TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:16 am

If so how do they fit? narrow beam? wheels?
Any pics of them on your cars?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:09 pm

i had a pair and i LOVED THEM
They Were 39$ each for a while now they are up to 70$

Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:56 pm

asking those questions is like asking someone their opionion about Skittles. They may not like them but what does it matter to you? Can you be more specific with your goal? There are more variables here that matter. Usually, 145/65 are used when folks need the maximum space possible, hence the need for the smallest tire possible. Ive used the whole line of Continental's Smart series tires...145/65, 155/60, and 165/60. ALL 3 are excellent tires, especially when compared to the good old 135/80 and 145/80. When using more narrowed beams, I like to use the wider tires. On 2", I like the 145/65. The tires fit different on different wheels, and look different with different beams and heights. I wouldnt use the 145/65 on any wheel wider than 5". More than 5" and I would use a 155 or 165 series for proper seal.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:33 am

Good point Smitty, I have a 3'' narrow beam and 4.5'' wheels. I have 135 on there now, not looking to go shorter just need a little more tire on the ground. what else are you guys using?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:44 am

nobuggybob wrote: Good point Smitty, I have a 3'' narrow beam and 4.5'' wheels. I have 135 on there now, not looking to go shorter just need a little more tire on the ground. what else are you guys using?

Another side note, if you go from the standard 135 down to a 145/65, it will drop the car a good couple inches lower. If you look at my gallery, my car (current pics) is on the top with the sprints. In the 2nd pic down, I am running a 2" beam, spindles, disc brakes, a 5" wheel (supposedly 5"), and a Conti 165/60. Being this low and only 2" beam, the extra track from the discs and thicker wheel is borderline. I actually barely rub with two of us up front. There is an excellent tread patch on the road. Tires handle very nice and actually last longer than any tires I have ran up front. These are slighty taller than the 145/65, but the down side is that they are almost too wide (tire section to wheel rim width) to seat a 5.5" wheel, which I think mine really are.

If you look a few pics down, I originally had MWS BRMs on it, same beam and spindles. I only had drums back then and the wheels were 4.5 up front. No rubbing and excellent clearance back then. I had 145/65 on that setup originally, but ended up going to the 155/60 which is very close to the 145/65, just a hair wider.

For you, depending on how low you are...currently, I would say with your 3" beam you will be pleased with either the 145 or 155 Conti on your 4.5" wheels. Now, you may need to lower the front a little more to avoid any tire to fender gaps. Personally, I think a little is fine...just not a ton, for aesthetic purposes. The 165/60 will look similar to the guys that cram a 195 or 205 on a stock 4" factory wheel. Kind of foolish, but it works for a little while. I love the 165/60 but would not use it unless you had a wider wheel to seat it. With a 4.5" wheel and lowered suspension, you are kind of limited on what you can do, at least in terms of tires that will seat rim safely, give more tire patch than what you currently have, and be better than a 135.

If you were not lowered at all, you may be able to get away with a 155/70, but those are getting expensive if you can find them. How low are you up front? Running stock brakes? This will help us help you, since you said you really dont want to go lower, just more tread. You may be able to fit a 175/55 or 175/65 depending on your height. I have used both on a 4.5" BRM and liked them, just wasnt narrow enough for how low I sat. the 175/65 is clost the height of a 135/80, but way more patch. Depending on your height, you may be able to use a 165/60 safely and have it still look good.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:39 pm

145/65/15 are better on link pin cars than balljoint. 165/60/15 have a little more sidewall height which is a plus with ball joint based cars. those so many GOOD tire sizes out there now it's rediclous. both of the above. 165/65/15, 175/60/15, 185/55/15, 185/50/15,etc. why people still use 135r and 145r is kinda beyond me at this point. oh and the kicker is all those better sizes are CHEAPER than the 135s and 145s...ken....

Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:27 am

Good advice. I've seen 195-50 & 175-55 being used. It really depends on how low your car is.

Here is a site to compare tire sizes:

http://www.mintylamb.co.uk/?page=tyre.htm

Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:10 pm

It is not good advice to squish a 175 and wider tire on a 4.5" rim. It can be done but isnt all that safe. I definitely would not use a 185 or above.

Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:41 pm

This is my car with 135s on it. the 145 just might work. If I use a 155 I think it will start getting too wide?

Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:23 am

you might actually just clear! 155/70 is almost identical to the 135/80 series, but just a hair more tread. The downside is that in some parts of the country, they are extremely hard to find or beyond what most of us want to pay. Michelin used to sell some good ones. Tireseasy.com might have some in stock.

Nope, just looked. The only one in stock is the 80 series. Bummer!! you would have to raise the front a hair perhaps. It isnt optimum, but a 175-55 or 60 might work for you. I had some 175/65 on my 4.5 BRMs a year ago. They did okay and didnt look too bad. Some brands will bulge more than others. I had Generals, which are good for the money. 175/65 is a hair shorter than the 135/80. If you go this route, I would perhaps check out the 175/60, if it were my own ride. you could use one of the tire size calculators but they are not 100% accurate, as all tires are not the same- regardless of numbers.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:19 pm

Both of these cars have them mounted on 5" beams

I used to have 135/15 Nankang's on the '58. It's like night and day driving that car. The larger contact patch on the 145/65 conti's makes a world of difference.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:28 pm

ive ran them on 2 of my cars

the 66

and the other 66

loved them! shorter by 1" than a 135r15 and wider with more tread life.

run these over 135's and temps!!!

and incase you were wondering how low the ghia was

AA battery^^
enjoy :)

Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:49 pm

Wow nice looking ghia :D

Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:27 am

anybody got a shot of some 165/60's? i like the 145/65's. but it's going to drop the front of the car down a good bit from the 135's... might need a bit more sidewall than the 145's...

smitty, you got any other shots of your ride with the 165/60's up front and 165/80's out back? i can't get a good look of the profiles from the shots in your gallery, it's too dark under the car (nice pics though!!)...

Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:38 am

I would like to see them also

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:23 am

smitty24 wrote: you might actually just clear! 155/70 is almost identical to the 135/80 series, but just a hair more tread. The downside is that in some parts of the country, they are extremely hard to find or beyond what most of us want to pay. Michelin used to sell some good ones. Tireseasy.com might have some in stock.

Nope, just looked. The only one in stock is the 80 series. Bummer!! you would have to raise the front a hair perhaps. It isnt optimum, but a 175-55 or 60 might work for you. I had some 175/65 on my 4.5 BRMs a year ago. They did okay and didnt look too bad. Some brands will bulge more than others. I had Generals, which are good for the money. 175/65 is a hair shorter than the 135/80. If you go this route, I would perhaps check out the 175/60, if it were my own ride. you could use one of the tire size calculators but they are not 100% accurate, as all tires are not the same- regardless of numbers.

^^^What he said^^^If you compare you will be way happier with a wider tire. Just one thing to note; the info I have says a 175/65-15 is taller (almost 24") than a 135-15 (23 1/4"). A 175/60 is the same height as the 135. And who makes 155/70-15s'?

As for different makes of tires not being the same; I've seen the height of a 155/15 stated as being 24.76" or 25.1" depending on the source. I think in part the different tire calculators have probably contributed to this; I believe the original aspect ratio for these tires was 82l, was it not?

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:49 am

yeah, i wish i could find a 155/70, that would work great for me i think...

yes, i think those tires are 82 series (or thereabouts)...

Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:50 pm

again i would run 165/60/15 without a doubt. i tried to get a set for the square. tirerack talked to me like i was crazy and i bought the 145/65/15s they had in stock. whatta ya know 2 weeks later they mysteriously had 165/60/15s even though they straight told me conti DID NOT make such a tire(i knew they did as tires-easy had them but were out of stock).

165/65/15s can also be had for those of you wanting 155/70/15. they are harder to find but they ARE made. 175/60/15 are pretty close and are fairly easy to find...ken....

135r15 23.57" overall diameter 4.25" sidewall height
175/60/15 23.26" OD 4.13" swh
165/65/15 23.44" OD 4.22"swh
165/60/15 22.79" OD 3.89" swh
145/65/15 22.42" OD 3.71" swh
155/70/15 23.54" OD 4.27" swh

Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:12 pm

the first 165/65/15 that popped up in my search is a winter tire(like the blizzacks sharky posted above) not the best idea but lets you know it's a produced sized http://ssl.delti.com/cgi-bin/rshop.pl?dsco=135&...View+tires

i had achilles 185/55/15s on my square for a while and they were nice tires for reasonable money. here they are in 175/60/15 for $58
http://ssl.delti.com/cgi-bin/rshop.pl?details=Orde...p;dsco=135

conti 165/60/15 $76........
http://ssl.delti.com/cgi-bin/rshop.pl?dsco=135&...View+tires

Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:50 pm

thanks ken, those are handy numbers to have...

yeah, i could only find a winter tire in the 165/65 as well... i'll probably wind up with the 165/60's if i can't find the 155/70's...

i don't want to go any bigger than 165's since that's what i have in the back... might go to a 185 eventually,but don't want to go any bigger than that since i've got a stock 36er...

also, i figure the wider i go in front, the more rubbage i'll get...

brian