Jump to content

Chicken Drumstick

Settled In
  • Content Count

    1,384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Chicken Drumstick last won the day on September 27

Chicken Drumstick had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

73 Excellent

About Chicken Drumstick

  • Rank
    Standard is not in my nature

Profile Information

  • Location
    Not far from MK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,667 profile views
  1. I agree about local variables. And driving styles. I have some vids of the original BFG AT’s somewhere vs MT’s. But it was all over off road terrain such as mud, wet grass and snow covered mud. As for MT’s though. I don’t really consider something like the KM03 to be much more than an AT in many regards. When I talk MT’s I mean something like this:
  2. Interesting tyre review here I watched earlier. It basically showed that the MT tyres performed pretty much as well as all of the AT's in the wet and similar in the dry. But a lot better in the mud. It was only hard "dirt" the AT out performed the MT. And we don't really get such surfaces in the UK. The 'bigger' tyre also seemed to perform better on tarmac than the same tread and smaller.
  3. Personally I'd totally ignore the EU tyre rating system. It really tells you nothing useful about the tyre. And may well end up causing you to not buy a good tyre for no real reason.
  4. You might want to read up on the history a bit. AROnline is a good resource. But in summary BAE when they owned Rover sucked it dry and didn't re-invest. The company was actually doing very well, but the revenue & profit wasn't put back into the company. BMW bought Rover for Land Rover and probably Mini. Which they made very good use of to produce their own SUV. You could almost say BMW did a partial asset strip and technology merger before selling to Ford. And it was Ford that ended up in trouble, which resulted in the entire PAG being disbanded. Which was again regardless of how good or bad Land Rover were doing.
  5. Interesting project. Have read about a few of these and do find them quite interesting. For me though, they always seem like a huge amount of work and a lot of money to get running. I know the M57 should be able to make good power and good mpg. But part of me says swapping in a Rover V8 would be a lot easier and cheaper. And likely be a nicer engine overall, just not as frugal (which only really matters if you are doing high mileage or very long distance overlanding). The Td5 is also a pretty straight forward swap, and while it won't match the M57 for outright power when tuned. They are pretty easy to get to around 180hp from. I think if I was going for a "big" engine swap, I'd be looking at a LS1 or maybe a Jaguar V8. But the issue of the gearbox always seems to the biggest problem. As I'd personally much rather have a manual.
  6. 235/85R16 is a standard fitment. So just hit Google. The 235 generally works out fractionally taller than. A 265/75R16. But less chunky. As a rule the 235 performs better in most UK off road situations. And will have less rolling resistance and the ability to return slightly better mpg. Its a good size. And lots of choice.
  7. Yes standard 90/110/Defender steel rims will work fine. They should also be 6" wide, so good for a 235/85.
  8. I thought it quite interesting overall. And the Amarok certainly shifts. As for drag racing... 5.4 suprcharged V8 with 390hp. In stock trim they run 13's quarter miles. Or the Syclone, which would match a same era Ferrari down the drag strip. And while not so popular in the UK, in the USA heavily tuned diesels running in the 12's, 11's and even 10's is not exactly rare.
  9. MTR's were standard optional fit from the factory. A little noisy on the road, they make a humming/droning sound. They also don't like all types of mud. I remember being at an event years back, two people on MTR's. Neither made it to the start gate, while other drivers were clearing the section.
  10. I've run STT's, also not the Pro's.In 235/85 I thought they were very good on the road and ok in the snow. But way too much of an All Terrain. Absolutely rubbish off road.
  11. You can tubes in any tyre and on any rim. Although some modern tubeless tyres can be rougher on the inside of the tyre, which can wear through a tube. But generally it is not an issue. You are correct, a tubeless rim will have ridges for the tyre bead to seat against. These are very important, because if the sidewall is push inwards to the centre of the rim, without the bead seat it could result in an explosive decompression. Chances are rare, however should it occur at speed it would likely prove quite disastrous. And should it be spotted it may invalidate your insurance as well as pose some risks of prosecution, as the vehicle would not have been in a fit state for road use. As for tyre sizes, most tyre makers will have a recommended minimum and maximum rim width for a given tyre size. It is usually on their website. 235/85's are recommended for a 6 - 7.5" rim. Meaning a standard Series 5.5" rim is not ideal. However the tyre will physically fit and the manufacturer recommendation is not a law. 7.50 tyres are slightly narrower than a 235/85 and are normally recommended for a 5.5 - 7" rim. Example of the rims (tubeless - tubed):
  12. I suspect there was something up with the F150. And you also need to bear in mind it likely weighed more than the others too. Think they are about 2.8 tonne empty. And it was on off road tyres. The Amorok weighs about a tonne less.
  13. Do they go like the old BFG’s though? As in hard. Rather than wear out. We have a set of 31.10.50’s. Loads of tread after too many miles to count. But bloody useless in the wet, they are like running ski’s on each corner. In their prime they weren’t very good off road either. Not compared to mild MT’s. The new pattern does look better though.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy