Volvo RWD 140-160 Forum

INDEX FOR 1/2026(CURRENT) INDEX FOR 8/2012 140-160 INDEX

[<<] [>>]

VIEW

REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE

Replies to this message will be emailed.

SAVE

There is no such thing as a safe tire... 140-160 1974

posted by CyaLater on Tue Nov 1 01:12 CST 2005
Author: [PROFILE] [EVERY POST] [THREADS] [BEST POSTS]

[IGNORE ALL POSTS] [RELATED]

There is no such thing as a safe tire... Or a safe car, for that matter.

140s have more primary safety than any other car I have ever driven, virtually impossible to spin by accident. Putting shitty tyres on it is the absolute last thing you want to do to it because it takes away it's single biggest & best feature. The most you want to do to the tyres is make sure they are pumped up to the maximum specified on the sidewall.

How is the condition of your front end & is your wheel alignment good? This is more important, a worn idler arm bush does use more fuel. Have you got any average calipers or wobbly discs?

How big is your exhaust system? Have you still got D-Jet? Would you consider water injection?

THREADED

THREADED EXPANDED

FLAT

PRINT ALL

MESSAGES IN THIS THREAD

Highest pressure tires available? [140-160][1974]
posted by uniberp on Wed Oct 26 08:52 CST 2005 >

Highest pressure tires available? [140-160][1974]
posted by Kane on Wed Oct 26 09:26 CST 2005 > V
- Highest pressure tires available? [140-160][1974]
  posted by uniberp on Wed Oct 26 09:43 CST 2005 > V
  - Highest pressure tires available? [140-160][1974]
    posted by KlausC subscriber on Wed Oct 26 10:37 CST 2005 > V
    - Highest pressure tires available? [140-160][1974]
      posted by Gary L subscriber on Wed Oct 26 14:48 CST 2005 > V
      - Thanks guys, those Deux Chevaux 125sr15's look tempting. [140-160][1974]
        posted by uniberp on Thu Oct 27 03:38 CST 2005 > V
        
        Thanks guys, those Deux Chevaux 125sr15's look tempting. [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Thu Oct 27 04:55 CST 2005 > V

Kane - loved everything you wrote, but would like to add ... viz., contact patch area vs. pressure, kinetic energy, etc. [140-160][1974]
posted by Ken C subscriber on Thu Oct 27 09:34 CST 2005 > V
- Kane - loved everything you wrote, but would like to add ... viz., contact patch area vs. pressure, kinetic energy, etc. [140-160][1974]
  posted by Gary L subscriber on Thu Oct 27 09:59 CST 2005 > V
  - And I can assure you that's almost exactly the case!.... [140-160][1974]
    posted by Ken C subscriber on Thu Oct 27 11:14 CST 2005 > V
    - What are you smoking? [140-160][1974]
      posted by Gary L subscriber on Thu Oct 27 12:56 CST 2005 > V
      - You distorted my statements, too. [140-160][1974]
        posted by Ken C subscriber on Thu Oct 27 18:17 CST 2005 > V
      - Why not, instead, enlighten us with your own alternative explanation to these? [140-160][1974]
        posted by Ken C subscriber on Thu Oct 27 18:37 CST 2005 > V
      - A Science Experiment (that you all should repeat at home) -- empirical proof !!! [140-160][1974]
        posted by Ken C subscriber on Fri Oct 28 06:17 CST 2005 > V
        
        A Science Experiment (that you all should repeat at home) -- empirical proof !!! [140-160][1974]
        posted by daveshan subscriber on Fri Oct 28 13:59 CST 2005 > V
        
        A Science Experiment (that you all should repeat at home) -- empirical proof !!! [140-160][1974]
        posted by Cog on Sun Oct 30 08:09 CST 2005 > V
        
        I'm flattered and honored to hear from a real engineer -- thanks [140-160][1974]
        posted by Ken C subscriber on Sun Oct 30 16:36 CST 2005 > V
        
        I'm flattered and honored to hear from a real engineer -- thanks [140-160][1974]
        posted by Cog on Mon Oct 31 18:46 CST 2005 > V
        
        A Science Experiment (that you all should repeat at home) -- empirical proof !!! [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Sun Oct 30 12:46 CST 2005 > V
        
        A Science Experiment (that you all should repeat at home) -- empirical proof !!! [140-160][1974]
        posted by KlausC subscriber on Tue Nov 1 15:12 CST 2005 > V
      - Here's a question, then: [140-160][1974]
        posted by c_j_mooney on Fri Oct 28 06:39 CST 2005 > V
        
        Here's a question, then: [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Sun Oct 30 13:06 CST 2005 > V
        
        Here's a question, then: [140-160][1974]
        posted by KLR142 on Sun Oct 30 18:33 CST 2005 > V
        
        Here's a question, then: [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Mon Oct 31 04:13 CST 2005 > V

Speaking as someone who drives on 165/15s [140-160][1974]
posted by daveshan subscriber on Fri Oct 28 07:57 CST 2005 > V
- Speaking as someone who drives on 165/15s [140-160][1974]
  posted by KLR142 on Sun Oct 30 18:35 CST 2005 > V
  - There is no such thing as a safe tire... [140-160][1974]
    posted by uniberp on Mon Oct 31 02:14 CST 2005 > V
    - There is no such thing as a safe tire... [140-160][1974]
      posted by daveshan subscriber on Mon Oct 31 04:20 CST 2005 > V
      - Don't be so serious. [140-160][1974]
        posted by uniberp on Tue Nov 1 04:21 CST 2005 > V
    - There is no such thing as a safe tire... [140-160][1974]
      posted by KLR142 on Mon Oct 31 21:05 CST 2005 > V
      - Yes, obviously. [140-160][1974]
        posted by uniberp on Tue Nov 1 04:36 CST 2005 > V
        
        Yes, obviously. [140-160][1974]
        posted by KLR142 on Tue Nov 1 17:37 CST 2005 > V
    - There is no such thing as a safe tire... [140-160][1974]
      posted by CyaLater on Tue Nov 1 01:12 CST 2005 > V
      - Thermal efficiency is the game. [140-160][1974]
        posted by uniberp on Tue Nov 1 04:27 CST 2005 > V
        
        Thermal efficiency is the game. [140-160][1974]
        posted by CyaLater on Tue Nov 1 08:10 CST 2005 > V
        
        Thermal efficiency is the game. [140-160][1974]
        posted by uniberp on Tue Nov 1 08:46 CST 2005 > V
        
        Thermal efficiency is the game. [140-160][1974]
        posted by CyaLater on Tue Nov 1 10:23 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Tue Nov 1 11:58 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by KLR142 on Tue Nov 1 17:44 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Wed Nov 2 01:36 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by CyaLater on Tue Nov 1 18:21 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Wed Nov 2 01:17 CST 2005 > V
        
        For 'normal' cars that may be true. [140-160][1974]
        posted by uniberp on Wed Nov 2 09:22 CST 2005 > V
        
        For 'normal' cars that may be true. [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Wed Nov 2 11:14 CST 2005 > V
        
        Front cam bearing a common problem? [140-160][1974]
        posted by uniberp on Fri Nov 4 03:53 CST 2005 > V
        
        Front cam bearing a common problem? [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Fri Nov 4 04:12 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by Cog on Thu Nov 3 17:53 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Thu Nov 3 18:58 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by KLR142 on Thu Nov 3 19:56 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy -- no egg [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gregg Shadduck subscriber on Fri Nov 4 00:54 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Fri Nov 4 04:09 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gregg Shadduck subscriber on Mon Nov 14 07:20 CST 2005 > V
        
        You need at least 3/4 throttle for max fuel economy [140-160][1974]
        posted by Gary L subscriber on Mon Nov 14 08:18 CST 2005 > V
      - There is no such thing as a safe tire... [140-160][1974]
        posted by walrus3 subscriber on Fri Nov 4 02:10 CST 2005 > V

Highest pressure tires available? [140-160][1974]
posted by twombo on Tue Nov 1 03:38 CST 2005 > V

Thank you, thankyou for asking this question [140-160][1974]
posted by KlausC subscriber on Tue Nov 1 15:36 CST 2005 > V

<< < > >>

Brickboard.com is not affiliated with nor sponsored by AB Volvo, Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. Brickboard.com is a Volvo owner/enthusiast site, similar to a club, and does not intend to pose as an official Volvo site. The official Volvo site can be found here.

Volvo RWD/140-160 Forum Index

Community Forums:

RWD

AWD

GATHERINGS

OPINIONS

PICKNPULL

V8

STORIES

Classifieds

Site Features

RWD Series/Models

AWD Series/Models

Volvo RWD 140-160 Forum

There is no such thing as a safe tire... 140-160 1974