see what happens or maybe a guy with an early '50s Buick or Cadillac might want them. Used tires can be scary for some folks which is what keeps prices down, but people will always leap at a bargain. Make them impossible to refuse.

What size do you recommend then in a radial to replace 7.00x15?  The tires don't look too fat, but they squat and that, plus the hard steering into and out of the garage is what I object to.  I hate the look of the squat.

[Dynaflash8]

15 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

Six years ago the surgeon had to open me twice within 8 hours ("We do it nice 'cause we do it twice"). Even if you don't sell the tires you should be swinging on the wheel ahead of the projected date.

 

Ask the cardiologist about alligator breathing exercises. The exercise will keep your rib cage flexible at the cartilage joints, give strength , and help you breathe. Ever notice older people with their necks nearly horizontal. That can be caused by the ribcage joints stiffening up, might help you heal faster as well. Just don't go nuts with it.

 

New York State invented the tar strip two feet in from the shoulder. Pitman arm, tie rod ends, and steering box worm and sector all affect the handling on those surfaces. Really check them thoroughly. And look for pits in the worm gear surface. That is a sign of the hardness wearing off and overlooked at times.

 

Good luck with the healing. I feel better now that I did before I felt bad.

Bernie

I have almost everything to rebuild the front end.  New springs are paid for and should arrive from Kansas maybe today.  I still need to get a pair of front shocks rebuilt (I have a good set of used ones) by Apple in NY.  But they are too heavy for me to pack and ship yet.  Matt Harwood (above) might have a point.  The car had modern radials on it when I bought it and it did not steer as hard or have that much squat, but that might be because they were narrow whitewalls and it wasn't so obvious.  I still think I want to go back to 7.00x15 bias tires.  I'm also afraid of a ply separation on the rear causing one to blow and ruin one of my skirts.  If only you knew how much money I have in making those Hershey-purchase skirts right.  What they've recommended for my chest is body lotion on the cut.  As yet I may still have to have a shock treatment to get my heart in rythem.  I'll know on the 27th.

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

On any pre war car, I have always thought that radial tires were a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. While the idea can be appealing, it creates more potential problems than it theoretically solves. Generally speaking, keeping a car “bone stock” is a good idea. Engineering was better than most people realize by 1925. 

[Paul Dobbin]

Earl,

Write to  Rev Roc, they guy who started the thread about "tires for a 1960 Buick"  If he has 15" wheels

your tires would look good on that big customized Buick.  

[padgett]

"solution to a problem that doesn’t exist" for some price is a consideration.

 

Issue is that as time goes by it gets harder/more expensive to buy OEM tires some of which were "not even safe in the driveway" e.g.a 2PR Bias-Belted.

 

Think "low profile" cane in sometime in the 1950's, radial became available in the 1960s but the first US production use was the MK III in 1969 (my '59 150s used RS5 6.00x16s)

 

I remember the Michelin X with the "stop" tread being popular in south Florida where it rains A Lot.

 

60 series tires became available in about '67 or '68 (remember the Z-28 having E70x15s). I ordered my '70 Buick GS with G70-15 dog-bone Dunlop radials. Back then figured 8,000-10,000 miles from a $100 set of tires.

 

First real problem I remember was the BR-70-13s Firestone 500s that came on my '78 Sunbird.

 

Today I have radials on everything (prefer BFGs nowadays) but again it rains A Lot here (this time of the year its daily in the afternoon).

[Bloo]

How much air is in them? I have not had these particular tires, but if you are seeing "squat" they probably don't have near enough air.

[Dynaflash8]

17 hours ago, Lebowski said:

What size are they, how much do you want for them and where are you located?

They are 820R-15 like what I already posted.  I don't have them for sale yet, it'll be a couple of months before I can drive the car I think, after my open heart surgery.

[Dynaflash8]

2 hours ago, Bloo said:

How much air is in them? I have not had these particular tires, but if you are seeing "squat" they probably don't have near enough air.

I  think I have 40 pounds in them.  Radial tires always squat.  It really shows with these wide whitewalls.  I hate like hell to remove the rear fender skirts.  New 7.00x15  bias tires are a little less than $1600 I think.  When I get well, then I'll look into it.  I haven't asked the doctor when I can drive my two pre-war cars.  The '39 has new bias tires and it looks great and drives okay down here.  I think the bias tires do better when new.  The first picture is the car after repaint, skirts, etc.  The second picture is the car with new tires before repaint, the third picture is as the car arrived.  Maybe a couple of tires have lost some pressure sitting in the garage.  You can see the squat in the second picture, but not the other two.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[C Carl]

 

 

Hang in there, Earl. You know all of us are real happy to see you recovering. Do not under any circumstances be tempted to exceed doctors limitations. You've got it made, and will be surprised and relieved at how good you will feel eventually.   -   Carl 

[Lebowski]

2 hours ago, Dynaflash8 said:

They are 820R-15 like what I already posted. 

 

That doesn't sound like the size of any radial tire that I've ever heard of. Usually it's 225-70R15 or 215-75R16 or something similar to that. What country were they made in? 

[MCHinson]

15 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

 

That doesn't sound like the size of any radial tire that I've ever heard of. Usually it's 225-70R15 or 215-75R16 or something similar to that. What country were they made in? 

 

Here is the information on that tire size: https://www.cokertire.com/american-classic-820r15-3-1-4-inch-whitewall.html They are Radials designed to replace a 820x15 Bias Ply tire. 

[Matt Harwood]

The 820s are much, much too big. They are trying to make radials that look like bias-ply tires, and that's commendable and I think in many cases they've been successful. My initial recommendation for Earl's car was the 700R15 that Diamondback sold based on a Yokohama carcass, but if I recall correctly those were not available at the time Earl was shopping for tires. Diamondback was also still in limbo on their "Auburn" radial, which is apparently now available in limited release. 

 

Shortly before Earl, I was going though this exact same situation with my 1941 Cadillac 60S which wears exactly the same size tires as his Roadmaster on exactly the same size wheels. I ultimately chose the 760R15 Coker radials which were just about ideal. They were larger than the recommended 700R15 but in comparison to the original 7.00-15 bias-ply, they were much closer overall. Whatever the numbers were that led to the 820R15, they weren't right. Looking at just the height or just the tread width or whatever wasn't enough. Here's the Cadillac after it was fitted with the Coker 760R15 radials:

 

 

 

 

I thought they looked pretty correct and they did ride and handle beautifully with reasonable steering effort. I hate to admit that I loved those Coker tires, but they looked great and worked well. I sold the car shortly thereafter so I can't comment on longevity, noise, or resistance to whitewall staining.

Everyone knows I prefer Diamondback, but since they couldn't sell me anything to fit this car, I went with Coker and was satisfied. Now that Diamondback offers their Auburn radial in sizes that should fit, I would probably start there and see which one looked right. If I was unsure of sizing I might buy one and try it out before buying a set or I would trust them--they seem to know sizes a bit better. 

Comparing the numbers doesn't always tell you the whole story. I looked at these Cokers for a long time before deciding on the 760R15 even though it seemed wrong on paper. I'm glad I chose that size because the 700R15 would have been too small. I suspect that Coker is cheating a bit with the sizing (undersized) to make them applicable to more cars and the 760s were closer to the right size than the 700s that were "supposed" to be correct.

Does this help?

Edited August 16, 2019 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[mike6024]

17 hours ago, Bloo said:

Well, I was going for something they might have actually shot for at design. Yeah, in reality it is closer to 100.....

Sure I realize that. I was just throwing out some calculations, not testing your accuracy.

[Dynaflash8]

15 hours ago, Lebowski said:

 

That doesn't sound like the size of any radial tire that I've ever heard of. Usually it's 225-70R15 or 215-75R16 or something similar to that. What country were they made in? 

The sizes you quote are for modern car tires.  They are made by Coker and are 820R-15

[Dynaflash8]

15 hours ago, MCHinson said:

 

Here is the information on that tire size: https://www.cokertire.com/american-classic-820r15-3-1-4-inch-whitewall.html They are Radials designed to replace a 820x15 Bias Ply tire. 

I don't know about what they were designed for, but the height, width, etc. measurements match a 7.00x15 bias tire.  I went over it with the Coker salesman.  In addition, in 1947 Buick changed the factory size for the Roadmaster (Model 70) from 7.00x15 to 8.20x15.  I would have guessed I should use 7.60R15 but they didn't match the measurements of the original 7.00x15 tire.  They were smaller.  In any case, they would have still squatted.  I just wish I'd gone bias tire, but I didn't.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[61polara]

On 8/17/2019 at 8:43 AM, Dynaflash8 said:

In addition, in 1947 Buick changed the factory size for the Roadmaster (Model 70) from 7.00x15 to 8.20x15.

The change was actually in 1948.  When getting my '47 Series 70 ready for the road, I followed the BCA Judging Guidelines and ordered 8.20x15 tires.  They wouldn't fit under the rear finders or in the spare tire well in the trunk.  I researched It further and found the change was in 1948.  Documentation was sent to BCA and the Judges Guidelines were corrected.  I used the 8.20x15's on my '48 Cadillac 60S.  I just wasn't planning on buying 10 tires that month.

[R Walling]

 Chances are that your tires are 2 or 3 years old now and that will effect the price. Maybe 50%, then add shipping, and you may be lucky to receive 20% of your cost.

[Dynaflash8]

Yeah, that's my problem if I switch back to 7.00x15.  It seems to me I looked up the tire size in 1946 and it was still 7.00x15, but they quoted 8.20x15 for the 1947.  That was a brochure. But, they didn't always do what they said they would do in those brochures.  The 8.20R15 fit my 41 Buick Roadmaster all around.  I used to sell Buick parts and the 1947-48 rear fenders and the skirts were all the same part number, so I don't quite understand.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

2 minutes ago, Roger Walling said:

 Chances are that your tires are 2 or 3 years old now and that will effect the price. Maybe 50%, then add shipping, and you may be lucky to receive 20% of your cost.

Yeah, they are 2 years old with no miles on two of them, and about 150 on the other three.  I backed into a curb on the tour with one and Coker replaced it under the warranty I purchased.  I might just put up with them when I can drive the car again.  One of the therapists said 6 months, but I haven't talked to the Cardiologist about that yet.

[padgett]

Something is telling me there was more of a difference between an .00, .20, or .25 than it sounds like but I forget exactly what it was. Recall Corvettes using 7.75x15 and my Jags 6.00x16. Boy Howdy they even looked skinny then.

[Dynaflash8]

On 8/16/2019 at 5:57 PM, Matt Harwood said:

The 820s are much, much too big. They are trying to make radials that look like bias-ply tires, and that's commendable and I think in many cases they've been successful. My initial recommendation for Earl's car was the 700R15 that Diamondback sold based on a Yokohama carcass, but if I recall correctly those were not available at the time Earl was shopping for tires. Diamondback was also still in limbo on their "Auburn" radial, which is apparently now available in limited release. 

 

Shortly before Earl, I was going though this exact same situation with my 1941 Cadillac 60S which wears exactly the same size tires as his Roadmaster on exactly the same size wheels. I ultimately chose the 760R15 Coker radials which were just about ideal. They were larger than the recommended 700R15 but in comparison to the original 7.00-15 bias-ply, they were much closer overall. Whatever the numbers were that led to the 820R15, they weren't right. Looking at just the height or just the tread width or whatever wasn't enough. Here's the Cadillac after it was fitted with the Coker 760R15 radials:

 

 

 

 

I thought they looked pretty correct and they did ride and handle beautifully with reasonable steering effort. I hate to admit that I loved those Coker tires, but they looked great and worked well. I sold the car shortly thereafter so I can't comment on longevity, noise, or resistance to whitewall staining.

Everyone knows I prefer Diamondback, but since they couldn't sell me anything to fit this car, I went with Coker and was satisfied. Now that Diamondback offers their Auburn radial in sizes that should fit, I would probably start there and see which one looked right. If I was unsure of sizing I might buy one and try it out before buying a set or I would trust them--they seem to know sizes a bit better. 

Comparing the numbers doesn't always tell you the whole story. I looked at these Cokers for a long time before deciding on the 760R15 even though it seemed wrong on paper. I'm glad I chose that size because the 700R15 would have been too small. I suspect that Coker is cheating a bit with the sizing (undersized) to make them applicable to more cars and the 760s were closer to the right size than the 700s that were "supposed" to be correct.

Does this help?

Thanks, I appreciate the response.  Yes it helps.  I haven't seen any ads from Diamondback in a number of months in Hemmings.  As I recall Diamondback offered the rub ring like used on many of the old bias tires, which would have made them look nicer too.  As to the numbers, those quoting the height, width, etc. of the 7.00x15 matched the 820R15 and the 760R15 was much shorter that the 7.00x15.  It's hard to argue with numbers, but then again they were numbers quoted bu Coker, so there you have it.