Packard Forum Index » Pre-War (1899-1942)

All right guys i know that the stock tire size was 6.50x15 for my 41 110 Deluxe.....but i am considering going to a radial what would the widest tire size be that i could go and not worry about rubbing on a full turn. Be nice !!!!! LOL

Here is handy chart, also check on Coker Tire website for recommendations.
http://www.vintagecarconnection.com/vintage_tire_size_conversion_chart.htm

Your car, do as you wish but IMO it's not a great idea to put the largest tire you cram under the fenders and put all the extra strain on the suspension and steering linkage, not to mention the effort to steer. The radial size most closely corresponding to your original tire size would be a 195/75R15.

I'm going from memory here, but I believe there were 3 different wheels used in 1941: A lighter 16" on some 110's, a 15", and a heavier duty 16" some on seniors. So be cautious of what you find when looking up 1941 Packard without further detail. I don't know if there were two 15" versions.

Keep in mind these are high profile tires, which does add to the previous comment about width and too much increasing flex.

All that said , my 41 had radials on it (16") when I got it, which I was prepared to hate, but they have been better than my previous feel with bias belted tires in cars of this era.

I appreciate the input i dont want to cram the biggest tire in that i can i like the look of the slightly wider tire and the stability. I put stock size coker radials on my 56 Belair and just finished a 900 mile to Viva Las Vegas car show. What i learned on the trip is the tires drove and rode real nice but the but was not real stable in cornering.

Is there anyone out there that has pics of the 195's on there car?

For 1941 both the 110s and 120s came OEM as a 15" wheel. The 160 and 180 came OEM as a 16" wheel.

A few years back I installed Diamond Back radials on my 120 Business Coupe and have been very pleased with them.

At the time they were using a Yokohama truck-based tire. Here is the information from my invoice:

Item code: 700/15/100/88
Description: 700R 15 - 3.5" whitewall "Wider white Yokohama"

I met with the guys from Diamond Back and they MAY not be using the same truck-based tire today. They are in the process of developing their own proprietary tire that should be ready soon.

When you contact them, tell them a friend ordered some tires for his 120 Packard a couple of years ago and give them the specs shown above in bold. If they do not have that same tire, then ask them what they have in stock that is closest to that tire.

Hope this works out for you.

Thanks!!!! I appreciate it.

I use Diamondbacks on my 56 400 and order them through a Packard club. They get a little money and I get a good tire with a stand behind guarantee.

Is Coker making a radial yet look appropriate? The problem for about the last 50 years is that the modern tires (even with the same numerical size) are larger than the original equipment. Look at any period photo and you will see a skinnier tire with a more aggressive tread. I still cringe everytime I see one of those Lester whitewalls on a prewar car.

I still cringe everytime I see one of those Lester whitewalls on a prewar car.

For many years going back to the 60s, we really had little choice other than Lesters for passenger car tires in sizes like 7:00-17, Lincoln Highway Tire (later to become Lester Tire) was the only game in town. I never much cared for the appearance, they were kind of a knock-off of the very highly regarded Martin tire, a too-wide in width whitewall, and a not-of-the-era tread pattern. That said, they were sized correctly as they fit easily into the metal sidemount covers and into the fender wells. And they were a very good road tire, I went thru 2 sets over 50 years with nary a problem.

Though they've been around for years, in sizes 17" thru 20" Bedford Famous Coach tires seem to suddenly become the rage, a nice of-the-era tread pattern, a whitewall width that approximately factory photo dimensions, and a properly sized tire.

Attach file:

---

  (165.59 KB)