michelin-latitude-cross-235-55-r17-103-h-xl
I've run them before (slightly different size), @Loz runs them now (same size), they are Michelin to start with (that's very good imo); they last for ever(ish); and they do every terrain very well; and they look "well up for it and well hard
" maximise your T6's Utility.
I've run them before (slightly different size), @Loz runs them now (same size), they are Michelin to start with (that's very good imo); they last for ever(ish); and they do every terrain very well; and they look "well up for it and well hard
" maximise your T6's Utility.
Would you recommend these over the nokians if they are good all rounders, as they look around the same price. ?
I'm actually looking for summer tyres, I always run a set of winters, in the winter ....obviously. Has anyone run Kumho Ecsta 's. There are some very good prices on these at the mo. We have Kumho All seasons on my wife's car, which I'm happy with, but wondered how the Ecsta fair on something much heavier.
The Michelins LAT X are summer tyres, their rubber compound is designed for summer driving. They do carry the Mud&Snow "M&S" symbols; but this relates to the tread pattern with plenty of void spaces and sipes. As i understand it you can use them in winter in some European countries, but their rubber does not have all silica/silicon/oils etc etc that all-season/all-weather/winter tyres have.
The Mich Lat X don't have the "3PMSN" of true all/season winter tyres.
But they grip really well in all summer conditions and excellent in very wet /mud /wet grass, which given the August is often the wettest month in the UK it can be very handy if you ever venture of the the "black stuff" or the heavens open.
I now prefer the Nokians because they do pretty much everything the Michelins Lat X can do in summer, plus they really excel in winter ice snow etc etc; and I don't think specialist winter tyres are the way to go for general Uk driving, in most areas of the UK; because our temperatures don't get cold enough mostly; and also I can't be arsed to guess exactly when to swap the wheels/tyres from summer to winter and visa-versa, and all the other pita that does with sets of wheels/tyres
Having said that I think the Michelins would be more robust if you did a lot of un-made track driving in terms of punctures/side wall-tread damage; and they may have just a little bit more grip off road; etc etc
Sorry Don't have any experience of Kumho's
The Mich Lat X don't have the "3PMSN" of true all/season winter tyres.
But they grip really well in all summer conditions and excellent in very wet /mud /wet grass, which given the August is often the wettest month in the UK it can be very handy if you ever venture of the the "black stuff" or the heavens open.
I now prefer the Nokians because they do pretty much everything the Michelins Lat X can do in summer, plus they really excel in winter ice snow etc etc; and I don't think specialist winter tyres are the way to go for general Uk driving, in most areas of the UK; because our temperatures don't get cold enough mostly; and also I can't be arsed to guess exactly when to swap the wheels/tyres from summer to winter and visa-versa, and all the other pita that does with sets of wheels/tyres
Having said that I think the Michelins would be more robust if you did a lot of un-made track driving in terms of punctures/side wall-tread damage; and they may have just a little bit more grip off road; etc etc
Sorry Don't have any experience of Kumho's
Last edited:
Do you have Nokians at 235/55/R17 on your T6? And which ones are they please?
Jim101
New Member
Hi all - I am looking at changing to these:
Tyre Nokian Weatherproof SUV 235/65 R17 108H XL - Tyre Leader from the standard 235/55/ R17 - should I expect any unforeseen issues going from 55 to 65? I'm on standard suspension.
Have been doing quite a lot of research and would like the look of ATs but the above look better in the wet and all round performance (fuel efficiency / noise etc) as not going to get winter and summer tyres.
Thanks
Tyre Nokian Weatherproof SUV 235/65 R17 108H XL - Tyre Leader from the standard 235/55/ R17 - should I expect any unforeseen issues going from 55 to 65? I'm on standard suspension.
Have been doing quite a lot of research and would like the look of ATs but the above look better in the wet and all round performance (fuel efficiency / noise etc) as not going to get winter and summer tyres.
Thanks
That would be an jump up of "two sizes"; from an aspect ratio (profile) of 55 to 60 to 65.
About a 6.6% increase in gearing will be noticeable, even if you have a mapped 204, particularly setting off from a standing start when you have low torque and low power from an internal combustion engine, (unlike electrically powered cars/vans).
The diameter increase is 46mm; so thats 23mm more ground clearance; and 23mm more arch filling on all sides; but 23mm less suspension travel before you catch the wheel arch liner.
Size wise it will fit (you may or may not need a small spacer to avoid catching on full lock); I would fit a 25mm(min) spacer anyway for aesthetics. The only issue(s) is likely to be lowering, if you are lowered by more than 30mm it may bottom out on the plastic liners. Also if you run heavy loaded, you may just bottom on plastic wheel arch liners. You will also loose a mpg or 2.
I have run a very similar size wheel to your proposed for a couple of years on a T5, they do look really good imo, but for every reason other than looks, I prefer the slightly smaller 235/60/17.
Regarding AT's so long as your not a T32, if I wanted AT's I would go for Cooper Discoverer AT3 on 17" wheels in 235/60/17. If you do have a T32 you would need to run 235/65/17 for increase load rating; Again they look really good imo, and will be better off road; and less sustainable to damage; but as you have said there are also down sides compared to good quality all-weather/all-season/M+S/3pmsn tyres.
Lets us know how you get on!
About a 6.6% increase in gearing will be noticeable, even if you have a mapped 204, particularly setting off from a standing start when you have low torque and low power from an internal combustion engine, (unlike electrically powered cars/vans).
The diameter increase is 46mm; so thats 23mm more ground clearance; and 23mm more arch filling on all sides; but 23mm less suspension travel before you catch the wheel arch liner.
Size wise it will fit (you may or may not need a small spacer to avoid catching on full lock); I would fit a 25mm(min) spacer anyway for aesthetics. The only issue(s) is likely to be lowering, if you are lowered by more than 30mm it may bottom out on the plastic liners. Also if you run heavy loaded, you may just bottom on plastic wheel arch liners. You will also loose a mpg or 2.
I have run a very similar size wheel to your proposed for a couple of years on a T5, they do look really good imo, but for every reason other than looks, I prefer the slightly smaller 235/60/17.
Regarding AT's so long as your not a T32, if I wanted AT's I would go for Cooper Discoverer AT3 on 17" wheels in 235/60/17. If you do have a T32 you would need to run 235/65/17 for increase load rating; Again they look really good imo, and will be better off road; and less sustainable to damage; but as you have said there are also down sides compared to good quality all-weather/all-season/M+S/3pmsn tyres.
Lets us know how you get on!
The Michelins are great tyres I'm sure. I just went with the Nokians because their snow/mud abilities are slightly better, which is important to our use of the van. Although I think the Michelins would be slightly better in the dry.
Not tried the Nokians but the Cross Climates are 3 peak rated winter tyres too unlike the Latitude Cross
Yes, they all carry the same certs. I'm just going by test data, and looking at the tread pattern; I think many car owners go with the Michelins; and if I pushed a car hard in the dry i would pick the Michelins also.
Also I wanted the slightly larger tyre, so it had to be the Nokians, as Michelin don't do the 235/60/17 size I think
Jim101
New Member
Well I guess I am opening a can of worms I didn't realise - lol
As the van is a standard 101bhp currently and have no plans to remap until the warranty runs out next year the 6.6% increase in gearing will be a challenge moving to the 65 profile size looks to be a no go.
On the 65 profile front, I read yesterday that if opting for a bigger profile size then the width should be reduced, so the tyre size if I wanted 65s would be 215x65xr17 - does that make sense, rather than 235x65xr17 - I have to say I don't really understand all this........
And you're absolutely right, its more for the looks, we have no intention of lowering the van and thought the larger profile would look better, maybe go for the 60s instead as I guess the gearing won't be so bad?
Regarding spacers again perhaps something to do in the future but the priority is get the current tyres replaced, it would seem that I could just stick with the current
As the van is a standard 101bhp currently and have no plans to remap until the warranty runs out next year the 6.6% increase in gearing will be a challenge moving to the 65 profile size looks to be a no go.
On the 65 profile front, I read yesterday that if opting for a bigger profile size then the width should be reduced, so the tyre size if I wanted 65s would be 215x65xr17 - does that make sense, rather than 235x65xr17 - I have to say I don't really understand all this........
And you're absolutely right, its more for the looks, we have no intention of lowering the van and thought the larger profile would look better, maybe go for the 60s instead as I guess the gearing won't be so bad?
Regarding spacers again perhaps something to do in the future but the priority is get the current tyres replaced, it would seem that I could just stick with the current
IMO, 215's will always look under rubbered on a T6, why not go for 235/60/17 which is 1/2 way between your tyres now and the 235/65/17.
There are lots of web sites which explain how tyre sizes work, but basically
215 is the width of the tyres in mm = 215mm wide
65 is the aspect ratio (or profile) of the tyre expressed as a %. So for a 215 tyre with a 65 aspect ratio: the wall height is 215mm * (65/100) = 140mm of tyre wall
0r a 235 tyre with a 60 aspect ratio has a wall height of 235mm*(60/100)=141mm of tyre wall
17 is a 17" wheel diameter
so 235 is in mm
60 has no units it is just a ratio
17" is in inches
so a 215/65/17 is the same height as a 235/60/17; but the 235 is 20mm wider.
Just make sure your tyre can take (min) : 1/2 the max axel load of the heaviest axel (the rear axel mostly)
Jim101
New Member
@Scruffy sorry for highjacking your post.
@chriscroft thanks so much for the advice, going to go for the 235/60/17's.
Will let you know how I get on.
@chriscroft thanks so much for the advice, going to go for the 235/60/17's.
Will let you know how I get on.
Catalin
New Member
I found this , what do you think ?
Pneu Michelin 235/55 R17 103Y XL, 3PMSF | CrossClimate + | CentralePneus.fr
Pneu Michelin 235/55 R17 103Y XL, 3PMSF | CrossClimate + | CentralePneus.fr
