Looking for recommendations for new tires for my 1962 convertible.

[Caddie62]

Currently have WW 225/75R 15. Considering going back to narrow whitewall but having a problem identifying a well known brand. Reviews on Hankook came back as noisy.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Steve Vidlock

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

If you can get them where you are, go for Maxxis.

Bruce.

[Cape Cod Fleetwood]

Diamond Back Classics
https://dbtires.com/


\m/
Laurie

[35-709]

Believe you meant 235-75R15.  Cooper still makes them in a narrow white wall.  Diamondback is a good option and you can pretty much pick whatever brand you want but for WW tires that are still available, such as yours, Diamondback is quite expensive.  My 2018 pickup has Hankooks (different size, of course) and I am happy with them.

[Scot Minesinger]

Hankooks and Cooper have not worked for me.  I would use the Diamondbacks.  The Diamondbacks are costly, just ordered a set of 4 the size for your car with custom dual ww stripes delivered to my house $1,101.00.  If you drive regularly on the highway at speed say 70mph, the Diamondbacks will be best.  If you drive at lower speeds and not much the Cooper or Hankooks should be OK.  I could not get them to balance well and they were noisy at high speed.

[David Greenburg]

Two recommendations; Diamondback and Diamondback. I have their 235/75 modern radials on my ‘60 and their Auburn bias ply look radials on my ‘61.  The Auburn has the dimensions of a 8.20x 15 bias ply and gives you the original look (ride height etc) that you get with bias ply, if that is important to you.  In either case, they can give you whatever ww width you want. Only drawback, as mentioned by others,  is the price.

[Cape Cod Fleetwood]

Tire prices... is $1100 or so "really" that much considering Diamond Back is a first rate tire and you're not usually putting 12K miles on your classic annually? Take care of the tires they should last forever or so it would seem. The Michelin's for my daily driver are over a grand installed. Then again I've become numb to any cost related to The Ark... $100 for a tiny piece of NOS plastic? Whatever...

\m/
Laurie

[Greg Powers]

I take it that you are looking for radials and not the bias ply factory correct tires. I have the Hankook on my daily driver, a 1994 Fleetwood Brougham, and have never had any noise issues. There are a large group of import, especially Chinese, tires that will give you whitewall options at reasonable prices. Just do a search for your tire size and usually you will get some good options with various whitewall sizes.

[cadillacmike68]

Hankooks and Cooper have not worked for me.  I would use the Diamondbacks.  The Diamondbacks are costly, just ordered a set of 4 the size for your car with custom dual ww stripes delivered to my house $1,101.00.  If you drive regularly on the highway at speed say 70mph, the Diamondbacks will be best.  If you drive at lower speeds and not much the Cooper or Hankooks should be OK.  I could not get them to balance well and they were noisy at high speed.

I drive the 68 and 96, both with Hankooks (235-75-15 on the 68 DVC and 235-70-15 on the 96 Fleetwood) at 90-95 on the interstates here on HOT Florida asphalt with no issues. I can't tell if the series 75s on the convertible are noisy because with the top down tire noise is not audible, but the 96 Fleetwood is nice and quiet.

[cadillacmike68]

Tire prices... is $1100 or so "really" that much considering Diamond Back is a first rate tire and you're not usually putting 12K miles on your classic annually? Take care of the tires they should last forever or so it would seem. The Michelin's for my daily driver are over a grand installed. Then again I've become numb to any cost related to The Ark... $100 for a tiny piece of NOS plastic? Whatever...

\m/
Laurie

It is when you can get FIVE Hankooks in 235-75-15 for about $550.00 mounted and balanced. The $1,100 that Scot noted was just to get the tires to his house. They need to be mounted and balanced. I'm betting that Scot has a tire mounter and balancer though.

[cadillacmike68]

Believe you meant 235-75R15.  Cooper still makes them in a narrow white wall.  Diamondback is a good option and you can pretty much pick whatever brand you want but for WW tires that are still available, such as yours, Diamondback is quite expensive.  My 2018 pickup has Hankooks (different size, of course) and I am happy with them.

1962 Cadillacs took an 8.20 in wide tire. That's 208.28mm so a 235 would be way too wide and a 225 would barely fit. Since the series profile back then was likely 78 or 80, a 225-75-15 is probably the closest to the original tire height.

[Cape Cod Fleetwood]

It is when you can get FIVE Hankooks in 235-75-15 for about $550.00 mounted and balanced. The $1,100 that Scot noted was just to get the tires to his house. They need to be mounted and balanced. I'm betting that Scot has a tire mounter and balancer though.

Believe me, I know. It was around $1100 for my Diamond Backs, shipped to the installer. Then I had to pay for balance, installation, alignment, etc.

\m/
Laurie

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

1962 Cadillacs took an 8.20 in wide tire. That's 208.28mm so a 235 would be way too wide and a 225 would barely fit. Since the series profile back then was likely 78 or 80, a 225-75-15 is probably the closest to the original tire height.

I'm sorry but that's not correct. I've had 235-75R-15 on '62 & '64 Cadillacs and nearly everyone who has radials installed on Cadillacs of this era use that size without issues. The car sits slightly lower with the 235 radials compared to 8.20 biases however; 225 is even lower.

[Scot Minesinger]

Yes Eric is 100% right, the 235 fit fine no issues on these Cadillacs.  I have done it more than a dozen times. 

And yes I do have a tire mounting and balancing machine at my house.  The tire balance machine is a Hunter Road force, does a super nice job.  This was an expensive set up, but so worth it.

Reason I did this is tire places often advertise free balancing and etc., and you get what you pay for.  They hire low wage people to do this generally and the results are poor.  Each rim is not evenly weighted so that as you rotate the rim around the weight instead of even there is heavy and lite spot - same on tires.  The heaviest section of the tire should go with the lightest section of the rim.  Of course you will never get it right when you mount the tire, even if the tires are marked which section is heaviest.  So with every mounting of tire and rim, comes a dismounting and remounting to align the heaviest with the lightest.  Then the final balance where few weights are added.  The balance jockey at the local free balance tire place is not going to give up his smoke break to remount the tires say turned 60 degrees with respect to rim when he can just add a few more weights. 

Further most modern car rims are hub-centric, meaning the tire is centered on the tire balance machine with the center hub hole through the rim.  1970's and older cars are generally lug-centric in that the holes for the mounting studs and lug nuts center the tire on the axle, and you have to mount the tire and rim on the tire balance machine with the lug nuts, not the hub.  The lug-centric mounting method on tire balance machine is a $700 option, and most tire balance places do not use them even on our 1970's and older rims and the balance is of course not even close.  If you want something done right do it yourself.

[76eldo]

I have DB tires on my 60 convertible and have been very happy with them. Not only does the car ride beautifully but the white walls are holding up very well.
Right before the big GN at Tyson’s Corner VA I put a set of custom
double stripes on my 70 convertible and once again that car has a fantastic ride.
So I’m a fan of DB tires.

Brian

[cadillacmike68]

I'm sorry but that's not correct. I've had 235-75R-15 on '62 & '64 Cadillacs and nearly everyone who has radials installed on Cadillacs of this era use that size without issues. The car sits slightly lower with the 235 radials compared to 8.20 biases however; 225 is even lower.

I was concerned about rear wheel / skirt clearance since the 235-735-15 tires are about 18mm wider than an 8.20-15 tire. There is usually Very Little skirt clearance. I don't have an early 60s car, but the height is at least as important and if a 235-75-15 fits in the wheel well, I would use it without hesitation.

Does anyone know what the aspect ratio (series profile) was for the old 8.20-15 and 9.00-15 tires? They Cannot be the same since as late as 68-69 both sizes were used.

And does anyone know the actual diameter and width of an L-78-15 (or LR-78-15) tire?

These were the old tire sizes on out cars before the metric conversions (which STILL uses inches for the wheel diameter!  )

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I was concerned about rear wheel / skirt clearance since the 235-735-15 tires are about 18mm wider than an 8.20-15 tire. There is usually Very Little skirt clearance. I don't have an early 60s car, but the height is at least as important and if a 235-75-15 fits in the wheel well, I would use it without hesitation.

Does anyone know what the aspect ratio (series profile) was for the old 8.20-15 and 9.00-15 tires? They Cannot be the same since as late as 68-69 both sizes were used.

And does anyone know the actual diameter and width of an L-78-15 (or LR-78-15) tire?

These were the old tire sizes on out cars before the metric conversions (which STILL uses inches for the wheel diameter!  )

Whatever the specs are, it's not a problem.

I've never heard of a situation where 235 radial cannot be substituted where 8.20 bias is originally called for. If there is, it's the exception. I can guarantee it's not an issue beginning at least as early as '59, and probably well before that. 

[cadillacmike68]

Whatever the specs are, it's not a problem.

I've never heard of a situation where 235 radial cannot be substituted where 8.20 bias is originally called for. If there is, it's the exception. I can guarantee it's not an issue beginning at least as early as '59, and probably well before that.

But that still does not answer the question, particularly the aspect ratio of the 8.20 and 9.00 tires.

[35-709]

From tirerack's site --- https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=45

"Two versions of numeric tire sizes were used as Original Equipment on vehicles between 1949 and 1970. The early numeric tires had the equivalent of a 90-series aspect ratio, while later tires offered a "lower" profile equivalent to an 80-series. These tires typically featured tread widths ranging from 3.5" for the smallest 13" rim diameter tires to about 5.5" for the largest 15" rim diameter tires.

[Scot Minesinger]

Mike,

Here is a picture of my 1970 with the 235 width tires on the rear.  No trouble getting my hand up in there to clean behind the fender skirt (this way do not have to remove skirt) and make sure white wall is nice.  There is absolutely no concern for the 235 width, wish they made wider.