So, going back to 30" tyres....

Went back to 30" tyres on my Ford Ranger 2.5 liter turbodiesel, from the 31"
ones that the previous owner put on, however without bothering to also raise
the suspension causing the front wheels to nudge the wheel-arches in tight
corners with a bump in the middle on the old tyres.

This was a good move!! Not only did I of course get rid of the problem that
the wheels touched, it also seems the engine picks up quicker at low revs,
that the gear ratios are better (i.e. when it's time to shift to second or
third, the power is actually there, as opposed to waiting for the turbo to
kick in.

Am I imagining this or is there a logical explanation for it? I always
thought that problems like this (gear ratios etc) only needed to be fixed when
you change to tyres that are a lot bigger in size, not just changing 1 inch?
Note that this Ford/Mazda Turbodiesel engine is notoriously low on low-end
torque as it is; perhaps the difference between wheel sizes would be less with
a proper off-road diesel engine like Mitsubishi and Toyota seem to be putting
in their vehicles.

Cheers,
Chanchao

>Went back to 30" tyres on my Ford Ranger 2.5 liter turbodiesel, from the 31"
>ones that

Oh yes, I changed to Michelin tyres, and then right the next day I watched the
Belgian Formula 1 race with Michelin tyres blowing up left right and center,
before realizing that likely Michelin's F1 and off-road tyres are not made by
the same people so I should probably be OK.

Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:08:10 +0700 Chanchao <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Went back to 30" tyres on my Ford Ranger 2.5 liter turbodiesel, from the 31"
> ones that the previous owner put on, however without bothering to also raise
> the suspension causing the front wheels to nudge the wheel-arches in tight
> corners with a bump in the middle on the old tyres.

I use original height 29" tyres (205R16, 235/75R15) most of
the time under my 2.5 TD Ranger. For offroading I have
31x10.5-15 Super Swamper TSLs mounted on 15x8 rims. I
decided to have a different set of proper offroad tyres
for offroad happenings and hunting trips.

When doing reserch on the maximum tyre size able to fit
under a stock european Ranger _without_any_lift_ whatsoever,
I found out that everything above 30" would require slight
cutting on fenderwell plastic parts. 30" was not enough
so I trimmed the plastics somewhat from front and rear
sections of the front fenderwells. When I had a test
tyre of size 32x12.5-15 on a 15x8 rim (3.75" backspace,
-19mm offset) it slightly rubbed on top of the front wheel
arc when bottoming the suspension fully against the bump
stop. 32" would require some torsion bar adjustment or
a small body lift. I didn't want to do either of these
but instead I bought those 31x10.5-15 tyres.

The point is that 31" tyres shouldn't need any lifting
to clear the top of the wheel arc. New 31" TSLs have an
OD of 31.3" according to Interco catalog and they fit
just fine.

> This was a good move!! Not only did I of course get rid of the problem that
> the wheels touched, it also seems the engine picks up quicker at low revs,
> that the gear ratios are better (i.e. when it's time to shift to second or
> third, the power is actually there, as opposed to waiting for the turbo to
> kick in.

Sure 31" tyres have a negative impact on acceleretion
and low end wheel torque since the final drive gearing is
designed for 29" tyres, but IMO the difference is not that
much that I'd go back to 29" original tyres (or even 30")
for offroading. As a daily driver my Ranger has 29" tyres.

Btw, is your stock tyre size 265/70R15 which is a little
taller than those "Michelin Made in Thailand" 235/75R15 ATs
that my 2000 Ranger had?

> Cheers,
> Chanchao


--
Jukka

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:50:03 GMT, [email protected] (Jukka) wrote some
stuff about "Re: So, going back to 30" tyres....", to which I would like to
add the following:

>Sure 31" tyres have a negative impact on acceleretion
>and low end wheel torque since the final drive gearing is
>designed for 29" tyres, but IMO the difference is not that
>much that I'd go back to 29" original tyres (or even 30")
>for offroading. As a daily driver my Ranger has 29" tyres.
>
>Btw, is your stock tyre size 265/70R15 which is a little
>taller than those "Michelin Made in Thailand" 235/75R15 ATs
>that my 2000 Ranger had?

Don't know what the stock tyre size is.. On the most recently face-lifted
model I think they also put slightly bigger tyres to have it 'compete' with
other 4WD pick-ups, height-wise. If I look up the specs for the current
model then 4x4 Rangers now come with 265/70 R15 tyres.

I just checked and my current tyre size seems to be 29", not 30" : 255/70 R15
so I think that works out to be 29"..

(BTW did you see the latest lovely thing to come from Thailand..:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/030904_Motoring/03Sep2004_motor57.php

Rather affordable too, with the top model (4 door/4WD/Auto/3 liter
TD-intercooler/airco/abs/airbags/electric-everything) still at 861,000 baht,
say 17,000 Euros...

Cheers,
Chanchao

Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:13:38 +0700 Chanchao <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Don't know what the stock tyre size is.. On the most recently face-lifted
> model I think they also put slightly bigger tyres to have it 'compete' with
> other 4WD pick-ups, height-wise. If I look up the specs for the current
> model then 4x4 Rangers now come with 265/70 R15 tyres.

Yes, I believe that size is used now. In my country (Finland)
one can use max. 51mm oversized (OD) tyres and that new model
265/70R15 can be used as a reference tyre also for my 2000 model.
So 32x11.5-15 is the tallest street legal size when talking
about common, easy to find tyre size.

> (BTW did you see the latest lovely thing to come from Thailand..:
> http://www.bangkokpost.com/030904_Motoring/03Sep2004_motor57.php

That page requires login information (and registration).

> Rather affordable too, with the top model (4 door/4WD/Auto/3 liter
> TD-intercooler/airco/abs/airbags/electric-everything) still at 861,000 baht,
> say 17,000 Euros...

Bigger engine sounds very good. I'd like to see a solid
front axle with coil springs instead of that IFS torsion
bar system under Thai-Rangers someday but I bet it's just
wishfull thinking...

> Cheers,
> Chanchao


--
Jukka

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:24:11 GMT, [email protected] (Jukka) wrote some
stuff about "Re: So, going back to 30" tyres....", to which I would like to
add the following:

>> (BTW did you see the latest lovely thing to come from Thailand..:
>> http://www.bangkokpost.com/030904_Motoring/03Sep2004_motor57.php
>
>That page requires login information (and registration).

Oops, right, indeed it does. Well, here then:

http://www.weekendhobby.com/offroad/toyota/Question.asp?ID=3911

(So not really Ford-ranger related, but 4WD pick-up related; the original link
was a road-test of the same vehicle)

>> Rather affordable too, with the top model (4 door/4WD/Auto/3 liter
>> TD-intercooler/airco/abs/airbags/electric-everything) still at 861,000 baht,
>> say 17,000 Euros...

>Bigger engine sounds very good. I'd like to see a solid
>front axle with coil springs instead of that IFS torsion
>bar system under Thai-Rangers someday but I bet it's just
>wishfull thinking...

I see a solid front axel on the heavy-duty Toyota hi-lux trucks, but not on
the far more common ones sold to the general public. Coil-springs are
completely out of the question because then it doesn't comply with the Thai
pick-up specifications anymore that result in a very nice tax-rate of just 3%.
(Of course people can get them modified to coil springs)

Cheers,
Chanchao

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:43:05 +0700 Chanchao <[email protected]>
wrote:

> http://www.weekendhobby.com/offroad/toyota/Question.asp?ID=3911

Well, lots of pictures and strange looking hieroglyphs
(cannot read that text)

OK - looks very nice and a very modern pickup.

> I see a solid front axel on the heavy-duty Toyota hi-lux trucks, but not on
> the far more common ones sold to the general public.

Here older, say something like 1988 and before that
HiLuxes have solid fronts, after that the IFS have
been sold as only option. Solid front would be
easier to modify for offroading but IFS offers better
road performance and behaviour. Market demands are
more on-road oriented.

> Coil-springs are
> completely out of the question because then it doesn't comply with the Thai
> pick-up specifications anymore that result in a very nice tax-rate of just 3%.

This is very interesting. Is it so that in Thailand
you can buy a pickup cheaper if it has no coil springs?
Does it have something to do with ride comfort issues,
meaning that leaf or torsion bar springs would be considered
more like work-horse suspension and coils too comfortable
and that affects on tax rate?

In my country (Finland) this tax rate stuff is based on
vehicle class and that depends on vehicle use, weight and
cargo space. A Ranger belongs to main class "lightweight
commercial vehicle" including vans and pickups and 4x4
Rangers to a sub-class "offroad lightweight commercial
vehicle". Lightweight commercial vehicles are taxed 50%
of the import value. GVWR limit for these is 3500kg max.
A pickup must have a cargo bed of required size, otherwise
it is considered to be a passanger car. No requirements
for suspension type etc.

There are some requirements for cargo space of vans too
so a station wagon passenger car cannot be registered as
a van. Use of diesel fuel is alot cheaper on light
commercial vehicles than on cars.

Cars are taxed 100%. Mitsubishi Pajeros, Nissan Patrols,
LandRover Discos, Freelanders and such are taxed 100% since
they are not commercial vehicles, they are "offroad passenger
vehicles". This makes them quite expensive and the yearly
diesel fuel tax is heavy since it is based on GVWR and tax
rate is at least three times than with commercial vehicles.

Then there are heavyweight commercial vehicles, trucks.
Any vehicle having cargo space and cargo carrying capacity
more than passenger carrying capacity and have GVWR over
3500kg is a truck. Trucks are not taxed, so 0%. Diesel
tax goes with GCVWR so you must pay for ability to tow a
trailer with a diesel truck. With lightweights it is
just the gross weight of the vehicle itself.

> Cheers,
> Chanchao


--
Jukka

> 3500kg is a truck. Trucks are not taxed, so 0%. Diesel
> tax goes with GCVWR so you must pay for ability to tow a
> trailer with a diesel truck. With lightweights it is
> just the gross weight of the vehicle itself.

Do I read this right: the diesel tax is charged
differently depending on vehicle weight (and maybe
other things?) How does that work? Is it an annual
fee, or do you pay a different rate compared to, say,
the owner of a small diesel car) whenever you buy
diesel from a filling station?

If it's an annual fee, does it take account of
the mileage travelled?

-- Steve

"Jukka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:43:05 +0700 Chanchao <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.weekendhobby.com/offroad/toyota/Question.asp?ID=3911
>
> Well, lots of pictures and strange looking hieroglyphs
> (cannot read that text)
>
> OK - looks very nice and a very modern pickup.
>
> > I see a solid front axel on the heavy-duty Toyota hi-lux trucks, but not
on
> > the far more common ones sold to the general public.
>
> Here older, say something like 1988 and before that
> HiLuxes have solid fronts, after that the IFS have
> been sold as only option. Solid front would be
> easier to modify for offroading but IFS offers better
> road performance and behaviour. Market demands are
> more on-road oriented.
>

Here, (NZ) you can get hiluxes with solid fronts in the SSR and Surf models
as late as the mid 90's, these are the heavy duty good ground clearance
versions, then there are the low body onroad workhorse trucks, some of which
were 2wd and these came with IFS.

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:30:17 +0100 Steve Hunt <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Do I read this right: the diesel tax is charged
> differently depending on vehicle weight (and maybe
> other things?)

Yes, that's right. In Finland, the more your vehicle gross
weight is, the more you pay annual diesel tax. The tax rate
for a passenger car (including all 4x4's that are not
lightweight commercial vehicles, Discos, Pajeros, Terranos
etc.) is 24.46 EUR (€) per every 100kg of total weight
(GVWR / 100 * 24.46 EUR).

For a lightweight commercial vehicle like a Ford Ranger,
Toyota Hiace/Hilux, Chevy Van etc. the tax rate is
3.29 EUR (€) per every 100kg of total weight
(GVWR / 100 * 3.29 EUR).

For a heavy duty commercial vehicle, a truck, the tax
rate depends on total weight, axle count and ability to
tow a trailer. This is again based on 100kg portions
of total weight, GVWR/100, first without ability to tow
a trailer:

2 axle truck, GVWR < 12 metric tonnes, 3.65 EUR
2 axle truck, GVWR > 12 metric tonnes, 8.03 EUR
3 axle truck 4.76 EUR
4 axle truck 4.38 EUR
5 or more axles 4.02 EUR

With trailer towing ability these are about

2 axle truck, GVWR < 12 metric tonnes, 11.32 EUR
2 axle truck, GVWR > 12 metric tonnes, 11.32 EUR
3 axle truck 8.76 EUR
4 axle truck 7.85 EUR
5 or more axles 6.94 EUR

With a trailer the tax rate depends only on the towing
vehicle (tractor) GVWR, trailer can be of any legal weight.
This is with trucks only, so a a trailer hitch or hook on
a LandRover doesn't increase its annual diesel tax rate.

> How does that work? Is it an annual
> fee, or do you pay a different rate compared to, say,
> the owner of a small diesel car) whenever you buy
> diesel from a filling station?

Diesel is about 0.8 EUR per litre right now and price
is the same for all vehicle classes and for private/
commercial transportation.

> If it's an annual fee, does it take account of
> the mileage travelled?

It is annual and does not take account of the mileage
travelled. If you own a diesel engined vehicle here in
Finland, you must pay the annual tax for it even if you
don't drive it. A rule of thumb for a passenger car has
been this: if you drive more than 20000 kilometers every
year, it's worth to have a diesel car. This is the point
when driving a petrol/gasoline powered car becomes more
expensive, since petrol costs a bit over 1 EUR.

With SUV's and other heavier vehicles the required amount
of annual driving is less since they tend to suck a lot
of gas. That's why majority of 4x4's and almost all of the
commercial vehicles use diesel here.

For petrol/gas powered vehicles there is no extra fuel tax,
it's just for diesels.

> -- Steve

--
Jukka

Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:04:05 +1200 "rnf2" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Here, (NZ) you can get hiluxes with solid fronts in the SSR and Surf models
> as late as the mid 90's, these are the heavy duty good ground clearance
> versions, then there are the low body onroad workhorse trucks, some of which
> were 2wd and these came with IFS.

I checked this and it seems that 1989 was when the good
old solid front was replaced with IFS on 4x4 hiluxes sold
here in Finland.


--
Jukka

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:21:23 GMT [email protected] (Jukka) kirjoitti
seuraavaa:

> 3500kg is a truck. Trucks are not taxed, so 0%. Diesel
> tax goes with GCVWR so you must pay for ability to tow a
> trailer with a diesel truck. With lightweights it is
> just the gross weight of the vehicle itself.

Whoops, a typo: not GCVWR like I wrote but GVWR of the
towing vehicle.

--
Jukka

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:21:23 GMT, [email protected] (Jukka) wrote some
stuff about "Re: So, going back to 30" tyres....", to which I would like to
add the following:

>> Coil-springs are
>> completely out of the question because then it doesn't comply with the Thai
>> pick-up specifications anymore that result in a very nice tax-rate of just 3%.

>This is very interesting. Is it so that in Thailand
>you can buy a pickup cheaper if it has no coil springs?

Yes. And as a result, no manufacturor even offers coil springs on pick-up or
even "pick-up based SUV's" (These are big SUV's (Americans would say "mid
sized SUV's" , mostly with 3 rows of seats that are based on pick-up frames.
Like this one based on the hi-lux:
http://www.e-toyotaclub.com/th/AutoLineup/Lineup/crif0110.asp?carcode=HLUP or
this one, based on the Ford Ranger/Mazda B2500 :
http://www.ford.co.th/everest/eng/home.php

All of these come with leaf springs. Of course many companies offer a
conversion to coils, but when selling the car it has to go through a road
safety inspection and at that time it has to comply with the rules set for
pick-ups (or pick-up derived SUV's) and if at that time you have coils then
your options are to pay extra, to put the leaf springs back (temporary at
least or to only "put the leaf springs back on paper" but not in real life
which would also cost some additional money for the inspector to look the
other way. So in short it's not a major legal issue, some people do it.


>Does it have something to do with ride comfort issues,
>meaning that leaf or torsion bar springs would be considered
>more like work-horse suspension and coils too comfortable
>and that affects on tax rate?

Yes. Also requirements for length, weight, engine size (<3300 cc diesel it's
now) and load capacity are quite specific.

>Cars are taxed 100%. Mitsubishi Pajeros, Nissan Patrols,
>LandRover Discos, Freelanders and such are taxed 100% since
>they are not commercial vehicles, they are "offroad passenger
>vehicles". This makes them quite expensive and the yearly
>diesel fuel tax is heavy since it is based on GVWR and tax
>rate is at least three times than with commercial vehicles.

Ah.. here the government actually sponsors diesel fuel since the latest oil
price increase as virtually no passenger cars are sold with diesel engines. So
to soften the blow to commercial transportation, they lowered the diesel price
per liter. I'm not complaining! (And neither are some other odd-ball diesel
car owners; Mercedes Benz now do one, then there's the LR Disco and I think
perhaps Citroen. None of these cars are very competitive price-wise in the
Thai market. I seriously wonder why not more car makers offer diesel versions
of their cars; they seem to think the local market doesn't like diesel
engines. (Comes from the stigma of driving a farmers' truck engine I suppose).
This WILL change some day, needless to say. I don't think I ever want a
petrol engine again.

>Then there are heavyweight commercial vehicles, trucks.
>Any vehicle having cargo space and cargo carrying capacity
>more than passenger carrying capacity and have GVWR over
>3500kg is a truck.

Hm.. I wonder if there are some light 4WD trucks then that would qualify for
the lower (or no tax?) for trucks while still being good recreational 4WD
vehicles.. (Saw a 6 wheel Pinzgauer truck here recently, but it has 3 axels
(6x6) vehicle...) I mean it can hardly be more uncomfortable to drive than a
Series Landy cannit?

Cheers,
Chanchao

Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:55:18 +0700 Chanchao <[email protected]>
wrote:

> All of these come with leaf springs. Of course many companies offer a
> conversion to coils, but when selling the car it has to go through a road
> safety inspection and at that time it has to comply with the rules set for
> pick-ups (or pick-up derived SUV's) and if at that time you have coils then
> your options are to pay extra, to put the leaf springs back (temporary at
> least or to only "put the leaf springs back on paper" but not in real life
> which would also cost some additional money for the inspector to look the
> other way. So in short it's not a major legal issue, some people do it.
>

Well, looking the other way -method cannot be used in my
country so everything's has to be by the book when doing
the inspection. Is the inspection really for new vehicles
or is it compulsory act whenever selling a vehicle?

We have an annual inspection system. New cars need to
be inspected first time three years after the first time
registration, after that every year. If I recall correctly
light commercial vehicles have to be inspected after two
years of use and every year after that.

> Hm.. I wonder if there are some light 4WD trucks then that would qualify for
> the lower (or no tax?) for trucks while still being good recreational 4WD
> vehicles..

Yes, like Chevy Suburban, Chevy van, Dodge Ram, Ram pickup
and such. They weigh over 3500kg when full loaded and are
therefore considered as trucks. Trucks have a disadvantage
of being limited for 80km/h top speed even if the road speed
limit allows more.

One could register, say a Chevy van, for a lower cargo carrying
capacity to get the GCWR a bit less than 3500kg. Then it would
be a lightweight commercial vehicle and if equipped with anti-
lock brakes (ABS) and at least driver side airbag, the top
speed would be 100km/h. But this +20km/h is quite spendy
feature: 50% tax has to be paid since light commercials have
50% tax rate and trucks 0%. That's why most of the recent
Suburbans and bigger vans are registered as trucks with full
payload rating.

> (Saw a 6 wheel Pinzgauer truck here recently, but it has 3 axels
> (6x6) vehicle...) I mean it can hardly be more uncomfortable to drive than a
> Series Landy cannit?

Lol... haven't driven a Pinz ever (have a Unimog though)
but I can imagine after having some limited experience
of LR's.

> Cheers,
> Chanchao


--
Jukka

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:04:57 GMT, [email protected] (Jukka) wrote some
stuff about "Re: So, going back to 30" tyres....", to which I would like to
add the following:

>Well, looking the other way -method cannot be used in my
>country so everything's has to be by the book when doing
>the inspection. Is the inspection really for new vehicles
>or is it compulsory act whenever selling a vehicle?

Whenever selling a vehicle, or probably when making other updates to the
ownership record, like suppose when you repaint it a different color.

>We have an annual inspection system. New cars need to
>be inspected first time three years after the first time
>registration, after that every year.

Ah, right I think most European countries are like that.. Um, we don't have
that here in Thailand and frankly it shows too when you look at some of the
older vehicles driving around..

>Yes, like Chevy Suburban, Chevy van, Dodge Ram, Ram pickup
>and such. They weigh over 3500kg when full loaded and are
>therefore considered as trucks. Trucks have a disadvantage
>of being limited for 80km/h top speed even if the road speed
>limit allows more.

Ah, maximum speed.. That's another thing that's rarely a major issue here.
Even though officially pick-ups do have a lower maximum speed limit compared
to passenger cars. That resulted in a rather amusing discussion with a police
officer once who claimed I was doing like 130 km/h in a pick-up. Fortunately
though, being a 4 door pick-up I had mine registered as a passenger car, so
the speed limit didn't apply. Technically the engine/breaks everything of a 2
door and 4 door pick-up are exactly the same of course. Maximum speed I think
was 110 there but the police guy didn't bother with the remaining 20 km/h too
fast.

Cheers,
Chanchao

>Went back to 30" tyres on my Ford Ranger 2.5 liter turbodiesel, from the 31"
>ones that

Oh yes, I changed to Michelin tyres, and then right the next day I watched the
Belgian Formula 1 race with Michelin tyres blowing up left right and center,
before realizing that likely Michelin's F1 and off-road tyres are not made by
the same people so I should probably be OK.

Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:08:10 +0700 Chanchao <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Went back to 30" tyres on my Ford Ranger 2.5 liter turbodiesel, from the 31"
> ones that the previous owner put on, however without bothering to also raise
> the suspension causing the front wheels to nudge the wheel-arches in tight
> corners with a bump in the middle on the old tyres.

I use original height 29" tyres (205R16, 235/75R15) most of
the time under my 2.5 TD Ranger. For offroading I have
31x10.5-15 Super Swamper TSLs mounted on 15x8 rims. I
decided to have a different set of proper offroad tyres
for offroad happenings and hunting trips.

When doing reserch on the maximum tyre size able to fit
under a stock european Ranger _without_any_lift_ whatsoever,
I found out that everything above 30" would require slight
cutting on fenderwell plastic parts. 30" was not enough
so I trimmed the plastics somewhat from front and rear
sections of the front fenderwells. When I had a test
tyre of size 32x12.5-15 on a 15x8 rim (3.75" backspace,
-19mm offset) it slightly rubbed on top of the front wheel
arc when bottoming the suspension fully against the bump
stop. 32" would require some torsion bar adjustment or
a small body lift. I didn't want to do either of these
but instead I bought those 31x10.5-15 tyres.

The point is that 31" tyres shouldn't need any lifting
to clear the top of the wheel arc. New 31" TSLs have an
OD of 31.3" according to Interco catalog and they fit
just fine.

> This was a good move!! Not only did I of course get rid of the problem that
> the wheels touched, it also seems the engine picks up quicker at low revs,
> that the gear ratios are better (i.e. when it's time to shift to second or
> third, the power is actually there, as opposed to waiting for the turbo to
> kick in.

Sure 31" tyres have a negative impact on acceleretion
and low end wheel torque since the final drive gearing is
designed for 29" tyres, but IMO the difference is not that
much that I'd go back to 29" original tyres (or even 30")
for offroading. As a daily driver my Ranger has 29" tyres.

Btw, is your stock tyre size 265/70R15 which is a little
taller than those "Michelin Made in Thailand" 235/75R15 ATs
that my 2000 Ranger had?

> Cheers,
> Chanchao


--
Jukka

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:50:03 GMT, [email protected] (Jukka) wrote some
stuff about "Re: So, going back to 30" tyres....", to which I would like to
add the following:

>Sure 31" tyres have a negative impact on acceleretion
>and low end wheel torque since the final drive gearing is
>designed for 29" tyres, but IMO the difference is not that
>much that I'd go back to 29" original tyres (or even 30")
>for offroading. As a daily driver my Ranger has 29" tyres.
>
>Btw, is your stock tyre size 265/70R15 which is a little
>taller than those "Michelin Made in Thailand" 235/75R15 ATs
>that my 2000 Ranger had?

Don't know what the stock tyre size is.. On the most recently face-lifted
model I think they also put slightly bigger tyres to have it 'compete' with
other 4WD pick-ups, height-wise. If I look up the specs for the current
model then 4x4 Rangers now come with 265/70 R15 tyres.

I just checked and my current tyre size seems to be 29", not 30" : 255/70 R15
so I think that works out to be 29"..

(BTW did you see the latest lovely thing to come from Thailand..:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/030904_Motoring/03Sep2004_motor57.php

Rather affordable too, with the top model (4 door/4WD/Auto/3 liter
TD-intercooler/airco/abs/airbags/electric-everything) still at 861,000 baht,
say 17,000 Euros...

Cheers,
Chanchao

Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:13:38 +0700 Chanchao <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Don't know what the stock tyre size is.. On the most recently face-lifted
> model I think they also put slightly bigger tyres to have it 'compete' with
> other 4WD pick-ups, height-wise. If I look up the specs for the current
> model then 4x4 Rangers now come with 265/70 R15 tyres.

Yes, I believe that size is used now. In my country (Finland)
one can use max. 51mm oversized (OD) tyres and that new model
265/70R15 can be used as a reference tyre also for my 2000 model.
So 32x11.5-15 is the tallest street legal size when talking
about common, easy to find tyre size.

> (BTW did you see the latest lovely thing to come from Thailand..:
> http://www.bangkokpost.com/030904_Motoring/03Sep2004_motor57.php

That page requires login information (and registration).

> Rather affordable too, with the top model (4 door/4WD/Auto/3 liter
> TD-intercooler/airco/abs/airbags/electric-everything) still at 861,000 baht,
> say 17,000 Euros...

Bigger engine sounds very good. I'd like to see a solid
front axle with coil springs instead of that IFS torsion
bar system under Thai-Rangers someday but I bet it's just
wishfull thinking...

> Cheers,
> Chanchao


--
Jukka

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:24:11 GMT, [email protected] (Jukka) wrote some
stuff about "Re: So, going back to 30" tyres....", to which I would like to
add the following:

>> (BTW did you see the latest lovely thing to come from Thailand..:
>> http://www.bangkokpost.com/030904_Motoring/03Sep2004_motor57.php
>
>That page requires login information (and registration).

Oops, right, indeed it does. Well, here then:

http://www.weekendhobby.com/offroad/toyota/Question.asp?ID=3911

(So not really Ford-ranger related, but 4WD pick-up related; the original link
was a road-test of the same vehicle)

>> Rather affordable too, with the top model (4 door/4WD/Auto/3 liter
>> TD-intercooler/airco/abs/airbags/electric-everything) still at 861,000 baht,
>> say 17,000 Euros...

>Bigger engine sounds very good. I'd like to see a solid
>front axle with coil springs instead of that IFS torsion
>bar system under Thai-Rangers someday but I bet it's just
>wishfull thinking...

I see a solid front axel on the heavy-duty Toyota hi-lux trucks, but not on
the far more common ones sold to the general public. Coil-springs are
completely out of the question because then it doesn't comply with the Thai
pick-up specifications anymore that result in a very nice tax-rate of just 3%.
(Of course people can get them modified to coil springs)

Cheers,
Chanchao