1aquaholic
Adventurer
Looking at the thier 17" double D wheels. What are your thoughts? Anyone running them on an FG?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Trail Worthy Fab
- Thread starter 1aquaholic
- Start date
skippythedog
Observer
I gave them a call this morning and must say I'm pretty impressed. The split wheel, double bead lock means relatively painless field tire changes (albeit a bit slower). He's a big proponent of the Toyo tires and said that he's had some of his assemblies w/ Toyo MT's require absolutely no corrective weight to balance. His wheels are not reversible, so he suggested hubcentric spacers (by Motor Tech in Sparks, NV) for the rear to achieve proper tracking (I called, $250 each). He did say he's done 4-5 for Fuso owners and indicated that the 6 bolt pattern is identical to the Rockwell pattern (heretofore unknown to me).....I'm not terribly confident about measuring and specifying my own offsets etc. so I'm hoping to uncover/extrapolate a usable recipe from other FG owners......
Family Friendly 4x4
Adventurer
Off-set
The off-set for the rims on a FG84 is 100mm.
PS. I have also heard of folks using a 90mm off-set which should be fine also, but to my knowledge 100mm is more accurate.
I am sure we could get a few comments on this?
The off-set for the rims on a FG84 is 100mm.
PS. I have also heard of folks using a 90mm off-set which should be fine also, but to my knowledge 100mm is more accurate.
I am sure we could get a few comments on this?
Last edited:
ericvs
Active member
I am going to chime in here as I have been helping 1aquaholic choose tires for his fuso.
The tires that TWF suggests (Toyo Open Country M/T 37x13.5R17) seem great, but only have a weight rating of 4289lbs. This is below the weight rating of his rear axle. He/we are not comfortable going below this value. These are also the highest rated R17 tires that we have been able to find, which takes the TWF rims off the table, unfortunately. Does anyone know of any higher rated R17 tires?
I did find this link (which I am sure all the fuso guys have already seen):
http://www.trucksupersingles.com.au/testing-and-techicnal.html
He paid for some SAE testing and determined that the R17 Hankooks (on a R17 Iveco rim) tested much higher than the rating from the manufacturer (on the Hankook site, the RT03 37x12.5R17 is rated at 3527lbs and the 35x12.5R17 is rated at 3197lbs).
So that being said, the 4289lbs will 'probably' be ok, but hard to stomach the decision. The split R17 TWF rim seems like a very good option, if the R17 tires were up to the task.
gait
Explorer
Tyres are one of those items on the truck where I like a bit of margin. At the extreme one tyre that can take all the load on the axle. Also take the load at reasonable speed (without getting hot) when aired down for sand. Also margin for puncture avoidance and side wall damage.
Depends what the vehicle will be used for.
Family Friendly 4x4
Adventurer
We are having the same issue in South Africa. The best tyres available here is a Cooper A/T Maxx Discoverer 37x12.5 R17 with a payload of 3525lbs see https://www.coopertyres.co.za/Tyres/View/13
The best 17" tyre by numbers by far is the Australian Trackmaster 37x12.5 R17 131N with a payload of a wopping 4299lbs! See http://www.trucksupersingles.com.au/tyres.html
But we cannot import loose tyres into South Africa so we are stuck with the Cooper tyre.
javajoe79
Fabricator
I agree on having a margin that is why I wonder about the vehicle in questions weight.
There is a margin built into that rating, hence the relatively "low" number.
I am quite surprised that you found a 37" tire for a 17" wheel that is rated at #4300. That is approaching commercial or military tire weight ratings (Michelin XZL, Continental MPT81, etc).
I would not expect the tire to fail at 4350 or 4400, but it will fail at some point, if overloaded. Alternatively, its life will be greatly reduced, if loaded at or slightly over the limit, long term.
If you are not comfortable with the "healthy" margin built in by the OEM or you are going to be near the weight rating, then I would argue that it's the wrong tire for your application. Having #8000 on the rear (SRW, single axle) is a LOT of weight IMO.
An MPT 81 in a "roughly" 37" size equivalent is rated at #4674 on a 14 ply tire. No Toyo or Nitto street truck tire is going to have 14 plies. These tires are quite temperature and speed sensitive, especially when heavily loaded. Max speed rating is 68 MPH, commonly rated at 62 MPH.
If you are off roading, a 14 ply tire is not going to air down like a Light Truck tire does. Further it is not going to ride as well on the road due to the stiff carcass and heavy sidewalls, which is what allows it to carry such heavy loads.
I am quite surprised that you found a 37" tire for a 17" wheel that is rated at #4300. That is approaching commercial or military tire weight ratings (Michelin XZL, Continental MPT81, etc).
I would not expect the tire to fail at 4350 or 4400, but it will fail at some point, if overloaded. Alternatively, its life will be greatly reduced, if loaded at or slightly over the limit, long term.
If you are not comfortable with the "healthy" margin built in by the OEM or you are going to be near the weight rating, then I would argue that it's the wrong tire for your application. Having #8000 on the rear (SRW, single axle) is a LOT of weight IMO.
An MPT 81 in a "roughly" 37" size equivalent is rated at #4674 on a 14 ply tire. No Toyo or Nitto street truck tire is going to have 14 plies. These tires are quite temperature and speed sensitive, especially when heavily loaded. Max speed rating is 68 MPH, commonly rated at 62 MPH.
If you are off roading, a 14 ply tire is not going to air down like a Light Truck tire does. Further it is not going to ride as well on the road due to the stiff carcass and heavy sidewalls, which is what allows it to carry such heavy loads.
1aquaholic
Adventurer
Oh man I can't believe how much time I put into wheel decisions!
Here's where I'm at. All systems and tanks are installed so the only thing left is the living quarters above the subfloor which will be foam composite paneling, lots of windows, lots of solar flexible panels, and the standard kitchen and fridge, bed bench seats, and table.
Right now with all fluids but no living quarters I'm at 4780 over the rear axle with a load rating of 9480.
I think I'm finally going to pull the trigger today with Trail Worthy Fab double beadlock Wheels that are 17 inch. Talking to Andy at length I'm very happy with his work and philosophy on wheels. He's never had his wheels tested but they are based off of similar specs on the Hummer Wheels but built with better tolerances in the bolt pattern and gaskets. He says the minimum load rating would be 3850 but believes them to be higher. So 2 x 3850 is 7700 worst case scenario is I'm derating my rear axle by 1780. Since I'm at 4780 now I can't imagine adding 3000 lb I think worst case scenario is I'll add 2000.
The plan is I'll buy six wheels and something like the Toyo Mt 37 which are rated at 4300 lb. Because of the double beadlocks and The Rock rings I won't be able to rotate wheels from front to back so I'll have one spare for the front and one for the back.
Looking for any feedback on this, give me your thoughts! Thanks
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Here's where I'm at. All systems and tanks are installed so the only thing left is the living quarters above the subfloor which will be foam composite paneling, lots of windows, lots of solar flexible panels, and the standard kitchen and fridge, bed bench seats, and table.
Right now with all fluids but no living quarters I'm at 4780 over the rear axle with a load rating of 9480.
I think I'm finally going to pull the trigger today with Trail Worthy Fab double beadlock Wheels that are 17 inch. Talking to Andy at length I'm very happy with his work and philosophy on wheels. He's never had his wheels tested but they are based off of similar specs on the Hummer Wheels but built with better tolerances in the bolt pattern and gaskets. He says the minimum load rating would be 3850 but believes them to be higher. So 2 x 3850 is 7700 worst case scenario is I'm derating my rear axle by 1780. Since I'm at 4780 now I can't imagine adding 3000 lb I think worst case scenario is I'll add 2000.
The plan is I'll buy six wheels and something like the Toyo Mt 37 which are rated at 4300 lb. Because of the double beadlocks and The Rock rings I won't be able to rotate wheels from front to back so I'll have one spare for the front and one for the back.
Looking for any feedback on this, give me your thoughts! Thanks
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Haf-E
Expedition Leader
So you are not going with the spacer approach to allow front/rear rotations ? Why not? With the spacer there is the same load placed on the wheel bearings as having wheels with different offsets/backspacing front and rear.
What is the wheel width and backspacing you settled on? Just curious what your basis is as I have a friend who it trying t make a similar decision.
What is the wheel width and backspacing you settled on? Just curious what your basis is as I have a friend who it trying t make a similar decision.
ericvs
Active member
Based on the builders guide, I calculated a wheel offset - CL of tire to mounting surface of rim - (not backspace) of +90mm for the front rim and -90mm for the rear rim to get the tires in the same track. I am no expert on this, so if someone could check my maths, that would be amazing. Also, I believe that TWF is going to figure the spacing out, and he knows what he is doing.
Here are the sheets that I used:
Front axle
Rear axle
Tire and tim info.
Now for an 10" wide rim, I calculate the backspacing (back of rim to mounting surface) to be:
217mm (8 9/16") Front
37mm (1 7/16") Rear
It is also interesting that Mitsubishi says offset is CL of tire to face of rim.
Here is what I based my calculations on:
Here are the sheets that I used:
Front axle
Rear axle
Tire and tim info.
Now for an 10" wide rim, I calculate the backspacing (back of rim to mounting surface) to be:
217mm (8 9/16") Front
37mm (1 7/16") Rear
It is also interesting that Mitsubishi says offset is CL of tire to face of rim.
Here is what I based my calculations on:
Last edited: