List
Reminds me of the time in the mid 90's when i wanted to put ARE 767
black wheels on my
92 dakota.
The female rep from ARE said they did not manufacture them for a 92 dakota.
I bought a set from Pep Boys on the way home.
I e-mailed her pictures of them on my truck the next day.
I never heard any thing back
rob/ferts/phx
rob lipinski
>
> The subjects discussed in this digest are:
> ==========
> DML: was: R/T tires now Barry venting
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:54:38 -0500
> From: Barry Oliver <barrysuperhawk@comcast.net>
> Subject: DML: was: R/T tires now Barry venting
>
> Brian wrote:
>
>> The only reason you can get away with that wide of a wire is because of the
>> height of your sidewalls. A stock R/T would be pushing it to squeeze some
>> 31's into the fenderwells on the front, but they'd fit fine on the rear.
>> With the shorter sidewall, any decent tire shop won't mount anything wider
>> than a 285 on a 9" rim.
>>
>> brian cropp
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I hate "decent" tire shops that try to tell me they won't do
> something that I know for a fact works, and am willing to pay for. I
> actually had a SEARS that refused to sell and install 2 new 325's they
> had on clearance because their stupid tire book didn't list my truck in
> it. Even when I pointed out that I was ALREADY USING that exact tire.
>
> I get sooooo sick of the whole "it's because of the liability" argument
> being used as a catch all for not doing anything... Like any tire shop
> has ever been sued for putting wide tires on a truck before. I just had
> a run in with this mentality [or lack thereof] today and ended up
> getting boned because a stupid lady wouldn't listen to me.
>
> At first I didn't understand what you were getting at about the
> sidewalls, but now I do, and you are right, a 325/50r17, for example,
> would require a wider rim because there would be less "pooch".
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 01 2009 - 00:37:00 EDT