What brand of 6.00-16 or 6.50-16 bias ply tires that are available today drive the best? I need to get tires for my dad's 46 Ford sedan and for my 38 Ford coupe. I am looking for feedback from people who drive distances at speed, like 65 mph or more. Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences. Explanation for why I am asking the question: as life goes on I am getting more cars to be the caretaker for. While I appreciate the driving qualities of a good radial tire, I'm not up for replacing every tire in the fleet every ten years. I have one car that will continue to get radial tires, my 1953 Ford sedan. I put 20 to 30 thousand miles on that car per decade. The rest of the fleet, now including my dad's and brother's cars, will not rack up that kind of mileage. Bias ply tires go for years longer than the radials do, I need that reliability. Most of the time if I get an old car out of the garage I am going at least 100 miles, frequently on 70 mph roads. I need tires that drive straight and don't follow every bump or groove in the road. I have experienced vastly different driving qualities in bias ply tires. Years ago dad had a 41 Ford sedan with 6.00-16s that wandered the road so badly my brother got pulled over by an officer who thought he was driving drunk. A tire switch to different bias ply tires on that 41 resulted in a nice driving car. My 38 phaeton drives very nicely with 6.00-16 tires, and I thought I would simply get more of the same brand for the rest of the fleet. No go, the tires are Denman brand and I don't think they have made old car tires in a few decades. Of the tires available today, which ones drive the best?
I’ve driven on good years, Firestone’s and currently lestors. Can’t tell the difference between any of them.
Personal experience. The way I have seen the tires fail and the age before failure are both different. Steel belted radial tires fail by having the tread section peel off the carc***. I bet everyone by now has seen the results of this, with the tread hanging on to the rest of the tire, beating the **** out of the fender and anything else in the arc. This seems to happen when the tires are between 9 and 15 years old. Nylon cord bias ply tires fail by having chunks of the tread come off. Its like driving down a soft gravel road, not pleasant but not catastrophic. This seems to happen when the tires are 40+ years old.
Did a Google and AI search and can't find a single source that states that bias tires last longer than radials. What's you source, please? A single source/experience just won't do.
I expect that today's Bias tires are of a more "traditional" construction & do not age out like radial tires are widely believed to. A belted bias will always ride better & travel more miles than a non-belted tire. Maybe this is an option for you Oh, and nice problem to have
Another guy who has drunk the koolaide. You might want to read this post... Technical - How are we feeling about coker tires lately? | The H.A.M.B. The NHTSA determined that road hazards and underinflation are the main tire killers. They have declined making any recommendations about tire age as there is zero data to support it. This is why all cars built after 2008 have tire pressure monitoring systems. I'll also note that by most current tire retailers' policy, ANY tire over ten years old is 'expired', including bias ply.
We've had an old Hudson around with Lesters. Never really investigated how old they are, real good tires, they get driven on. But I don't even know if Lester is still around. I've spent time studying bias tires, and bought several from Coker. No complaints at all after the credit card paid off.
30+ years of driving 30s through 50s cars and trucks equipped with either bias ply or modern radials, and 30+ years of driving modern boring vehicles with modern radial tires. Also 30+ years of being around friends with both old cars and modern cars. I have a good friend with a big fleet of old vehicles who regularly purchases tires taken off restored vehicles when the restored vehicle owner purchases new bias ply at year 6 or whatever the sales person convinces them is the replacement age for all tires. My friend's bias ply tires seem to fail at about the 40 year age mark. All the above is true only if the tires are not let go flat, and are not driven under inflated. As a group we are good about checking tire pressure before heading out. Our tire failures are from age, not under inflation.
A few facts. Apologies in advance for being long winded, but this continues to come up, so I’ll recap ( no pun intended) Bias BELTED tires? Today’s bias PLY tires are not belted, with polyester nor steel. The manufacturers USED to regularly make polyester belted bias ply tires but discontinued when radials came onto the scene and killed the market. There may be a few lines still made for authentic restoration, but the numbers are minute. Small production numbers mean HIGH prices and wide gaps in production. The current production tires are straight bias ply construction with the body plies running at an angle, from bead to bead. NO belt package. Like a farm tire. Definitely old technology, but so is a flathead V8. Radial construction tires have the body plies running straight across from bead to bead (radially) Then there is a belt package of either steel or polyester applied cir***ferentially around the radial carc***. This for tread stability, and penetration protection, and may be made up of different layers. The lower rolling resistance of the radial construction is responsible for the increased mileage. The belt package also helps the mileage with penetration protection, tread stabilization for even wear, and less rolling resistance As @Crazy Steve has said now and before, most tire failures are from under inflation for the load and road hazards! It’s the BELT package that separates from the RADIAL body (casing) and beats the vehicle’s body up. The separation can be caused by heat buildup from under inflation, impact break, or penetration from an object. The catastrophic failure (i.e “BLOWOUT”) is the LAST of a preceding event or events. Some events, like an impact break may not be visible outwardly, but can break the belt. A cut or penetration may not deflate the tire but weakens the belt package and allows water and/or air to be forced into the belt on every revolution equal to the psi of weight on the tire! Over time the belt is compromised and separates. There may be issues with the radial casing that show up, but rarely lead to failure, such as raised body ply separation, bead cracking, liner separation from miscure, but seldom in p***enger tires. The final inspections are stringent and the offenders are s****ped. No more blems. In my past career, I have examined many THOUSANDS of tires doing s**** ****ysis. There are definite and conclusive signatures and facts that repeatedly lead to the initial cause of failure.
I respect your experience, but you've still got an unscientific, very small sample size. You'll end up doing what's right for you and we wish you the best. I'll see your 30+ years of driving-and raise you 30. Bias plies win on looks, radials win on everything else. JMHO
I'd take a look at the new Coker Excelsior Roadster Radial tires. They look like bias tires but are radial construction. A little pricey but will improve the drive ability of both your cars.
@hotrodA Thanks for the info. I would add as a bystander that what experience anyone had 50 years ago is probably not directly related to a product as complex as a tire today. It may look the same, might even use the same mold, but the composition and chemistry is going to be different. Just as lead and asbestos have been phased out of other products, I can't imagine that a tire factory is using the same materials today that were used back then. Apples to Oranges. I would also say that unless someone does a direct comparison on a similar car, it is going to be very tough to get a good feedback on such a niche product. A tire that works as you want on a coupe at 65 MPH will exhibit different characteristics on a light fenderless roadster run harder, for example.
The Jalopy Journal
