Volvo RWD 140-160 Forum

INDEX FOR 1/2026(CURRENT) INDEX FOR 12/2002 140-160 INDEX

[<<] [>>]

VIEW

REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE

SAVE

Yes, obviously. 140-160 1974

posted by KLR142 on Tue Nov 1 17:37 CST 2005
Author: [PROFILE] [EVERY POST] [THREADS] [BEST POSTS]

[IGNORE ALL POSTS]

last visit: Mon May 9 12:44 CST 2011

[RELATED]

I drive fast, when it is safe to drive fast. Do not doubt that I know what safety is. Do race car drivers ignore safety? Only stupid ones. They still drive fast though, ;-). You don't have to drive fast to benefit from better tires. 55mph speed limit, crappy tires will stop you in a longer distance than good tires, period. No "fast" driving required. I'm only fast when I want to be anyway. Actually, this week, I've been driving like the granny's you see in order to conserve gas, well, I maintain much higher speeds through the turns, but I wouldn't be able to do that with lesser tires. In order to maintain the margin of safety(and available excess traction), I'd have to reduce my speed by quite a bit if I were to run skinny, hard tires with 60 psi in them.

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

Yes, obviously. 140-160 1974