Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Having determined from the service lit that the OEM for my 54 Cavalier was 8.00" X 15", this computes to eight inches across the width of the tire and a 15 inch rim.

I have been shopping the dealers which include Coker, Lucas, Dimond Back, and anybody else I can find.

I think I want Radials with something like a 3" plus WW. I fear the 235/175r15 my fit too close to the fender bead on the rear and I don't want any rubbing on the front

There is a General Tire 800X15 which I assume is a new size designation.

Sorry to drag this thread through the mud but I need tires and I don't want to ship in something that won't fit.

Jim

There is a General Tire 800X15 which I assume is a new size designation.

No, the 800x15 is not a "new" size designation, it is the size originally supplied on the 55/56 Packard line (760x15 on the Clippers). If you're speaking of the "General" mold tire sold by Kelsey Tire (and perhaps others), they were the first new tires I put on the 56 Carib. Good appearance, correct whitewall width for the era, etc. But they proved quite unsatisfactory with respect to tread life/wear. In about 7000 miles they were badly worn. After a comment to Kelsey Tire he offered to pay to have 1 dismounted and returned to him, and thereafter he offered me a set of GoodYear 235/75 radials at an extremely generous discount for my trouble. The GoodYears have great appearance, a bit noisy as to road noise as they are an M+S tread pattern, but are otherwise a very nice tire. Ride with the radials is as you'd expect a bit harsher, handling was excellent with the bias-ply and is perhaps a tad better with the radials but not a big difference. Front end condition (absence of wear) and corrent alignment is just a bit second to tire type in terms of factors affecting handling.

Attach file:

---

  (115.61 KB)

Is there another designation or a link for that General 800x15 that would indicate it is modern? Doing a search by that number, it comes up as one only sold by Lucas Classic Tire. New Generals (and Yokohama & Bridgestone) seem to have some kind of series designation their sizes fall under. Without that name a search is proving difficult.

I gave up trying to find the blackwall Bridgestone or Yokahama locally that was mentioned being used by another poster on his Clipper. The 700R15 designation doesn't come up on any of the tire store computers without a tire series to go with it. Closest I could find in that size was under the Yokohama RY215 series but it came up as an offroad truck tire and the tread appears fairly aggressive. The Brigestone mentioned did come up at Sam's Club but doesn't seem to be easily available in Calif anymore. Possibly the General 800x might also be the same situation.

I am still leaning toward the Diamondback 700R15. That is available in several wide WW widths, seems to be slightly narrower than the 235/75's but with the large diameter needed for the speedo gear. One poster says it is a truck tire. DB lists it as a heavy duty suitable replacement for the old 720, 800 and 820-15's with no ride compromise. I believe there are one or two posters here using it but is more expensive than the Lucas Tire 800x. Comparable to DB's 235/75's.

If you want modern inexpensive radials, Riki posted that mention of Online Tire. Searching the site, there were numerous tires in the 225-235 size we need. Some at way less cost than any of our usual sources and then going up to comparable prices. Didn't see any wide WW but there were some blackwalls.

Is there another designation or a link for that General 800x15 that would indicate it is modern?

At the time I bought them (about 1998) they were factory-fresh new tires, bias ply of course. Why not search the old fashioned way, pick up the phone and call Kelsey Tire. The General 800x15 no longer shows on his website so perhaps it's NLA.http://www.kelseytire.com/home.html

BTW, Packard certainly always bought from several tire manufacturers; in 1955/56 General was one of them. The Howard Hughes/Jean Peters 55 Caribbean has unquestioned originality, when it was first photo-documented back in the 70s it had only a few hundred miles on it. If you look at the photo of the trunk you'll note the original General 800x15 tire.

I'm still sorting this out.

I am looking for a usable L78.15 so I can have a spare until I can afford to replace all the tires.

I was referred to Cheaptiresandwheels.com

I looked at the General 800X15

I'm looking at a Diamond Back 700R15 which has cross section of 7.7 inches and a diameter of 29.5 inches and the WW can be up to 3 ? inches, this is a radial.

The OEM size says 8.00" X 15" so is a tire size of 800X15 the same just no decimal point in the measurement which hopefully is inches, not metric.

My old L78's were used when I first got them and old. When the left front failed, The tread was more worn on that one especicially the inside edge which wore through enough to have a slow blowout, I was stopped at a light and it went SSSSSSSSSS. Driving the half a block to get off the road was a nightmare and could be fatal on a freeway.

I assume alignment is needed and I have new kingpins I need to replace.

Jim

800x15 and 8.00x15 are just two different ways of expressing the same size. And it's the English measurement system, not metric.

BTW, I don't have my size conversion chart handy but I think, within the Letter series tires, the L78 is quite a bit larger than the equivalent of the 800x15; I'd think the H78 is probably a closer match. Perhaps someone will post a chart, or correct me if I recall this incorrectly.

Here is chart with sizes and od for each the width of tread and cross section can usually be found on tech specs for tire manufacturer cheaper tires are normally smaller
http://1970mgr.org/_Tiresizes.htm

Here's the chart I was thinking of, courtesy of Coker Tire. The nominal equivalent of an 800x15 in the Letter size series is a "J", not an "L". L78 is more or less an equivalent for the 820x15, a size which has proven to be problematic on 55/56 Packards in so far as rubbing inner front fenders on full turns, not to mention difficulty in removing from the rear wheel wells.

Attach file:

---

  (131.95 KB)