![]() Dedicated to the Promotion and Preservation of American Muscle Cars, Dealer built Supercars and COPO cars. |
|
Register | Album Gallery | Thread Gallery | FAQ | Community | Calendar | Become a Paid Member | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
E70-15 were 26.73" tall and F70-15 were 26.51"
????? You may have those two numbers transposed. The F 70 15 would have to be taller. I think everyone would agree the F is wider. If they have the same aspect ratio (70) it would of necessity, be taller. It may be that one makers F 70 15 was slightly shorter than another maker's E 70 15, but if from the same manufacturer, the F 70 would have to be taller than the E 70. I realize this is not an exact science, as it is impossible to convert letter sizes to the modern metric sizes with 100% accuracy. Heck, even two tires (from different manufacturers) might not measure the same section width even though both are marked as, say 235 or 245. There is a lot of "rounding" to the closest 5. Assuming the E 70 15 is roughly equivilant to a modern 215 70 15 (and even that can be argued.... I would guess it is closer to a 210 section width, but others will disagree) I get an overall height of 26.55. The F 70 15, if it is assumed is the same as a modern 225 70 15 (which is very close) calculates to 27.5. Your mileage may vary. Firestone says the FR60 15 is 26.1 inches tall (see here: https://www.lucasclassictires.com/FR...RWL-62510L.htm) So, if there is a rubbing issue, it would be a result of extra width, not extra height.
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the internet ... Ben Franklin Last edited by Lynn; 10-19-2019 at 08:12 PM. |
|
|