Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / April 2006
Wheel size
|
|
Thread rating:  |
jeh - 15 Apr 2006 03:59 GMT Forgive my ignorance about this, but why may I ask do larger wheel sizes keep being pushed? My 03 Ram has 17's which seem plenty big enough. I keep getting asked though, why not put 20's on it? I can see that it would be good for top end speeds but it sure would seem to be a lot more work getting there IMO. Thanks in advance. John
miles - 15 Apr 2006 04:38 GMT > Forgive my ignorance about this, but why may I ask do larger wheel sizes > keep being pushed? My 03 Ram has 17's which seem plenty big enough. I > keep getting asked though, why not put 20's on it? I can see that it > would be good for top end speeds but it sure would seem to be a lot more > work getting there IMO. Seems to be a new thing to want more metal and less rubber. I think a truck or SUV with 20"+ wheels looks down right funny. Why do some people think more rim looks better than more rubber? Whats more is that the rather low profile sidewalls of such tires have got to mess up handling and ride comfort.
My 2004 Durango has 17" and thats fine for me. My Ram has 16". I'd rather have 16" on my Durango as new tires for it were expensive and selection very limited. No reason for the 17".
Christopher Thompson - 15 Apr 2006 04:50 GMT > > Forgive my ignorance about this, but why may I ask do larger wheel sizes > > keep being pushed? My 03 Ram has 17's which seem plenty big enough. I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > rather have 16" on my Durango as new tires for it were expensive and > selection very limited. No reason for the 17". heck what was wrong with the old 15" wheels?
 Signature -Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango
miles - 15 Apr 2006 04:51 GMT Christopher Thompson wrote:
> heck what was wrong with the old 15" wheels? 15" is fine for smaller trucks and cars. I think they're too small for full sized trucks and SUV's. Thing about the new 20"'ers is the overall diameter of the tire isn't increased much. Just more rim, less rubber.
Christopher Thompson - 16 Apr 2006 01:58 GMT ive had several full sized half ton trucks that performed fine under load with 15" wheels. although i agree you can get larger brakes under a 16 or 17 wheel i still see little added benefit other than the larger brake capability with the larger wheel.
 Signature -Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango
> Christopher Thompson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > full sized trucks and SUV's. Thing about the new 20"'ers is the overall > diameter of the tire isn't increased much. Just more rim, less rubber. miles - 16 Apr 2006 02:48 GMT Christopher Thompson wrote:
> ive had several full sized half ton trucks that performed fine under load > with 15" wheels. although i agree you can get larger brakes under a 16 or 17 > wheel i still see little added benefit other than the larger brake > capability with the larger wheel. In theory thats true but the stopping distance of the newer Rams with 17" is about the same as the older 16" models. Aren't Fords and Chevy's still 16"? They seem to do just fine with em.
GeekBoy - 15 Apr 2006 05:09 GMT Its the gansta ghetto attitude
> Forgive my ignorance about this, but why may I ask do larger wheel sizes > keep being pushed? My 03 Ram has 17's which seem plenty big enough. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks in advance. > John Steve Lusardi - 15 Apr 2006 09:12 GMT John, Wheel size is not circumference. Short side walls provide less sidewall shift to the sides when cornering and therefore are more surefooted when cornering under high speed conditions, but they do so at the cost of comfort and load carrying ability. Your 17" wheels were an upgrade from 16s to provide more crearance for larger brakes. If you have a 2500 or 3500 with an 8 lug bolt pattern, you can find conversions for 19", 22" and 24" 10 bolt truck wheels. These have the load bearing ability and go fast wheels do not. Steve
> Forgive my ignorance about this, but why may I ask do larger wheel sizes > keep being pushed? My 03 Ram has 17's which seem plenty big enough. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks in advance. > John jeh - 15 Apr 2006 16:05 GMT > John, > Wheel size is not circumference. Short side walls provide less sidewall [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>Thanks in advance. >>John That makes sense.
miles - 15 Apr 2006 17:12 GMT > Your 17" wheels were an upgrade from 16s to > provide more crearance for larger brakes. Which makes little sense. Mopar brakes have never been very good. Other manufactures still use 16" with fewer problems than Dodge. Main issue is that the Mopar rotors are junk. Rather than make them larger diameter Dodge should have focused their efforts on just making them decent quality.
At 35K the Rotors on my 2004 Durango need replacing. They've already been turned twice by the dealer under warranty and probably have little metal left. Same problems with my 2001 Ram. Come on Dodge, make a frigg'n decent rotor!!
Roy - 15 Apr 2006 19:55 GMT >> Your 17" wheels were an upgrade from 16s to provide more crearance for >> larger brakes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > left. Same problems with my 2001 Ram. Come on Dodge, make a frigg'n > decent rotor!! I've been of the belief that the folks using a air gun are the cause of a lot of rotor problems. Gotta use a "click wrench" and set them to spec's properly imho.
Roy
miles - 15 Apr 2006 20:27 GMT > I've been of the belief that the folks using a air gun are the cause of a > lot of rotor problems. Gotta use a "click wrench" and set them to spec's > properly imho. That can happen but I still think that Mopar rotors are junk. Most dealers and independent shops I've been too have signs posted all over saying lug nuts are hand torqued.
Why did this become such a problem lately? Or was it that sometime in the late 80's or 90's shops failed to hand torque? I never ever had rotor issues back then like I do now.
Roy - 15 Apr 2006 20:41 GMT >> I've been of the belief that the folks using a air gun are the cause of a >> lot of rotor problems. Gotta use a "click wrench" and set them to spec's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > late 80's or 90's shops failed to hand torque? I never ever had rotor > issues back then like I do now. Always was a bit of a problem. But when the tire stores really came into vogue it took off.
Roy
Steve Ackman - 16 Apr 2006 00:07 GMT >> Why did this become such a problem lately? Or was it that sometime in the >> late 80's or 90's shops failed to hand torque? I never ever had rotor >> issues back then like I do now. > > Always was a bit of a problem. But when the tire stores really came into > vogue it took off. A store tried to convince me that after 30K, our Neon needed new rotors. I was extremely dubious. After a bunch of back and forth, I finally got it out of them that the rotor thickness was below spec to face it. I asked to see the book. They assured me over and over that Dodge rotors are crap, and it was almost unheard of that rotors could be "turned."
When I finally got the caliper readings and the book side by side, it turns out they were looking under the "new" column. Duh. No wonder. How many rotors are still at "new" thickness by the time you need pads changed? The question is... was it intentional, or were the folks there just idiots? I complained to the AAA (which this place was approved by), it closed, but then reopened under another name right after.
This may not be very common, but I bet it happens more than people might want to believe.
Christopher Thompson - 16 Apr 2006 02:04 GMT > >> Why did this become such a problem lately? Or was it that sometime in the > >> late 80's or 90's shops failed to hand torque? I never ever had rotor [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > This may not be very common, but I bet it happens > more than people might want to believe. ive seen them also have their "own" rotor spec book and if they dont have the specs for your rotors in their book then its a automatic replacement in their minds. never try to look in the FSM to findout what detriot has to say about discard thickness.
 Signature -Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango
Tom Lawrence - 15 Apr 2006 21:23 GMT > lot of rotor problems. Gotta use a "click wrench" and set them to spec's > properly imho. Right... a beam-style wrench will warp 'em sure as hell! :)
miles - 15 Apr 2006 22:20 GMT >> lot of rotor problems. Gotta use a "click wrench" and set them to spec's >> properly imho. > > Right... a beam-style wrench will warp 'em sure as hell! :) Personally I prefer hydraulic torque wrenches. Far more accurate than anything else and more powerful when high torque values are needed. Course the several $1000 cost is kind of a killer.
Steve Lusardi - 16 Apr 2006 00:25 GMT miles, Please don't think I'm being condescending, but I drove a chevy s10 for 10 years and changed pads twice, never the rear shoes. Both the rotors and the drums looked almost new. On my '96 Dodge Ram I changed the pads twice, never touched the drums and shoes. At 132,000 the rotors and drums looked new. You probably drive like my daughter, she eats brakes too. The key is anticipation. Dodges have fine brakes. Steve
>> Your 17" wheels were an upgrade from 16s to provide more crearance for >> larger brakes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > left. Same problems with my 2001 Ram. Come on Dodge, make a frigg'n > decent rotor!! miles - 16 Apr 2006 00:55 GMT > miles, > Please don't think I'm being condescending, but I drove a chevy s10 for 10 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > probably drive like my daughter, she eats brakes too. The key is > anticipation. Dodges have fine brakes. Not me. Like I said I've never had brake troubles until my two Dodges. My 2 1993 Nissans both had over 140,000 and I only replaced the pads once. Rotors were fine. I'm pretty light on brakes, coasting to stops rather than going straight from gas to brake as some do...or ride the brakes and alot of snowbirds do here!
BDK - 16 Apr 2006 02:17 GMT > miles, > Please don't think I'm being condescending, but I drove a chevy s10 for 10 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > left. Same problems with my 2001 Ram. Come on Dodge, make a frigg'n > > decent rotor!! No, they don't have "fine" brakes! The 94-2001 Rams were known for having poor brakes. And that has nothing to do with rotor quality, they needed bigger rotors and better calipers even more. When they decided to put 20" wheels as an option, better brakes were a necessity.
I've been driving, and buying new cars and trucks since 73. I never had a warped rotor, period, until my 1988 S10 Blazer got them at about 12K. The dealer turned them, and they were ok, until about 30K, when it came back, right after I had to replace both front tires after running over a huge pile of screws in the street. This time, I had to have rotors and the dealer replaced them under warranty. No more problems.
My next vehicle, a 93 Grand Cherokee, warped the fronts by 6K, and had to have new rotors at 15K. They were so bad turning wasn't an option. Mopar gave me those, but refused to go for another pair about a year later when they were even worse than the first ones. I bought some hugely expensive aftermarket ones, and they were fine until I got rid of it in 99, when I bought a new GC, and it warped them by 7K, and needed new ones, that DC did do under warranty, at 14K. They were as bad as the first ones, but aftermarkets weren't so $$, so I went with them, and solved the problem.
The seats in the 99 killed my back, so I traded it on a 2000 GMC Sierra, and warped both front and rears within 6 months. The rears never warped again, but the fronts were turned twice and replaced under warranty. They warped really suddenly and really severely one morning during a rainstorm. I went and bought some cheap aftermarkets, and the problem was solved. Not to say the brakes, the ABS on the rears ever worked right, a small bump made the whole system freak out, and it's amazing that the govt hasn't made them recall them and fix it.
When the Sierra was wrecked, I got my present 2003 Ram QC 4X$, and at about 7K, the shakes and pulling started again. The dealer turned the rotors, and they were ok until 24 K, when they warped again. They turned them again, and they just were legal(I saw the reading). I will need front pads next spring, and rotors too. I will try powerslots or some other decent aftermarket rotors before wasting my money on factory junk ones. When the rotors are straight, my truck stops amazingly fast, and straight..
Side by side, the difference in rotors, even some of the crappiest aftermarket ones are noticeably heavier than the stock ones, and appear to be machined a lot better too. The difference between the stock Sierra rotors and the cheap aftermarkets was so obvious, just by looking at them side by side, it was clear the 25 buck each aftermarkets blew away the factory ones. They were much heavier too.
BDK
John - 16 Apr 2006 23:46 GMT Are you sure it's the rotors and not you? I've been driving since '75 and only had one warped rotor in my lifetime. I regularly pull a 9000# travel trailer behind a 2500. It has 43K miles on it and I'm still on the original set of pads.
If I counted correctly, you claimed to have warped/damaged rotors 12 times! How is it defective rotors flock to your vehicles. Any chance you're a little heavy on the brake pedal? Or maybe it's a conspiracy between the dealers, manufacturers, and auto parts store to send all bad rotors to you.
Remember, it's a truck, not a sports car.
miles - 17 Apr 2006 00:08 GMT > Are you sure it's the rotors and not you? I've been driving since '75 > and only had one warped rotor in my lifetime. I regularly pull a 9000# [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > between the dealers, manufacturers, and auto parts store to send all > bad rotors to you. It varies with make and model of vehicle for me. Here's the vehicles I've owned.
1964 Buick Skylark. 75K, changed pads once, no rotor troubles 1984 Nissan Truck. 95K, changed pads once, no rotor troubles 1988 Suzuki Samurai. 65K, original brakes 1989 Firebird. 55K, original brakes 1991 Suzuki 4 door sidekick, pads shot at 8K and again every 20K or so. Replaced under warranty 1st two times. Brakes were same as on earlier 2 door model, too small! No rotor issues. 1993 Nissan Truck. 145K, changed pads once, no rotor troubles. 1993 Nissan Altima. 95K, changed pads once, no rotor troubles. 1999 Isuzu Amigo. 55K, original brakes. 2000 Ram 4z4. Rotors warped at 10K, replaced under warranty. DC buyback at 30K for continued transmission issues. 2001 Ram. Pads glazed at 15K (sanded and were fine after), rotors warped at 25K (turned, no problems since). Replaced pads at 65K. 2004 Durango 4x4. Rotors warped at 5K. Replaced under warranty. Known problem with many complaints and TSB issued. Warped again at 36K but have not turned/replaced them yet.
My problems with rotors are only with Dodge vehicles. No complaints with brakes on other vehicles except the Suzuki Sidekick. Just too small of brakes for weight of vehicle.
Stephen Harding - 16 Apr 2006 11:39 GMT > miles, > Please don't think I'm being condescending, but I drove a chevy s10 for 10 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > probably drive like my daughter, she eats brakes too. The key is > anticipation. Dodges have fine brakes. My 1500 still has its original drum brakes at 145,000 miles. The first three years of the trucks' life it towed a boat too!
Not certain how other trucks stack up as I've only owned a Ford F-150 before the Dodge, but I'd say that's a pretty decent lifespan for drum brakes on a light duty truck.
The front disks are a different matter. Replaced pads twice and rotors twice; once prematurely when the caliper jammed on its slide causing premature wear of the disk at 28,000 miles.
My local mechanics say *all* the vehicle disks are probably more cheaply made these days, and have greater tendency to warp, and of course the kids at the tire/muffler shops with their air wrenches don't help.
I've had new tires with the wheels so tightly torqued I've had to stand on a long extension to get them loose, and I have a feeling they weren't torqued up very symmetrically either.
When buying new tires, I always retorque with a torquewrench when I get home and haven't had rotor warping problems since.
SMH
jeh - 16 Apr 2006 03:06 GMT >> Your 17" wheels were an upgrade from 16s to provide more crearance for >> larger brakes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > metal left. Same problems with my 2001 Ram. Come on Dodge, make a > frigg'n decent rotor!! You know I had this same problem with my 98 Cherokee I had. The rotors were out of specs, or so the dealer said. They *were* scored up pretty badly, and at only about 40K. I had to replace them. What about non-metallic pads? Do they still make them? Would they be any better?
.boB - 15 Apr 2006 14:37 GMT > Forgive my ignorance about this, but why may I ask do larger wheel sizes > keep being pushed? My 03 Ram has 17's which seem plenty big enough. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks in advance. > John In trucks, it's all about marketing. Most people who drive trucks use them simply as grocery getters and commuters, and they want that look. Off roaders and haulers continue to use smaller wheel sizes.
 Signature .boB Arrived: 2006 FXDI, Red. 1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged Stolen 11/26/05 in Denver 1HD1GEL10VY3200010 CO License J5822Z 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast.
jeh - 15 Apr 2006 16:20 GMT >> Forgive my ignorance about this, but why may I ask do larger wheel >> sizes keep being pushed? My 03 Ram has 17's which seem plenty big [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > use them simply as grocery getters and commuters, and they want that > look. Off roaders and haulers continue to use smaller wheel sizes. Yeah, I use if for all that too. I don't go off road at all, but sometimes I haul things for the house and yard. I love my Ram though. It fits me like a glove (I'm 6'8") where other trucks and cars don't--I even have a good reach for the radio knob with my long arms. It's plenty fast enough with the 4.7 -- could use a bit less gas though, especially these days. It also seems to get a little more respect on the roads. I'll stick with the 17's. Might get some aluminum wheels though, :-) John
|
|
|