Jump to content
Ford Galaxy Owners Club

Recommended Posts

Posted

hi guys!

 

Is it me or do Galaxys eat front tyres?

 

i have a mk2 2005 model 1.9tdi AUTO box  and have fitted 215/55/16 97w tyres all round and inflate to 41psi front  and 38 rear tyres as per manual but find the front tyres are wearing quick. (rear ones wearing out slower).

does it have anything to do with the type of rubber used (hard rubber = slower wear , soft rubber the opposite kind of thing?

 

what does the 97 w mean?   

 

Input greatly appreciated!

Posted (edited)

97 is the load rating and the w is the speed rating. you can check your supposed recommended tyres on sites like http://www.blackcircles.com/order/reglookup

 

front wheel drive cars do run through front tyres quicker than the back, but what are you classing as quick (miles? type of driving?) Also is it regular wear across the tread or uneven?

 

Final thing to consider is the tyres you are using of course? some brands/types do last longer.

 

Theres also a breakdown of the various bits of the tyre markings > See http://www.blackcircles.com/general/sidewall

Edited by BrianH
Posted

Mine seems to have gone through front tyres completely in about 18k, rears still got around 4mm left. Also the diesel engine AFAIK generally means the front wears quicker due to the extra weight of the engine in comparison to the petrol variants. Mines a MK1 petrol.

Posted

97 is the load rating and the w is the speed rating. you can check your supposed recommended tyres on sites like http://www.blackcircles.com/order/reglookup

 

front wheel drive cars do run through front tyres quicker than the back, but what are you classing as quick (miles? type of driving?) Also is it regular wear across the tread or uneven?

 

Final thing to consider is the tyres you are using of course? some brands/types do last longer.

 

Thanx BrianH!

I do mostly city driving, some m/way, about 15k p.a!  wear is even across tyres , had Tracking done using an Advanced Hunter balancer, (allegedly very accurate i'm told) as f/tyres were wearing on the inside, was 1 degree out ..am a careful driver, not heavy footed (in the vain hope i'll get max economy, esp at current fuel prices,,,n Fast is really fuellish..lol

Posted

I am using Kumho tyres at the moment and find them a good all rounder. They are a fairly hard compound so they wear slower but amazingly offer good grip in the wet as well. You normally find them fitted on new Kia cars. I got them for

Posted

I am using Kumho tyres at the moment and find them a good all rounder. They are a fairly hard compound so they wear slower but amazingly offer good grip in the wet as well. You normally find them fitted on new Kia cars. I got them for

Posted

I took a worn out pair of Marshal Matrac KH35 tyres off the front this summer, another Kumho brand. They were very highly rated in the Auto Express tyre tests at the time, beating many premium tyres, so I thought I would give them a go. They have been great tyres all round, with decent grip in all weathers, and I would happily fit them again. IIRC I paid about

Posted (edited)

I always fit Continental Premium Contact 2 (215/60 R15 98H XL) and get aound 45k per set. I swap them back to front at around 25k so change all 4 four at once. I run at 33psi front and 31 psi rear empty and 34psi front and 40psi rear if fully laden.

 

Mine is a Mk1 90bhp tdi btw.

Edited by seatkid
Posted

Currently using Goodyear Optigrip all round - wearing slowly on the front - very pleased with them

Wear has always been negligible on the back whatever fitted - last time I had to replace rear tyres they still had 5mm tread but sidewalls were looking tired -they were 5 years old so thought better to replace

Posted

I believe that tyre wear is usually proportional to fuel consumption. i.e driving style and traffic/road conditions etc. I fall into a similar category as Seatkid with 40-45K on fronts and everlasting on rears along with 45 - 50 mpg. That is over 100k in MKI and 70K in MKII. The MKII was heavier on both than the MKI which I put down to the lower profile wider tyres. This seems to carry through to the MKIII which seems to be heading for less than 20K all round struggling to better 40mpg with 17" run flats. I think it's called "Progress".

Posted

I think that's probably true, ours drives primarily on local rural roads, lots of corners and bends, and poorly surfaced in areas.

 

I also had to replace the back tyres due to cracking, and a looming MOT. I'm glad I did as the cracks in the root of the tread were a lot worse than they looked, once off the rim.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...