I decided to replace the stock Dunlop's with Metzler ME880's. I called a local shop and asked if they had the following sizes:

Front = 130/90-16
Rear = 180/65-16

They said yes to both. Great!

When I got the wheels back, I noticed that the front was not a 130/60-16, but was actually MT90-16. They guy said it's the exact same size, but said it's a metric size instead of a standard size. It looked the same size, so I said no problem.

But when I got home and looked on Metzler's website, I notice that the specs are different between the tires.


130/90-16 TL 67H F
MEASURING RIM 3.00
RIMS PERMITTED 2.50-3.50
MAXIMUM WIDTH 142
MAXIMUM DIAMETER 657
LOAD CAPACITY 677
MIN/MAX PSI 38-42
MAX SPEED 130
TREAD DEPTH 6.0
TIRE WEIGHT LBS 14.55

MT90B-16 TL 72H F
MEASURING RIM 3.00
RIMS PERMITTED 2.50-3.50
MAXIMUM WIDTH 136
MAXIMUM DIAMETER 643
LOAD CAPACITY 783
MIN/MAX PSI 36-40
MAX SPEED 130
TREAD DEPTH 5.0
TIRE WEIGHT LBS 15.95

So my question is, which one is "better". It looks like the MT90 has a higher weight rating, but has a lower max PSI and is heavier and has less tread.

So price being equal, which one should I have gotten?

 

Hmmm.... I wonder now too. I have the same tire on my front but never thought a thing about it. I just used the "tire finder" on the website I bought them from and punched in my bike. It came up with the MT90-16 so I got it. Curious what, if any, difference there is other than the spec numbers.

 

that is strange. i run metzlers, the me880s, and i never have had that issue. like you said, the weight ratings are up, but, less tread..... weird...... keep us informed on how it does, i guess, if you have any issues, post em if you dont mind.
thanks man,
corb

 

The mt should be fine....

 

The MT is fine. A deeper tread on the Metz mens squat because the compound is softer, and it'll wear faster. Plus it's only 1/32" difference.
From experience, I've never been able to put as many miles on a Metzeler (and Avon) than on a Dunlop.

 

With less tread depth I wonder if the MT is a harder compound? I too am curious as to what makes the difference. I'm sure it fits and works but will it last as long, different handling characteristics, or ?? Heck maybe it is better!

Since returning to Metz is on my list later this year I will have to look into this myself. Post up if you get some more detail. Thx

 

i agree with you on the second bit in bold. i have had 2 bad experiences with dunlop, and have been a metzler fan for years. i personally feel more sure footer on ME880s. but, to each his own. some have had bad times with metzlers, etc..... like i said, to each his own.

only thing is, both of the tires he listed, are metzlers..... so, one metz, has deeper tread than another metz, and one is rated at a higher weight load. never heard of that before. so, curious to see his outcome.

corb

 

I didn't have bad times with Metz, they handle fine, it's just that they don't last as much as Dunlop, particularly on the rear. M880 vs Elite 3 = 30% more mileage with the E3 (7,500 vs 10,000). I got the same result on 2 different bikes.

 

He told you the MT is metric and the 130 is standard? That 130 number is 130 millimeters! The letter size does convert to 130 wide tire. I believe an MT Dunlop 402 is what came on my last two bikes an '02 and an '07. So I believe the MT is the "correct" size. They are close enough for rock 'n' roll. I have run Metzlers exclusively for quite a few years now. I don't find them to wear any worse than the Dunlop 402's that came on my new bikes. The fronts last through at least two rears and then some. At least 20,000 miles. I have only run 130 ME 880 fronts though.

 

Is the MT-90B a Metzler or Dunlop?