Might find this article interesting. Granted it comes from the trucking industry, but they are saying that early generation super singles did cause more wear to the highways and they claim in the new models the difference is negligible.
I am running a super single set up and really am pleased. Michelin XZL with f load range 20" rims that have been fabricated. The tires hold up great for mileage and have steel belted sidewalls. I ca air down and road noise is not horrible. The tires are not too expensive if you get them over in the UK.
1999 F-350 CREW CAB 4X4 SRW SUPER SINGLES
7.3 Powerstroke 6 spd
Michelin XZL, Rancho 9000 w/remote
2004 Arctic Fox 1150 w/ solar
crazyfritz wrote: I am running a super single set up and really am pleased. Michelin XZL with f load range 20" rims that have been fabricated. The tires hold up great for mileage and have steel belted sidewalls. I ca air down and road noise is not horrible. The tires are not too expensive if you get them over in the UK.
Hey Fritz! Good to see you on the forum!
What size and weight rating are the tires and wheels?
Finally a topic I know something about. If you go back into the archive, I've written extensively about this topic. I guess I've been on here too long, as the super single circuit keeps coming around again and again.
There seems to be a fuzziness about what a super single is. Michelin came up with the term when they substituted a 16-18 inch wide tire on a 16 inch wide rim to take the place of a pair of duals. There are a couple cool websites with in-depth discussions about this concept. Other terms are 'wide-mo's', and Duplex (i think that was Firestone's entry).
Any tire that wants to call itself a super single must have the footprint and weight rating to supplant a pair of duals. Combat tires, slightly wider knobby tires, wide mud and snow tires need not apply. Almost none of the tires I saw above are 'super singles', just wider tires.
I have some wide tires, wide enough to supplant a pair of skinny duals in footprint,
(these are unmounted. The left tire is a wider than stock 285/75R16 BFG AT. The right is the now extinct M. T. LT375-65R16's)
but DO NOT have the weight carrying capy that two 2600 lb.rated, paired has. They are Mickey Thompson 33-15.50-R16's on 12" wide Mickey Thompson wheels. They are 32.8" in diameter (same as a 285x75R-16) and carry a 3750 pound, "E" load rating. For my small camper, a 7500 pound rear axle load rating is enough. My whole rig is only 10,000 pounds. My first set of really wide tires were 33-14.50's seen below on the same 12" wide wheels. They worked great, if noisy. I got them because I go off-road a lot, but they seem to work well in sand, mud and snow, probably becuase of the aggressive tread. What you need to know is that the rr track width is about 6" narrower than a set of stock duals, outside to outside.
You notice they're on 16 inch wheels. Why? Because they have a lot of sidewall compared to a 19" or 20" truck tire and you can air them down on the dunes and they float, unlike a 19" or 20".
Would I do it again? YUP. With a 6.5', short bed, almost all of the weight when loading the camper on goes directly over the rear axle. The next step is refashioning the fenders and installing four M.T. Baja MTZ Radials. #5268, LT375-65R16's. A 36X15.50R16 load range D, 3750 pound rating, rim size: 10-13", sect. width: 15", O.D. 35.4", the fronts on 10" wide, 6.5" back spaced rims, and the rears on the same 12" M.T.'s I've had so much success with. I'm not so worried about the 'D' rating, as the usual scenario is the wider the tire tread, the lower the letter rating: D, E. I'm putting my money on the pound count rating, which @ 3750 is good enough for me. The pigs will get 4.10's replacing the 3.55's. I worked out the math and they are very close in final drive gear ratios.
The front UNIT wheel bearings are a caution on these Dana 60 Dodge fronts, and as mentioned above on Chevy's, but I'm willing to change to the wide set bearings on the free wheeling hub swap.
The 12" wide Mickey Thompson wheels have a 3600 pound rating stamped on the inside. Still within my needs. For the front 10" wheels I will have to have some made with a 6.5" backspacing to keep the stress on the wheel bearings more centered. I have some alum. 10" wide wheels I tried on the front axle, but the clearance was bad even with only 33's. Because the wheel has a 4.5" backspacing, much of the wheel was outboard past the center of the stock narrow set wheel bearings, the tire swung out on a wide arc and hit the front and rear of the fender edge/lip. They had some more room to clear inside the fender well. Unintended consequences, I guess. You need to know that I've had no trouble with the rr axle bearings with those 12" W M.T. wheels, even with the 4.5" back spacing. The bearings, two sets, on a Dana 80, full-floating, are wide spaced and made to take it. Over the last 6 years with the wide-mo's, they have. It's the under built front axle that's not good with wheels hanging way out there. This is so evident with all the wide wheels with 4.5" B.S. you see on P.U.'s; the owners not knowing they are eating up the bearings as we speak.
regards, as always, jefe
* This post was
edited 02/02/12 10:41am by jefe 4x4 *
Jefe , thanks for chiming in , that's what I was asking about. A few questions . First off weight on my rear axle is 6700 fully loaded . Probably could use 285 E's ( 3750# )and be OK . There are several tires available with enough weight rating . The problem seems to be finding wheels with enough weight rating and hub-centric . What are your wheels rated for ? What offset ? I have a unique situation , my truck is a cab/chssis which has narrower frame rails . It just so happens that on this configuration the rear and front axle widths are the same as a 3500 SRW if you remove the front wheel spacer . On a DRW pickup the rear axle is wider.
ticki2 wrote: I have a unique situation , my truck is a cab/chssis which has narrower frame rails . It just so happens that on this configuration the rear and front axle widths are the same as a 3500 SRW if you remove the front wheel spacer . On a DRW pickup the rear axle is wider.
My cab/chassis is the same way. The rear duals are centered in line with the center of the front tires. On a dually pickup, the inside dual is centered in line with the front tire and the outside dual tracks completely to the outside of the front tire. My dual rears are 87" wide, instead of 93-96", which is common for dually pickups.
I have not measured the actual axle width and compared it to the axle width of my other F350's SRW axle, but I bet they are close. If not, I would say the cab/chassis axle is narrower than the SRW pickup axle. The DRW pickup axle for my year trucks is 4" wider than the SRW pickup axle.
I took a look at the Mickey Thompson wheel site and the highest rating they list now is 3100# , not quite enough , I could live with 3600# . Hang onto the ones you have .
I was really hoping not to have to go to custom wheels as I can't justify the coast for the amount of use I have for them. H2 wheels would do with 285 E's , but cannot find a rating for them either .
I'm a little gun shy with wheels since this happened to one of my inner duallies once.
Offline
