rear tire
#3
Hey Latnyte,
I thought I had it bookmarked so I could just give you the link, but I guess not. Go to the Metzeler website and look at the application for your bike. There is also a section on their website called "upgrade your tires" or something like that. I think you can find the answer there.
Also you are missing part of the size on your tire. It should read something like this. MU90R16. The MU is the width and the 90 is the profile.
I thought I had it bookmarked so I could just give you the link, but I guess not. Go to the Metzeler website and look at the application for your bike. There is also a section on their website called "upgrade your tires" or something like that. I think you can find the answer there.
Also you are missing part of the size on your tire. It should read something like this. MU90R16. The MU is the width and the 90 is the profile.
#6
Your original rear tyre size is probably MT or 130mm wide. MU or 140 is an alternative, but is also slightly larger in diameter (both MT and MU are 90 profile, so MU will lift the rear about 3/16 inch). I have a 140 Avon Venom in my 1990 FLHS. Clearances seem to differ from bike to bike! I modified the belt-guard on mine (by removing the rubber curtain) and have just 3/16 inch clearance between belt and tyre. You may have to do the same.
#7
I recently replaced my front and rear tires with Dunlop Elite 3's. Front was a 130:
SIZE___________________RIM DIA _Width TREAD LOAD
MT90B16 72H BW 4079-90 3.00 25.00 5.24 6/32 770 @ 40
the rear was a 140:
MU90B16 78H BW 4079-95 3.00 25.72 5.57 11/32 930 @ 40
both went on without a problem and look/perform great. The rear 140 is only .02 inches larger in diameter than the 130 rear (25.70 compared to 25.72 in) and gives you a bit more tread depth as well as 100lbs extra load. The rear look very beefy in the fender.
Check here: http://www.dunlopmotorcycle.com/tire...tire.asp?id=86
SIZE___________________RIM DIA _Width TREAD LOAD
MT90B16 72H BW 4079-90 3.00 25.00 5.24 6/32 770 @ 40
the rear was a 140:
MU90B16 78H BW 4079-95 3.00 25.72 5.57 11/32 930 @ 40
both went on without a problem and look/perform great. The rear 140 is only .02 inches larger in diameter than the 130 rear (25.70 compared to 25.72 in) and gives you a bit more tread depth as well as 100lbs extra load. The rear look very beefy in the fender.
Check here: http://www.dunlopmotorcycle.com/tire...tire.asp?id=86
Trending Topics
#8
You're probably going to be stuck with a 140 with the stock wide belt. I would not recommend a narrow belt, but with a chain (or narrow belt) you should be able to run a 150. I run a 150 with a chain on my 96 FXD, there is clearance for more on the swingarm and at the chain, but not really in the fender. I am going to do some experimenting here in the future with an offset pulley and 1/4 inch spacer on the rear, and some sheetmetal work, and try to get a 160 or bigger in there, but I am going to run into wheel width issues, probably going to experience some trial and error there. Technically, anything wider than a 150 requires a wider wheel according to the tire manufacturers. If you go wider at the hub you are going to run into clearance issues on the brake side.
The easy solution is a 140, but you're probably going to have to modify the belt guard a bit to make things fit. A 150 looks pretty fat under a stock fender.
The easy solution is a 140, but you're probably going to have to modify the belt guard a bit to make things fit. A 150 looks pretty fat under a stock fender.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DK Custom
Tri Glide, RG3 & Freewheeler Models
2
03-14-2016 06:04 AM