Quiet tyres for Series 3

[Hinchy1964]

Hi all, I am looking for some quiter tyres for my mainly road going Series 3. I currently have some 7.50 x 16 on called 'Security' but they are fairly noisy at speed.

http://tyresdirectuk.co.uk/shop/product-info.php?prodname=7.50-16-Security-ML-8PL-Tyres-&id=16567

I use my Series 3 as an everyday vehicle including a 40 mile round trip to work every day hence the quieter tyres but I want to keep the vehicle looking right as a Land Rover and not an SUV. Also a little gentle green laning now and then an occasional muddy field.

I was thinking of something like Avon Rangemaster or General SAG, both available in 7.50 16 I think.

Can anyone comment on the noise levels of these or recommend anything else that are quieter than Security but are still a proper 4x4 tyre.

Thanks

Ian

[Phil Hancock]

The tyres you link to are the pattern of the old Good Year Extra grip which were MOD fitment. An alternative could be http://tyresdirectuk.co.uk/shop/product-info.php?prodname=&id=17274 or the Rangemasters.

[Snagger]

The XtraGrip tyre is terrible for noise, as is the later XCL. Range Masters aren't too bad for noise, but are bad on wet roads and next to useless in mud or on wet grass. I'd recommend getting a set of 7.50 XZLs from Vass - they have thousands of old new-stock ex-MoD tyres at very low prices.

[mickeyw]

General SAGs, if still available, will be pretty horrendous for noise and grip on tarmac. The are an off-road biased tyre.

The Security you have as mentioned are a copy of the Extra Grip and these are deafening at anything over 30MPH! Probably worse than the SAG!

The Avon Rangemaster in 7.50x16 is a great all purpose tyre; it'll do good economy and last a long time on the road, and is well behaved too. It may not be a mud plugger but it can be surprisingly good off-road. I used to run them on my 90 when I first got it, we also had them on a 300Tdi 110 CSW. For your predominantly road use the Rangemaster would be ideal.

Alternatively for something a little more modern, something in 235/86x16 (the metric equivalent of a 7.50x16), there are many copies of the old BF Goodrich All Terrain such as this. This pattern is also available in 7.50x16 I notice, but more to choose from in the metric size

Also may be worth considering is the General Grabber TR. It may be not off road enough for you, but our 110 we just sold had these from new and covered 67k miles when sold with plenty of tread left on the rears, so excellent mileage on them.

Remember the knobblier the tyre, the worse the fuel consumption, if that matters to you.

[nicks90]

Yep. Another vote for tthe avon rangemasters, cracking tyre!

Or the grabber TR, both will cope with laning and very good on road.

[Hinchy1964]

Thanks for the info everyone after careful considersation it is the Rangemaster, quiet, perhaps one more MPG and still look like an original Land Rover tyre. Well not as original as the Avon Ranger but cant find a supplier for them anyway.

[simonr]

If it's not too late, I would seriously consider BFG All Terrains. They are hard to beat from a noise, economy or life point of view. Mine lasted over 60k miles before I sold the truck and they still had plenty of tread. They are surprisingly good in mud and just fantastic in snow.

I had Rangemasters once and thought they were very average. Average noise, average grip, average economy. In the wet however, they were a nightmare! I would never buy them again whereas the BF AT's I'd buy like a shot!

Si

[farmerboy_y2k]

I had 7.50 Rangmasters on my first 110 and was very happy with them, drive sensibly in the wet and all is fine, they were factory fitted as late as td5 defenders. Michelin XZL's are also very good, pretty quite and very good off road. Also 235/85 16 tyres shouldn't really be fitted to 5.5" rims either (min rim width 6", recomended rim width is 6.5") As for bfg at's i seem to be one of the few people that would never have another set.

[Hinchy1964]

Hi, all done and dusted. Avon Rangemasters it was. They do look a little thinner than the ones which were on but they are still 7.50 x 16. But the mpg is much much better.

I reckon I must be getting another 4-5 mpg from them.

Grip seems fine after the recent rain yesterday

Still looks Land Roverish and not an off roader with white lettering and stuff. I know it is each to their own and all but I wanted to retain the Landy look.

Noise levels - massive reduction Those others must have been dragging like mad with the tyre pattern and all that.

So they have fulfilled all my criteria. Anyway once again, thanks or everyones input.

Just need to put a 2.5 n/a in and get rid of that petrol thing and put an ashcroft transmission in and I will be one happy chappy.

[Gazzar]

Ah, yes - they are nice, aren't they. You have learned that Noise = energy = reduced MPG.

G.

[mickeyw]

Just need to put a 2.5 n/a in and get rid of that petrol thing and put an ashcroft transmission in and I will be one happy chappy.

Given that you do a fair number of road miles, you must be some kind of masochist if you are contemtplating converting TO a 2.25 NAD!

Pretty much every other engine you could convert to will be better in terms of performance and some in terms of economy. The 2.25 NAD has quite a few less beans to give than its petrol stablemate.

Thinking about it I wonder how many 2.25 oil burners are still about?

A 200 or 300 Tdi would be a relatively simple fit and far more pleasant to drive.

[Snagger]

Given that you do a fair number of road miles, you must be some kind of masochist if you are contemtplating converting TO a 2.25 NAD!

Pretty much every other engine you could convert to will be better in terms of performance and some in terms of economy. The 2.25 NAD has quite a few less beans to give than its petrol stablemate.

Thinking about it I wonder how many 2.25 oil burners are still about?

A 200 or 300 Tdi would be a relatively simple fit and far more pleasant to drive.

He said a 2.5 nad (12J), which is quite good in a SIII unless you do a lot of towing or hills. A Tdi is a lot more work to fit, and while its performance makes the vehicle easier to drive, it's also considerably noisier than the indirect-injection older diesels.

[mickeyw]

Ok, my bad. Didn't read him carefully enough

I shall however contest the thought that a 2.5NAD is quieter than a Tdi. The 90 D I have driven was very noisy indeed.

[Retroanaconda]

There's more diesel knock from a Tdi than a N/A granted, but it's made up for by the fact that it's such a vastly better engine. Besides...that's what soundproofing is for!

Not that I'd consider putting a horrible diesel engine in my 88"...but if I had to it would be a Tdi any time.

[CwazyWabbit]

There's more diesel knock from a Tdi than a N/A granted, but it's made up for by the fact that it's such a vastly better engine. Besides...that's what soundproofing is for!

Not that I'd consider putting a horrible diesel engine in my 88"...but if I had to it would be a Tdi any time.

But would you consider doing 40 miles a day in your petrol 88" ?

[Retroanaconda]

Hell no! In that case I'd Tdi it, but it would be a 'have to' rather than a 'need to' as above.

A Tdi'd Series nicely soundproofed would be a good daily driver

[ejparrott]

Yes it is

[Snagger]

Ok, my bad. Didn't read him carefully enough

I shall however contest the thought that a 2.5NAD is quieter than a Tdi. The 90 D I have driven was very noisy indeed.

The 12J is not as quiet as a petrol engine, but if maintained it's pretty comfortable accoustically. The one you drove may have been a knackered old dog - there are plenty of LRs about that have all sorts of terrible issues, like wooly steering, poor brakes and a cacophony of noises that the owners insist are normal but are just due to shoddy maintenance.

I ran a 12J that I rebuilt in my 109 for ten years before replacing it with a 200Tdi (that I also rebuilt). The 12J was harder to drive as it needed momentum to be conserved and pulling out of junctions or overtaking were complicated by the lack of torque, but the noise and vibration levels were much, much lower than with the Tdi, especially when running the 12J on vegoil (with a fuel pre-heater). There was no difference in reliability - both started instantly, even in sub zero conditions (except the Tdi when I had a recent fuel lift pump failure).

For what it's worth, my 109 has a full Wright Off Road interior kit (including the read tub floor and wheel arches), Noise Killer lined sides and roof, Defender doors (which absorb more noise than Series doors), a full set of Noise Killer under-bonnet padding, more NK blanket covering the entirity of the bulkhead, inner wings and undersides of the bell housing and transmission tunnels, a 300Td's rocker housing accoustic cover and I have a Roverdrive (quieter than the Fairey). Despite the engine and transmission having less than 30,000 miles on them and all that noise proofing, the Tdi still makes the cab unpleasantly noisy at 60mph and unbearable above 65. I'll have to see how much quiter it becomes once I have 3.54 diffs, but a Tdi is not the silver bullet that many claim - it does have the single drawback of being a harsh engine. A 300Tdi is much more refined, though its head is less robust and it's more difficult to fit.

I still recommend the 200Tdi as a retrofit, but I don't want to see people disappointed with false expectations.

[tacr2man]

If you wanted rangemasters for noise reduction , then that is a step forward , put a diesel in it and you will be taking two or even three steps backward, even with sound deadening . To get a improvement in performance you would need at least 200tdi , and the noisy tdi engines are something you put up with purely on the grounds of fuel economy. Thats why I have a 90 300tdi auto . JMHO