Continental 175/80R14 Tyres

partviking

partviking

Member
I’m struggling to find a decent 165/80R14 tyre at a reasonable price (I need to buy 5no) but Kwik Fit are doing a Continental Eco 3 (rated a ‘best-buy’ by Which Magazine) in a 175/80R14 for £60.60 fully fitted each. I know they’ll fit the car OK and other than a slight increase in top gear from 19.5mph per 1000rpm to about 20mph per 10000 I cannot see any other issues, am I missing anything? I’m sure I did read somewhere that 175 section was an ‘official Rover’ alternative to the 165 offered as standard but am struggling to find the relevant documentation. Your thoughts and opinions appreciated.
 
The P6 standard tyre sizes are extremely difficult to buy in decent quality tyres. What you've identified sounds a decent compromise to me, but check what Vintage Tyres at Beaulieu are stocking at the moment for comparison - everythings listed on the web and they will either fit or ship.

Chris
 
Some of us have gone for 185/70/14 which seem to suit the 4-pots well and provide a little more choice. Those Continental Ecos are good, I have them on the BMW E28 and they're very well behaved.
 
In terms of quality, longevity, ride and handling, you cannot go wrong with the Conti's.
If I can, I try and run these on my Alfa, and are always impressed with them.
Tyres can and do have a DRAMATIC effect on a vehicle.
I once ran generic type stuff on another Alfa and they literally turned in into a spiteful ill-handing wretch. :roll:
Switched to Conti's (or Michelin)...car utterly transformed into sweetness again.
 
check what Vintage Tyres at Beaulieu are stocking
Click to expand...

I did look at them Chris but in 165R14 they only offer Michelin or Vredistein in a quality make and these come out almost double the Continental price and I'd still have to get them fitted so on 5 tyres theres a potential of an additional £300-£400 to pay......so bit of a no brainer really.

Thanks for the thoughts and opinions expressed and think I'll go the Continental route.

Best Regards

Alan
 
Will do though it may be a little while this bl**dy weather is really hampering my efforts to get the engine bay cleaned and painted so I can reinstall all the bits I removed and painted over the winter.

My garage is to small to get the car in but I do have a car port and stupidly assumed by mid March I'd be getting a few sunny days to move things forward......yeh right.

Regards

Alan
 
Willy Eckerslyke said:
Some of us have gone for 185/70/14 which seem to suit the 4-pots well and provide a little more choice. Those Continental Ecos are good, I have them on the BMW E28 and they're very well behaved.
Click to expand...

+1 on 185/70/14s. I run them on the Red Rover, and whilst the sidewalls bulge slightly more than optimum (owing to the increased breadth rather than inflation) they do offer a significantly larger tread area and don't deflate over time. I'm doing about 5k hard miles a years and am not afraid to go aggressive on the turn-in. Understeer and scrubbing significantly improved over 165's. rolling radius only about 1mm difference as well.

Michael
 
I've been running my 2000 on 175/80/R14s for the last couple of years. They are considerably better than the 165s on roundabouts, and still look absolutely fine. I can really push the car along on them, and I've never had any issues! I've not got Continentals on the Rover, as I got Firestones at a very reasonable price at the time. I understand that this size is the same as a basic mark 4 Golf, hence the greater availability. I've got Continentals on my A-class, and they seem very good, though on that car I never get the chance to push them terribly hard. :LOL:
I'll probably be changing the 2000's tyres again this year, so I'll be interested to hear how the Continentals perform on the P6.
 
Can anyone confirm the original Rover spec. for tyres? My 2200TC owners manual says 165 R x 14 or 165 SR x 14 (no mention of profile).

When I got my car, it had 175 80 14 tyres on the road wheels and a 165 85 14 Pirelli spare. Therefore, I wondered if 165/85 was the original spec?

I now have Nexen M+S 175/80/14s all round including spare. I am happy with them (seem to give very good grip in wet) and they seem to give an accurate speedo reading (going by speed camera that shows your speed near my house).
 
Well now, there's a conundrum!

When Rover started making the P6 there was no such thing as tyre profile. General consensus is that original Cinturato's were about 82 profile, but I have no evidence to support that. "Full Height" tyres continued to not have any profile markings throughout the production life of the car, so we'll never know exactly what profile Rover intended.

In theory a full height tyre today is an 80 profile. The existnace of 85 profile is down to the advent of heavily reinforced van tyres.

The best guide I can give is that my '70 3500, when fitted with tyres of the same rolling radius as 185/80 X 14, has an absolutely spot on speedo reading as measured by a rolling road. So that seems to confirm that 80 profile is indeed correct for the cars.

Chris
 
Always also been my understanding that the tyres were an 82 percent profile and were badged HR Radials.

Graeme
 
I would expect that the slightly bigger circumference of the 175 tyres would make the speedo a bit more accurate, too - most older car speedos over read, after all.
 
Chris, Graeme, thanks.

I do seem to recall reading a classic car mag article a while back that said 1960s/70s standard tyres usually had 80-85% profiles. Unfortunately, can't find the article amongst various stashes of old magazines around the house :LOL: .

I tried to do some quick calc's to see what the difference in overall diameter (OD) between 82% 165s and 80% 175s might be. With the tyre fitted to a 14” diameter wheel:-

OD for 165/82/14 = ((0.82x165)+(14/2 x 25.4))x2 = 626.2mm

OD for 175/80/14 = ((0.80x175)+(14/2 x 25.4))x2 = 635.6mm

Difference = 635.6 - 626.2 = 9.4mm


Given the slight bulging you seem to get with 175s on a rim designed for 165s, as Michael mentioned, I suspect that (assuming the same inflation pressure for both tyre sizes), the actual difference will be less than 9.4mm? Also, given that tyres wear in tread depth over their life by a few mm, I reckon the difference between 165/82s and 175/80s will be negligible. This corresponds with Michael’s “rolling radius only about 1mm difference” (or 2mm OD).

Another question for the experts:- as per previous post, the 2200 owners manual lists “175 SR x14 Avon Snow Grip Radial” as an acceptable winter tyre. I assume the "SR" is the speed rating (112mph?). However, what was the profile of this 175 tyre? If it was a 175/82, the OD of the fitted tyre would have been greater than a modern 175/80? Unless, you operated it at lower inflation pressure (common trick on snow) or maybe the older tyres had weaker walls causing it to bulge out more and reduce the OD?
 
Further to my previous posting I've now bought a set of Continentals 175/80 R 14 and have to say I'm very impressed. The steering is still light and responsive and the directional stability is good. A set of 5 for just over £300 is a fair price I reckon. I got them from STS (Stapleton Tyre Service) who actually own Kwik Fit hence online prices are identical at both sites.

Interestingly the speedo is miles out, reading 30-35mph when I'm doing about 50mph. Not the tyres I know but as both speedo head and gearbox are correct for the year I wondered what it might be.....siezed/sticky cable maybe? :|

Alan
 
Mmmmm ......b*gger.

It's a very early 110mph speedo head but thankfully I do have a spare.

Thanks for tip Dave.

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top