Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / March 2009
Please, suggestions for tires for 2002 Ranger 4x4 V6-208 HP
|
|
Thread rating:  |
William Newsome - 11 Mar 2009 18:28 GMT Hello,
I have a 2002 Ranger 4x4 V6-208 HP with 37k miles on it. The original stock "Wrangler" radials will need replacing soon.
I live near Indianapolis, so tires that give acceptable ice/snow performance are in order. I do mostly suburban city driving, high-speed tires are not needed.
What tires would give a combination of quiet smoot ride, acceptable all season performance, and longevity?
Thanks, Bill
IYM - 11 Mar 2009 19:19 GMT > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thanks, > Bill Best suggestion I could give you would be to go to www.tirerack.com
Enter you truck info and you'll see tires for sized your truck even if you don't get them through the site. Be certain to read the user reviews as people with your exact truck will write on if a particular tire worked well on that truck, and in what weather.
You'll get the answers your looking for faster & more data than on here...
Good Luck,
IYM
William Newsome - 11 Mar 2009 20:52 GMT >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >IYM Thank you, I'll give the site a try.
Nate Nagel - 12 Mar 2009 01:23 GMT > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thanks, > Bill I'd research your tires on Tire Rack (which is in South Bend, so shipping should be quick for you.)I can't speak to the bad weather performance or longevity, but I just bought a set of Michelin LTX AT/2s for my old F-150 and the ride is buttery smooth and actually surprisingly quiet for an all terrain tire. IMHO it's hard to go wrong with a Michelin tire; never had a bad set. (mostly passenger car tires; this is my first full set of truck tires, rear tires on the truck when I bought it were Michelins but the front were some off brand, which probably explained the inability to balance them)
Surprisingly, they were pretty price competitive with other similar tires.
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
William Newsome - 12 Mar 2009 02:45 GMT >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >nate South Bend is about 90 minutes north of us on I-69. I'll look them up, thanks.
Ulysses - 12 Mar 2009 17:45 GMT > > Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > bought it were Michelins but the front were some off brand, which > probably explained the inability to balance them) The last several sets of tires I've bought were Michelin LTXs but not the AT/2s. Not familiar with those. I've been putting them on Explorers (4wd) and a Nissan Frontier (2wd). The Explorers get around 70-80K miles on a set and the Frontier had about 90K miles on them and they still looked like they had a long, long ways to go. The "P" tires will give you a smoother ride but the "LT" tires have an extra sidewall if you happen to encounter rough terrain a lot. I've found the LTXs to be satisfactory in mud, light snow, and ice. I like them a lot better than the BFG All Terrain/TA tires with the agressive tread.
> Surprisingly, they were pretty price competitive with other similar tires. > > nate Mark Jones - 13 Mar 2009 01:03 GMT > The last several sets of tires I've bought were Michelin LTXs but not > the AT/2s. Not familiar with those. I've been putting them on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I like them a lot better than the BFG All Terrain/TA tires with the > agressive tread. I just put a set of these BFG tires on my 2004 F-150 4x4 and they work great. They roll right over most pot holes and seams in the road with little transfer of the shock to my truck. The ride is smoother now, even with the agressive tread.
Nate Nagel - 13 Mar 2009 01:38 GMT >> The last several sets of tires I've bought were Michelin LTXs but not >> the AT/2s. Not familiar with those. I've been putting them on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > road with little transfer of the shock to my truck. The ride is > smoother now, even with the agressive tread. I believe that the shop that installed my Michelins actually recommended those exact BFGs. I chose the Michelins simply because they were about the same price and I've had good luck with them in the past. So both are probably a decent choice.
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Ulysses - 13 Mar 2009 22:08 GMT > >> The last several sets of tires I've bought were Michelin LTXs but not > >> the AT/2s. Not familiar with those. I've been putting them on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the same price and I've had good luck with them in the past. So both > are probably a decent choice. Two of my BFGs had tread seperation and my tires store gave me full credit for them toward some new Michelins.
I also did not like the BFGs on an icy mountain trail. The Michelins seemed to handle that particular situation much better. I tried putting chains on them for the trip back and it was a nightmare trying to slip the chains past the tread. Plus the BFGs kick up a lot more dust on dirt roads which is basically just kinda rude to the car behind you and houses along the road. I have heard that the BFGs perform very well in sand and loose dirt but I rarely encounter those conditions.
> nate Nate Nagel - 14 Mar 2009 02:33 GMT >>>> The last several sets of tires I've bought were Michelin LTXs but not >>>> the AT/2s. Not familiar with those. I've been putting them on [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I have heard that the BFGs perform very well in sand and loose dirt but I > rarely encounter those conditions. FWIW the Michelin LTX AT/2s got lots of comments on Tire Rack about kicking up gravel and I have found that to be the case. Of course, there are less aggressive treads available, but I have a 2WD non-LSD pickup and do plan to use it in bad weather (I know, not the best choice, but I was unable to find a decent 4WD pickup in my price range, and MOST of my driving is done in at worst rain, and I hardly ever drive the thing, so it's not like noise or fuel economy are real concerns to me.)
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Ulysses - 15 Mar 2009 03:25 GMT > >>>> The last several sets of tires I've bought were Michelin LTXs but not > >>>> the AT/2s. Not familiar with those. I've been putting them on [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > nate Well, I currently have BFG All-Terrain/TAs on my old pickup that is also non-LSD and basically it makes driving on dirt roads worse in some ways. The tire used to spin and dig a small hole and now it digs a big hole really fast. They do, however, as someone pointed out, make small ruts and such disappear when driving over them. Of course I have learned how to deal with them and rarely get stuck mainly by starting out very, very slowly, sometimes in 2nd. They seem to help prevent sliding sideways on turns on dirt roads too.
William Newsome - 13 Mar 2009 16:25 GMT >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Thanks, >Bill Thanks to all for the information. I think the "BFG All Terrain/TA KO" tires are a good choice. At $172 each, it appears they will cost me about $200 a set more than other tires. I don't drive much, so these tires may last 15 years. An extra $200 for tires that will probably outlast my Ranger is not too much, I think.
Bill
Dave D - 14 Mar 2009 08:16 GMT >>Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bill From years of selling and installing tires, I can tell you that if "quiet" and "smooth" is what you are looking for, the BFG AT/TAs are NOT what you want. They are good, tough tires. They should last you quite a long time but ....... the tread compound is very hard, so they wear well but don't grip ice or hardpack snow well, and are not smooth riding. This is exacerbated by their rather inflexible sidewall compound. They don't flex very much which is good for rough, rocky terrain but ....... again they aren't smooth riding. Lastly, their tread pattern is a bit on the agressive side. Good for off road but not very quiet on paved surfaces. Just my experiences.....
DaveD
William Newsome - 14 Mar 2009 12:58 GMT >>>Hello, >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >DaveD I just got an email about buy 3/get 1 free Firestone A/T Destination tires.
The tirerack ratings are higher than the BFGs or Michelins.
After special, I should be able to get four for about $480, or a little less.
Bill
Ulysses - 15 Mar 2009 03:25 GMT > >>>Hello, > >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Bill I read some posts a while back about some tires that are becomming popular for Explorers and I think they were Firestones so maybe those are the ones. I really liked the Firestone Wilderness tires that got recalled. I seem to be the only one though.
William Newsome - 15 Mar 2009 04:12 GMT >> >>>Hello, >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >I really liked the Firestone Wilderness tires that got recalled. I seem to >be the only one though. Thanks to all for the suggestions. This has bee informative.
Bill
Old Crow - 15 Mar 2009 12:44 GMT >> >>>Hello, >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > to > be the only one though. *You*probably checked the air pressure regularly.
 Signature Old Crow '82 FLTC 'Pearl' '87 FLTC 'Fugly' '61 F-100 BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, SLOB#13, MAMBM
William Newsome - 15 Mar 2009 15:28 GMT >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Thanks, >Bill Errors at Firestone Shop: Mine, the Retail Location, or are they Dishonest?
I need 4 new tires for my 2002 Ranger 4x4 XLT Supercab. The "Destination A/T" tires I saw from the link seemed OK. I figured I got a fair/competitive price for a complete install: balancing, stems, taxes, disposal, etc at ~~$495 after buy3/1free. 8:00 AM Sunday morning appt. out before 9:00 AM. "Destination A/T" tires have great customer reviews at tirerack.com. Cool.
Yesterday, Saturday morning, from Firestone's online appt and ordering site, I ordered 4 15" tires. I incorrectly assumed all 4x4 Rangers with factory tires would take the same size replacements.
There was no option on their on-line order/appt web site for anything except 15" tires, certainly no 16" tires. I didn't know my truck needed 16" tires, I've never bought tires before. At the facility, I was told my 2002 Ranger 4x4 XLT Supercab needed 16 inch tires, my on-line order was for 15" tires.
After they got my truck up on the rack and dismounted one or more of the tires, I was told 16" would cost $45 extra over the 15" tires. Also I'd need to wait several hours until they got the correct tires from a near by town.
Next, the service manager offered me four other Firestone tires, he said were less cost. I could have all four for the $495 without a coupon and leave about 9:00 AM.
I told him no, I'd need to shop more. I may return in a couple days for my original "Destination A/T" tires, in the correct size.
Did the retail shop make an honest error by not checking with me for tire size before OK'ing the appointment? I think the tire retail shop people know to verify tire size before putting a vehicle up on a rack and removing the tires.
My options:
1. Wait to get the correct tires at a price 10% higher than quoted; 2. Buy other lesser rated tires now-on the spot, at about ~~$$495 3. Leave and MAYBE come back later for correct install ~~$$545, $0 now.
I chose 3.
Bill
Ulysses - 15 Mar 2009 17:20 GMT > >Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Bill I'd go somewhere else. I've bought my last several sets of tires from America's Tires and they have never made any stupid mistakes or gave me wrong information or any such thing. And the price they tell me is the price I get. Plus they never give me any crap if a tires gets destroyed--they just replace it under warranty. Also, their prices include mounting, balancing, and new valve stems etc. so their prices may *seem* higher but they really are not. IMHO they should have known what tires you needed or they should have found out.
William Newsome - 15 Mar 2009 18:07 GMT >> >Hello, >> > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >higher but they really are not. IMHO they should have known what tires you >needed or they should have found out. Thanks, I agree someone who knew about tire sizes for Rangers should have asked me well before the scheduled appointment.
They lost my business.
Bill
Hairy - 16 Mar 2009 05:23 GMT >>> >Hello, >>> > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Bill You are typical of so many, these days. Whenever you screw up, it's always someone elses fault. Face it, you ordered the tires without doing your homework, homework only you could do.
david - 15 Mar 2009 17:52 GMT >>Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Bill Perhaps next time, you can go outside and look at the tires on your vehicle to get the correct size from them, before you order new ones.
I'm not sure how you can blame the shop for your error. "They should have known that I am stupid" isn't really a good reason.
And, why would you expect them to give you the same price for a larger tire?
I think I know where the !!problems!! are in this case... not with Firestone.
TheHack - 15 Mar 2009 19:36 GMT > Errors at Firestone Shop: Mine, the Retail Location, or are they > Dishonest? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Bill I have the Destination L/E tires(P22570R15)on my 2 wheel drive Ranger. So far, so good. I drive mostly on paved roads, with snow cover sometimes.
I think you simply ran into a glitch with the web site. The mechanic I goto has had the wrong parts sent for my Ranger a few times from his parts vendor.
Try Bridgestone-Firestone's web site http://www.bridgestonetire.com/tireselector/Vehicle_BS_EN.aspx
One last thought, the local Firestone dealer will rotate and balance the tires they sell, as long as I own the vehicle, for free.
Some dealers in your area may have the same offer.
William Newsome - 15 Mar 2009 20:37 GMT >> Errors at Firestone Shop: Mine, the Retail Location, or are they >> Dishonest? [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >Some dealers in your area may have the same offer. Your site shows all sizes, thanks. If I saw multiple sizes (15 to 20 inches) for a Ranger 4x4, or if the associate would have asked, I would have gone out and looked.
This is the link I used that had only 15 inch for 2002 Rangers:
http://www.firestonecompleteautocare.com/offers/
Bill
Mach1 - 16 Mar 2009 00:36 GMT It's your responsibility to know what to order especially over the net. If you can't or won't check the size of tire, drive to a dealer and they will do all the work for you. Price? Yes may be higher but that probably means they can read the number off the tire.
Jeff Strickland - 16 Mar 2009 03:10 GMT >>Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Bill Your job when buying tires online is to look at the tires you already have and order more of the same size.
Tire size is clearly marked on every tire, generally it is the second largest pring on the tire, after the brand name. Given a truck tire, the size will be expressed something like 245/65x15.
245 This is the width of the tread. The actual measurement is the nominal width of the tire, not necessarily the width of the tread, but tread width is close enough for the purposes of this discussion.
65 This is the aspect ratio, which means the height of the side wall as a percentage of the tread width. 245/65 says that 65% of 245 is the height of the sidewall.
15 This is the diameter of the rim. If you buy a 245/65x16 to replace a 245/65x15, then you need new rims to hold the new tires. (You also will probably need new gearing because the tires will be larger than the current gearing can accomodate, in other words your power curve will move drastically and the result will be completely unsatisfactory.)
The tire store, ESPECIALLY the online version will not have any clue what tires you have on the truck already. It is completely unreasonable for you to expect them to know what is on your truck. The options are many.
You can increase the 245 number in increments of 5, 245 to 250, or 255, 260, etc., to the limit of the width of your rims. But, when you do that, you must decrease the aspect ratio so that the overall diameter of the tire does not grow so much that the gearing in the drive train is adversely affected. Assuming a current tire size of 245/65x15, you could buy 16 inch rims and put on a 245/55 or 245/60 x 16. The width remains the same, but the sidewall is smaller to offset the increase in the rim diameter. The end result is a tire that is a similar overall diameter as what you currently have. Alternatively, you can change from the mythnical 245/65x15 to a 265/45x15. This would give a sider tire with a sidewall that is essentially the same, so the overall diameter is suitable for the gearing in the driveline. (I pulled numbers out of my a.s to illustrate the point, you need your calculator to arrive at the real numbers.)
It is best, expecially if this is all very confusing, to look at what your current tire size is, and buy more of the same size. You can change the tread pattern but keep the size, and the gearing will not care in the least. If you are willing (able) to plug in a few variables into your calculator, you can alter the looks and performance of your truck with a new tire size. Your costraints are the diameter and the width of your rims. In a passenger car, you have constraints with the fender wells too, but on a truck this ought not be a problem.
Old Crow - 16 Mar 2009 11:35 GMT >>Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Bill Your mistake. You ordered 15" without looking. How could the tire store know you had 16's until they saw the truck. The truck is 8 years old, who knows what kind of wheels an owner might have put on it? You're cryin' on the internet because bigger tires are more expensive than the ones that you incorrectly ordered? Get over it.
 Signature Old Crow '82 FLTC 'Pearl' '87 FLTC 'Fugly' '61 F-100 BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, SLOB#13, MAMBM
|
|
|