(19-12-2012, 10:49 PM)FeuxLingo Wrote:  I've got 195/40R17 on 7.5 wide wheels. 205/50 would be terribly overgeared from the stock tyre size of 175/65R14

Mines a Mk3. Came as standard on 205/65R15s... Don't want to go smaller - it's undergeared as it is at motorway speeds!

(19-12-2012, 10:49 PM)FeuxLingo Wrote:  

(19-12-2012, 10:46 PM)nicebiscuit Wrote:  

(19-12-2012, 10:28 PM)Gollycrush Wrote:  205/50/17 unless you want scuffing problems on inner arches. The extra 10mm as you suggest ( 215 ) will cause all sorts of problems, trust me ive tried. ( On a Mk 2 that is, couldnt comment for a Mk3 )

Makes sense given it's a 6.5J wheel, thinking about it. I think the aftermarket stuff I was looking when I worked out the sizes was 7 inch hence the bigger rubber.

All the more reason to track down a set of those.

Did I mention how good the seats look by the way. The effort required to get them to fit doesn't bear thinking about but you must be pleased with the result. That's got to be the poshest looking Berlingo on the road.

I've got 195/40R17 on 7.5 Jwide wheels. 205/50 would be terribly overgeared from the stock tyre size of 175/65R14

Youve done well to get a 195/40/17 on a 7.5 J Wheel. And a "7.5 J wheel on a Berlingo". eh, Got a picture

(19-12-2012, 11:17 PM)Gollycrush Wrote:  Youve done well to get a 195/40/17 on a 7.5 J Wheel. And a "7.5 J wheel on a Berlingo". eh, Got a picture

Tyres blew on without issue, no messing about, seated easily and inflated with an air line. No proper pictures yet as I'm in the process of lowering the rear, and the beam assembly is in bits on the floor.

Have this sneaky one though.

[Image: 2012-11-22213917.jpg]

---

Also, I don't know why you stuck a J in my quoted post. The tyre bead seat profile is irrelevant here.

(20-12-2012, 10:54 AM)FeuxLingo Wrote:  

(19-12-2012, 11:17 PM)Gollycrush Wrote:  Youve done well to get a 195/40/17 on a 7.5 J Wheel. And a "7.5 J wheel on a Berlingo". eh, Got a picture

Tyres blew on without issue, no messing about, seated easily and inflated with an air line. No proper pictures yet as I'm in the process of lowering the rear, and the beam assembly is in bits on the floor.

Have this sneaky one though.

[Image: 2012-11-22213917.jpg]

---

Also, I don't know why you stuck a J in my quoted post. The tyre bead seat profile is irrelevant here.

And your going to drive this! illyme:

Must have the turning circle at best of a supertanker.

Does the wheel not have "J" in the specification mark

From your picture it appears the front wheel has a 5 stud pattern as 3 are visible from the angle shown. so depending on the depth of the hubcentric fitted, and for the 7.5 J wheel, the wheel without a tyre would be restricted by the inner arch.

Thank you for your informed reply. There are a number of issues to address.

1. I already do drive it, and have done for over a month.
2. The turning circle is as from the factory.
3. The wheel may well have a J mark in it, that is no reason for you to insert it into my quoted post, and as it refers to the tyre seat profile, has no relevance to the discussion, hence its omission.
4. The wheels are Peugeot 5008 steels, are 4x108 in PCD with an offset of ET28. A 10mm hubcentric spacer was required to prevent fouling on the strut tube, there is no interference with the inner arch on full lock.

[quote='FeuxLingo' pid='32840' dateline='1356013341']

You Quote,

1. I already do drive it, and have done for over a month. Your a brave man.
2. The turning circle is as from the factory. impossible
3. The wheel may well have a J mark in it, that is no reason for you to insert it into my quoted post, and as it refers to the tyre seat profile, has no relevance to the discussion, hence its omission. The "J" is there for a reason. your choice of tyre section is 10mm less than that for a 6.5 J specified wheel and ideally 30mm less for as you quote a 7.5 J.
4. The wheels are Peugeot 5008 steels, are 4x108 in PCD with an offset of ET28. A 10mm hubcentric spacer was required to prevent fouling on the strut tube, there is no interference with the inner arch on full lock. With 10mm hubcentric and the 7.5 J wheel would set the inner clearance still 19mm closer than the standard. Furthermore there is even less inner clearance on the rear.

(20-12-2012, 03:36 PM)Gollycrush Wrote:  [quote='FeuxLingo' pid='32840' dateline='1356013341']

You Quote,

1. I already do drive it, and have done for over a month. Your a brave man.
2. The turning circle is as from the factory. impossible
3. The wheel may well have a J mark in it, that is no reason for you to insert it into my quoted post, and as it refers to the tyre seat profile, has no relevance to the discussion, hence its omission. The "J" is there for a reason. your choice of tyre section is 10mm less than that for a 6.5 J specified wheel and ideally 30mm less for as you quote a 7.5 J.
4. The wheels are Peugeot 5008 steels, are 4x108 in PCD with an offset of ET28. A 10mm hubcentric spacer was required to prevent fouling on the strut tube, there is no interference with the inner arch on full lock. With 10mm hubcentric and the 7.5 J wheel would set the inner clearance still 19mm closer than the standard. Furthermore there is even less inner clearance on the rear.

1. There is nothing to be brave about it. (It's 'you're' by the way, not 'your'.)
2. Kindly do not tell me about my own van, which I drive on a daily basis, and whether I have full factory turning circle or not. The steering goes quite happily to the lockstops in either direction, without any interference. If you are so sure, I will drive the vehicle to your home, where you can inspect it, then hand over £1000 for being wrong. If you are right, I will hand £1000 over to you instead. If you choose not to accept this, you obviously have doubts of the credability of your own statement.
3. Regardless of my tyre selection, the tyre bead seat profile has NOTHING to do with either the width of the wheel or the tyre, hence its omission.
4. You are again making assumptions about a vehicle which is not yours, and you have not seen or driven. It has 10mm hubcentric spacers fitted and does not contact with the inner arch. Again, I am willing to drive to your house for your to inspect and confirm this, if you agree to hand over £1000 as an admission of your being wrong in your assumption. If you are correct, I will hand £1000 over to you instead. You mention the rear, which we have not been covered previously. This has 20mm hubcentric spacers.

[quote='FeuxLingo' pid='32844' dateline='1356020663']
[quote='Gollycrush' pid='32842' dateline='1356017767']
[quote='FeuxLingo' pid='32840' dateline='1356013341']



I will decline your offer to physicall show me you're vehicle so you can save the finances that you wager so some seriously dangerous and ill fitting tyres can be replaced, on 7.5 J wheels. As long as you're convinced thats all that matters.illyme:

(20-12-2012, 05:04 PM)Gollycrush Wrote:  1. There is nothing to be brave about it. (It's 'you're' by the way, not 'your'.) 2. Kindly do not tell me about my own van, which I drive on a daily basis, and whether I have full factory turning circle or not. The steering goes quite happily to the lockstops in either direction, without any interference. If you are so sure, I will drive the vehicle to your home. It's 'you're' by the way doesnt, sorry doesn't apply now then.

I will decline your offer to physicall show me you're vehicle so you can save the finances that you wager so some seriously dangerous and ill fitting tyres can be replaced, on 7.5 J wheels. As long as you're convinced thats all that matters.illyme:

Er, no.

'You're' is a contraction of 'you are', whereas 'your' is a possessive pronoun. I am not driving to 'you are' house, therefore you cannot contract it to 'you're', I am driving to 'your' house, as in the house belonging to you.

Thank you for acknowledging that my statements regarding my own vehicle are correct, and I am convinced, thanks.

(20-12-2012, 05:25 PM)FeuxLingo Wrote:  

(20-12-2012, 05:04 PM)Gollycrush Wrote:  1. There is nothing to be brave about it. (It's 'you're' by the way, not 'your'.) 2. Kindly do not tell me about my own van, which I drive on a daily basis, and whether I have full factory turning circle or not. The steering goes quite happily to the lockstops in either direction, without any interference. If you are so sure, I will drive the vehicle to your home. It's 'you're' by the way doesnt, sorry doesn't apply now then.

I will decline your offer to physicall show me you're vehicle so you can save the finances that you wager so some seriously dangerous and ill fitting tyres can be replaced, on 7.5 J wheels. As long as you're convinced thats all that matters.illyme:

Er, no.

'You're' is a contraction of 'you are', whereas 'your' is a possessive pronoun. I am not driving to 'you are' house, therefore you cannot contract it to 'you're', I am driving to 'your' house, as in the house belonging to you.

Thank you for acknowledging that my statements regarding my own vehicle are correct, and I am convinced, thanks.

im certainly not acknowledging your statements as correct and as previously stated "as long as you are convinced is all that matters"

i had realized my grammar mistakes but thanks for the English lesson..