| Author |
Message |
levi
Samba Member
Joined: February 11, 2005
Posts: 5522
Location: Las Vegas
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
There seems to be a game being played here, called
"How weak a set of tires can I run and get away with it."
The thing that amazes me is that those tires cost almost as much as a set of tires with very high capabilities.
Bruce Wayne said he paid over $500 for his Discoverer's, with a 93 load index, and I paid $650 including shipping from van-cafe for nokian's with a 107 load index.
That's only a difference of $125, spread out over, say 4 years, about $30 per year?
You guys win. I don't want to play.
_________________
One of these days I'm gonna settle down,
but till I do I won't be hangin round.
Going down that long lonesome highway,
gonna see life my way
https://youtu.be/cSrL0BXsO40 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
speedtek
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2010
Posts: 234
Location: Prince Albert, SK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I run passenger tires on mine, but they are XL and they are 98 load rated. I don't really have a lot of choice in the matter given my wheel setup as they just don't make truck tires with the appropriate profile and size in 17". I don't really feel like running huge monster tires and tearing my fenders off.
I tried a set of taller passenger tires that were 99 rated but not XL, I got rid of them due to the fact that they rubbed the fenders and they were fairly mushy feeling on the highway.....I wouldn't run a non-XL tire again.
I've no issues whatsoever with my current combo and I actually ran XL 95 rated tires all last season with no problems, but the soft summer compound wore out pretty quick due to a bad front alignment from the shop that did my safety check........I was more than a little annoyed.
The current setup
Kumho Ecsta LX Platinum, 225/50-17,
load range 98, XL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Wayne
Samba Member
Joined: May 15, 2007
Posts: 1210
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| levi wrote: |
There seems to be a game being played here, called
"How weak a set of tires can I run and get away with it."
The thing that amazes me is that those tires cost almost as much as a set of tires with very high capabilities.
Bruce Wayne said he paid over $500 for his Discoverer's, with a 93 load index, and I paid $650 including shipping from van-cafe for nokian's with a 107 load index.
That's only a difference of $125, spread out over, say 4 years, about $30 per year?
You guys win. I don't want to play. |
I thought I paid $450 for them, installed. even if I did pay $500 that's a $150 difference than the ones you got from VC. might want to check your math. 
when it's time for new tires, I plan on stepping up to the 15's from VC, the tire/wheel package. do you suggest the Nokians or Michelins?
the Coopers rub ever so slightly when making a turn,what are the 15's gonna be like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanjoe
Samba Member
Joined: December 25, 2009
Posts: 606
Location: Santa Maria
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave, Believe what you want. Here is a link to one of my post and I had the mentality that passenger tires are "SAFE" not! Like other members on here I switched over to the Hankook RA08 tires and they are WAY, WAY better that passanger tires. What finally changed my stupid ass mind was the Bus Depot post. Here is a link to it. Facts are facts. Believe what you want and pictures tell 1000 words just like the ones from Bus Depot. Good Luck and I will continue to drive with peace of mind on my Hankooks.
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4...p;start=60
http://busdepot.com/details/tires.jsp
_________________
1990 VW Vanagon tin top weekender Carat
1998 Mercedes S420
"Why is there never time to do it right the first time, but there is always time to do it twice?"
"Back to the basics!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speedtek
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2010
Posts: 234
Location: Prince Albert, SK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanjoe wrote: |
Dave, Believe what you want. Here is a link to one of my post and I had the mentality that passenger tires are "SAFE" not! Like other members on here I switched over to the Hankook RA08 tires and they are WAY, WAY better that passanger tires. What finally changed my stupid ass mind was the Bus Depot post. Here is a link to it. Facts are facts. Believe what you want and pictures tell 1000 words just like the ones from Bus Depot. Good Luck and I will continue to drive with peace of mind on my Hankooks.
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4...p;start=60
http://busdepot.com/details/tires.jsp |
For starters they weren't XL rated, secondly...they were General's (junk), third...... out of ALL the people that have run 95, 96, 97, 98 rated tires (there's been plenty)..... These are the ONLY known photos of a failure....bad batch methinks or there was some overloading/under inflation going on.
I really hate all the FUD that gets slung around on this particular topic.
Now, with that being said, I feel I should clarify somewhat as well. If one is running 14" (and to some degree even 15") wheels then I do believe that sticking with the recommended specs is relevant. Especially if you're sticking in the 185 or 195 tire width range. The tires are too narrow and the sidewalls too tall (resulting in much more flex) to do otherwise, you're concentrating all that load over a much smaller contact area
As soon as you start going above 15" you are typically increasing tire width significantly and thereby increasing contact patch. This results in the load being distributed over a larger area and the tire being under far less stress. Normal tire recommendations don't really apply once you go over 15's. You also run significantly shorter sidewalls (if staying within diameter spec) which don't flex near as much. (my own sidewalls are a full inch and a half shorter than the standard 185/80-14) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bercilak
Samba Member
Joined: August 17, 2009
Posts: 391
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| speedtek wrote: |
| vanjoe wrote: |
Dave, Believe what you want. Here is a link to one of my post and I had the mentality that passenger tires are "SAFE" not! Like other members on here I switched over to the Hankook RA08 tires and they are WAY, WAY better that passanger tires. What finally changed my stupid ass mind was the Bus Depot post. Here is a link to it. Facts are facts. Believe what you want and pictures tell 1000 words just like the ones from Bus Depot. Good Luck and I will continue to drive with peace of mind on my Hankooks.
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4...p;start=60
http://busdepot.com/details/tires.jsp |
For starters they weren't XL rated, secondly...they were General's (junk), third...... out of ALL the people that have run 95, 96, 97, 98 rated tires (there's been plenty)..... These are the ONLY known photos of a failure....bad batch methinks or there was some overloading/under inflation going on.
I really hate all the FUD that gets slung around on this particular topic.
|
You are part of the FUD.
1. These are not the only known failures; they are an example. Other failures have been reported, here and elsewhere.
2. You are guessing as to circumstances in order to support your point. You have no idea of the circumstances beyond what is presented. Arguing otherwise on something that can be dangerous is silly.
I've said it before:
Driving on passenger tires doesn't automatically equate with deadly; it is NOT however safe in the sense that you are using tires for an application for which they are expressly not designed.
Unless you work for a tire manufacturer, your guesses aren't sufficient evidence to discount the OEM standard.
B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speedtek
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2010
Posts: 234
Location: Prince Albert, SK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bercilak wrote: |
You are part of the FUD.
1. These are not the only known failures; they are an example. Other failures have been reported, here and elsewhere.
2. You are guessing as to circumstances in order to support your point. You have no idea of the circumstances beyond what is presented. Arguing otherwise on something that can be dangerous is silly.
I've said it before:
Driving on passenger tires doesn't automatically equate with deadly; it is NOT however safe in the sense that you are using tires for an application for which they are expressly not designed.
Unless you work for a tire manufacturer, your guesses aren't sufficient evidence to discount the OEM standard.
B. |
So if I drive on these passenger rated, "omg your gonna die if you do that" tires for the next three years with no issues are you going to admit I have a point regarding oversize tires?
Nah didn't think so.......as for being part of the FUD, I try very hard to dispel said FUD whenever possible, through experience....not what I read on the internet  .
VW never had 16 or 17 inch wheels on these vans so I would say it stands to reason they have absolutely no idea or specification to give in this regards. In that case, it's up to us. I managed to drive on 95 for thousands of miles with no failures, I see no reason that my 98 rated will do any worse.
As I already mentioned, for 14's.....absolutely....follow the spec....there is no spec for those of us on oversize....
You don't have to be an engineer to understand that a larger base or platform distributes weight over a larger area and can carry more of it....basic physics |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gauche1968
Samba Member
Joined: April 13, 2006
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| levi wrote: |
What happens next is not fun to think about.
|
Hence, the wheelchair in the pic next to the van........
_________________
1984 Vanagon GL
1984 Vanagon Westy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speedtek
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2010
Posts: 234
Location: Prince Albert, SK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm even going to post an article that slightly contradicts my larger contact patch theory. (FUD my ass) The contact patch increases, but not as much as I would have thought
http://performancesimulations.com/fact-or-fiction-tires-1.htm
It's an interesting read, the contact patch doesn't increase all that much (only about 11% overall in the example), but it is brought up that the wider tire can handle more load due to the fact that it cools better as there is more width and less fore/aft contact..... Interesting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhaavers
Samba Member
Joined: March 19, 2010
Posts: 7756
Location: NE MN (tinyurl.com/dhaaverslocation)
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| r39o wrote: |
Moderato was told:
"let them play tire roulette."
"It is your life, do not endanger mine." |
OK - I've chimed in on several tire threads and I intended to stay out of this mess, but this one got me:
Your tires, yes - choose 'em & use 'em...but maybe I'm the guy in the lane next to you?
Good luck to BOTH of us (& everyone else you pass) - hopefully not on a high speed, increasing radius
corner with sharp scattered gravel, debris or shrapnel from the last wreck...
I still love my Hankook RA08's on my stock steelies, but I do have plans to eventually upgrade to 15" or 16" rims...
At that point, rather than degrade the quality of tire in order to to adapt for (ie: "lose") the benefit of the lower
profile tires, you can bet your A$$ I'll continue running reinforced sidewall tires.
It'll be like I'm on RAILS with this baby.
Either way, MY ultimate goal is to stay out of trouble and out of your lane.
Happy Trails, everyone...have a safe 4th.
_________________
86 White Wolfsburg Westy Weekender
"The WonderVan"
<EDITED TO PROTECT INNOCENT PIXELS> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bercilak
Samba Member
Joined: August 17, 2009
Posts: 391
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| speedtek wrote: |
I'm even going to post an article that slightly contradicts my larger contact patch theory. (FUD my ass) The contact patch increases, but not as much as I would have thought
http://performancesimulations.com/fact-or-fiction-tires-1.htm
It's an interesting read, the contact patch doesn't increase all that much (only about 11% overall in the example), but it is brought up that the wider tire can handle more load due to the fact that it cools better as there is more width and less fore/aft contact..... Interesting |
Basic physics includes the difference between vertical load and shear stress, no?
first, a primer on shear stress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress
Now, for your basic argument:
"C, D, or E tires are capable of greater loads. Most load range C, D, and E tires are intended for light-truck applications.
The load-carrying capacity of Pmetric tires is rated as either Standard or Extra Load. Standard Load tires are limited by the load that can be supported with a maximum inflation pressure of 35 psi. Extra Load-rated tires are limited to the load that can be carried at a maximum inflation pressure of 41 psi. Generally, a Standard Load tire will not feature a special designation mark, while Extra Load tires will feature an “Extra Load” marking.
Extra Load tires will be branded as “Extra Load” and may be identified by an “XL” (for example: LT245/ 75R15 XL).
It’s important to note that a Standard Load tire (with a normal inflation pressure recommendation of 35 psi) may be marked with a maximum inflation pressure of 44 psi. This does not indicate an increase of the tire’s load carrying capacity, but indicates the tire’s ability to handle higher inflation pressure in order to accommodate special performance requirements."
From here: http://www.worktruckonline.com/Article/Story/2007/07/How-to-Determine-Tire-Load-Ratings.aspx
As noted (and as I was going to point out earlier) max load doesn't scale. No passenger tire is correctly rated for this application. Your "failure" to experience a problem means only that less-than-correctly-rated tires will still perform adequately, most of the time. That doesn't make it safe to use them, or OK to recommend that others ignore the load requirements.
Best,
B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speedtek
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2010
Posts: 234
Location: Prince Albert, SK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bercilak wrote: |
| speedtek wrote: |
I'm even going to post an article that slightly contradicts my larger contact patch theory. (FUD my ass) The contact patch increases, but not as much as I would have thought
http://performancesimulations.com/fact-or-fiction-tires-1.htm
It's an interesting read, the contact patch doesn't increase all that much (only about 11% overall in the example), but it is brought up that the wider tire can handle more load due to the fact that it cools better as there is more width and less fore/aft contact..... Interesting |
Basic physics includes the difference between vertical load and shear stress, no?
first, a primer on shear stress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress
Now, for your basic argument:
"C, D, or E tires are capable of greater loads. Most load range C, D, and E tires are intended for light-truck applications.
The load-carrying capacity of Pmetric tires is rated as either Standard or Extra Load. Standard Load tires are limited by the load that can be supported with a maximum inflation pressure of 35 psi. Extra Load-rated tires are limited to the load that can be carried at a maximum inflation pressure of 41 psi. Generally, a Standard Load tire will not feature a special designation mark, while Extra Load tires will feature an “Extra Load” marking.
Extra Load tires will be branded as “Extra Load” and may be identified by an “XL” (for example: LT245/ 75R15 XL).
It’s important to note that a Standard Load tire (with a normal inflation pressure recommendation of 35 psi) may be marked with a maximum inflation pressure of 44 psi. This does not indicate an increase of the tire’s load carrying capacity, but indicates the tire’s ability to handle higher inflation pressure in order to accommodate special performance requirements."
From here: http://www.worktruckonline.com/Article/Story/2007/07/How-to-Determine-Tire-Load-Ratings.aspx
As noted (and as I was going to point out earlier) max load doesn't scale. No passenger tire is correctly rated for this application. Your "failure" to experience a problem means only that less-than-correctly-rated tires will still perform adequately, most of the time. That doesn't make it safe to use them, or OK to recommend that others ignore the load requirements.
Best,
B. |
Trouble is, I don't think you are actually paying attention to anything that I've actually said (plus I've been purposely staying out of this discussion for the first while, I don't know why this subject stirs people up so bad). Nowhere have I said that a standard load tire is good or safe. I even mentioned personally running a standard load tire at one point for about a month before I removed them and went back to XL. I do not recommend them as an option to anyone. Whats really funny is that I'm agreeing with you regarding standard wheel sizes.....yet you continue to act as if I'm bashing your opinion.
It has come to my attention that VW did offer a 16 on the syncro, what was the spec? Anyone? I'm curious to see.
They did not offer a 17, however, so really there is no argument as to spec because....there is none. We make an informed decision when pushing the envelope and carry on.
Ps.....you're quoting other posters as things that I've said.......I believe your whole last post is more aimed towards things the op has said, not me. I had no "basic argument" that was somebody else....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bercilak
Samba Member
Joined: August 17, 2009
Posts: 391
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| speedtek wrote: |
| Bercilak wrote: |
| speedtek wrote: |
I'm even going to post an article that slightly contradicts my larger contact patch theory. (FUD my ass) The contact patch increases, but not as much as I would have thought
http://performancesimulations.com/fact-or-fiction-tires-1.htm
It's an interesting read, the contact patch doesn't increase all that much (only about 11% overall in the example), but it is brought up that the wider tire can handle more load due to the fact that it cools better as there is more width and less fore/aft contact..... Interesting |
Basic physics includes the difference between vertical load and shear stress, no?
first, a primer on shear stress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress
Now, for your basic argument:
"C, D, or E tires are capable of greater loads. Most load range C, D, and E tires are intended for light-truck applications.
The load-carrying capacity of Pmetric tires is rated as either Standard or Extra Load. Standard Load tires are limited by the load that can be supported with a maximum inflation pressure of 35 psi. Extra Load-rated tires are limited to the load that can be carried at a maximum inflation pressure of 41 psi. Generally, a Standard Load tire will not feature a special designation mark, while Extra Load tires will feature an “Extra Load” marking.
Extra Load tires will be branded as “Extra Load” and may be identified by an “XL” (for example: LT245/ 75R15 XL).
It’s important to note that a Standard Load tire (with a normal inflation pressure recommendation of 35 psi) may be marked with a maximum inflation pressure of 44 psi. This does not indicate an increase of the tire’s load carrying capacity, but indicates the tire’s ability to handle higher inflation pressure in order to accommodate special performance requirements."
From here: http://www.worktruckonline.com/Article/Story/2007/07/How-to-Determine-Tire-Load-Ratings.aspx
As noted (and as I was going to point out earlier) max load doesn't scale. No passenger tire is correctly rated for this application. Your "failure" to experience a problem means only that less-than-correctly-rated tires will still perform adequately, most of the time. That doesn't make it safe to use them, or OK to recommend that others ignore the load requirements.
Best,
B. |
Trouble is, I don't think you are actually paying attention to anything that I've actually said (plus I've been purposely staying out of this discussion for the first while, I don't know why this subject stirs people up so bad). Nowhere have I said that a standard load tire is good or safe. I even mentioned personally running a standard load tire at one point for about a month before I removed them and went back to XL. I do not recommend them as an option to anyone. Whats really funny is that I'm agreeing with you regarding standard wheel sizes.....yet you continue to act as if I'm bashing your opinion.
It has come to my attention that VW did offer a 16 on the syncro, what was the spec? Anyone? I'm curious to see.
They did not offer a 17, however, so really there is no argument as to spec because....there is none. We make an informed decision when pushing the envelope and carry on.
Ps.....you're quoting other posters as things that I've said.......I believe your whole last post is more aimed towards things the op has said, not me. I had no "basic argument" that was somebody else....... |
mea culpa - it is the OP's argument I referred to here. As for the increase in size ~ maintain the standard C/D sidewall regardless of size. Shear and load aren't the same thing. Thus do larger trucks maintain sidewall standards even as the tires themselves increase in load.
B.
B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragnarhairybreeks
Samba Member
Joined: October 26, 2009
Posts: 1890
Location: Sidney B.C. Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| speedtek wrote: |
It has come to my attention that VW did offer a 16 on the syncro, what was the spec? Anyone? I'm curious to see.
|
best I have, maybe it answers your questions. For the 16" wheels, the document seems to indicate load number greater than 100.
alistair
_________________
'86 7 passenger syncro, converted to westy pop top, project still in progress
'82 westy, diesel converted to gas in '94, now gone...
https://shufti.blog/
Old address still works...
http://shufti.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bercilak
Samba Member
Joined: August 17, 2009
Posts: 391
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ragnar,
Thanks! As noted, the 16 inch tire requires an 8pr/10pr.
Can you guess what PR means? Yes, my friends, it's ply rating. 8 ply equates to D range tires. In other words, the larger tires required stronger sidewalls.
No surprise here, but as for others....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy in Maine
Samba Member
Joined: August 03, 2003
Posts: 34890
Location: The Beach
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For discussion purposes I really don't see a lot of significant difference between the VW suggested tires among any of the 14, 15 and now the 16" tires.
The load index goes up some, but not really any unexpected things are there? Am I missing somehting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speedtek
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2010
Posts: 234
Location: Prince Albert, SK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bercilak wrote: |
Ragnar,
Thanks! As noted, the 16 inch tire requires an 8pr/10pr.
Can you guess what PR means? Yes, my friends, it's ply rating. 8 ply equates to D range tires. In other words, the larger tires required stronger sidewalls.
No surprise here, but as for others.... |
Actually, if you would note....the optional 205 sizing does not mention ply rating, merely...reinforced. Interesting to note it is also a 104 load rating as opposed to the 195 tire's 107 rating. So, I guess we can deduce from that: wider tread distributes load a little better allowing a lower tire rating.
(this pattern is there with the 14's as well....wider tire = lower rating requirement)
Apparently you really only see what you want to see and disregard everything else even though there is evidence to the contrary.
Personally, I know my van does not weigh over 5000 pounds fully loaded.
Fact: my 225/50R17 reinforced 98 rated low profile passenger tires can carry 1653 pounds each (normal)... Load reduction version: 1504 pounds
That's over 6000 pounds of load carrying capacity....more than enough to satisfy ANY safety margins one might be concerned about.
Fact: because they are reinforced they are also rated max load at 42 psi (not the 35 of normal passenger tires), so they are more than capable of meeting VW's inflation requirements on the door sticker. Mine says 35 fronts and 41 rears for the 205 tires......that's what I follow.
The 95 rated reinforced tires I previously ran last year were 245/40-17, which is probably why I was able to get away with the lower rating and no issues. Had they also been 225's it probably would have been pushing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragnarhairybreeks
Samba Member
Joined: October 26, 2009
Posts: 1890
Location: Sidney B.C. Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
apart from posting the vw document, I don't really want to get into this discussion much  , but allow me to throw in another factor...
I think most of the talk about weights and tire capacities have dealt with static loads. I think you do have to consider dynamic loading too. Maybe if you do much rough road travel, especially with sharp rocks as the road bed, then a bit of margin is wise.
Did I state that diplomatically enough?
cheers
alistair
_________________
'86 7 passenger syncro, converted to westy pop top, project still in progress
'82 westy, diesel converted to gas in '94, now gone...
https://shufti.blog/
Old address still works...
http://shufti.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bercilak
Samba Member
Joined: August 17, 2009
Posts: 391
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speedtek,
You've already been told that VW never used a tire rated below 1580.
If you want to use tires rated at a lower value, go ahead. Just don't walk in here and tell everyone that you're right and they're wrong. You're wrong. Fact.
B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davevickery
Samba Member
Joined: July 16, 2005
Posts: 2887
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread started innocently enough about how C/D load tires are no stronger than P tires if they are not inflated pretty high.
There is no disagreement on the tires that VW used. I think the debate was more about what else would work, given the lack of choices in AT or All Season tires. Some people may find this comparison relevant, others not so much. 
1999-2001 Honda Odyssey, 210 HP V-6
OE Tires: P215/65r16 96T, 1565 lbs.
max press 35, recommended press 35
Specs---------------Odyssey----VW 87 2wd camper
----------------------------------------------------------
Horsepower------------210----------95
Wheelbase (in.)------118.1--------96.9
Height (in.)-------------68.5--------80.9
Width (in.)--------------76.3--------72.6
Curb Weight (lbs.)----4288-------3670
Towing Cap (lbs.)-----3500-------1500
Max Weight------------5565-------5120
GAWR Frt/Rr------2775/2840---2646/2866
Sources: http://www.pickuptrucks.com/honda/odyssey/2001/specifications/
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2001-honda-odyssey-5dr-7-passenger-ex-techspecs.htm
http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/23856342/gotomsg/23856440.cfm (photo of Honda door sticker) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
