I'm having a similar experience: 10k on the D402's, now at 9K with 6/32" tread depth remaining (11/32" new) on my first E3. Unless these rears wear faster as they wear down, I would expect at least 18k on this one. I'm very pleasantly amazed by this tire that has no apparent downside, unless that is you must have a WW. I will not go back!

 

Same here in S. LA, freakin' 75°. Riding in my tee shirt in early February. Go figure.

Thanks for the photos, and it indeed fits. I never doubted you, BTW, but was reading Dunlops specs vs. the clearance I now have. Based on that they won't fit, but if it fits your bike it should fit mine. It'll be a while, as I have a new rear and a front waiting to be mounted, and as long as these things last I'd guess I'll be in the market in about two years.

 

The dunlop site measurements for the 160/80/16 tire are on a 3.5" rim and the measurements for the MU90B16 tire are on a 3" rim. When the 160/80/16 is mounted on a 3" rim it must be narrower than the dunlop site shows.

 

I hadn't noticed that but you're right, and that would keep me from mounting it on a stock rim. That might account for why the tire fit when by mathematical calculation it shouldn't have.

 

I am gonna give these puppies a try, will need new meat on the rear in 5K or so...

Anyone see problems or issues with running an E3 on the rear with a 402 on the front of my 2007 Ultra?

 

Well Olde Skool, just my $0.02 but conventional wisdom is "don't mix'n'match". Member kgjl (see post #7 of this thread) would know more for sure though.

 

No, the tire does not grow or shrink based on the rim width unless you go to extremes. And as I measured the tire on and off the rim I can tell you it didn't grow or shrink when the tire was mounted. It remained the same size.
Also, that is a recommendatation on rim size only, not a tolerance spec.

For those guys that question the use of these tires on this rim. Do yourself a favor. Just don't do it. Stay with the skinny tire. I don't want to recommend something that you will always second guess. But for me and a few others, we are enjoying the hell out of the 160. Looks great and handles awesome.

Your money, your bike, your life.

lp

 

No problems with this setup on my '07 SG, and I ride aggressively at times in the twisties. The front will still follow rain grooves, but that isn't a safety issue IMO. My sportbiker friends told me they do it all the time and they ride much crazier than I do.

 

Okay. I just thought that pulling in the bead might affect the overall width when mounted.

They show "applicable rims" and "recommended rim," and only the 3.50 shows up in that column. That would lead me to believe the 3.50 rim is the only one that would be acceptable. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for doing it, but if I was considering this combo on my bike I would want to get a clarification from Dunlop, but that's just my 2¢. OTOH as a liability issue I doubt if they would give you the go-ahead to mount it.

BTW, I wouldn't call an MU90-16 "skinny," as it is almost identical dimensionally to the D402 MU85-16. Compared to the old traditional MT90-16 is is rather fat.

 

I want to get this straight. Is the E3 MU90-16 a little wider than the stock 402? And it sounds like the 160 is a bit wider than the 90. Do I have this right?