I detailed in another thread that I just got my Dad's '72 Cutlass Supreme running. I need all new tires; the spare is the 48 year old original in the trunk! It seems like 225/70R14s are the way to go. My options look like a Cooper Cobra, a BFG Radial T/A, and a Hankook Kinergy ST at tirerack.com. Original looking would be nice, but I want traction most of all. The BFG looks like a pretty dated tread design, and most of the reviews are iffy on traction. The Cooper is $41 cheaper per tire and has better traction reviews, though with fewer miles driven in the reviews. I can spend the additional money on the BFGs, but if the Cooper Cobras do actually wear better and cost me $200 less for the 5, that is a factor, as well. Thanks.

 

I have BFGs on my car and they work well but I have read so much good stuff about the Coopers that I would say they are a good choice.

 

I've never run them, but the Coopers sound like a great deal

can you post pics of that original tire?
& there will be a date code by the "DOT" on the sidewall

 

Cooper "Crap" Cobras are worstest tires ever, period. They see a hint of water and theyre like skaters. Never again for me.

 

My experience with BFGs is that they too, are very poor in wet conditions. My vert rarely sees wet streets, so I have lived with it. I don't put more than a few thousand miles a year on the car, so tread life ratings don't sway me either.

Not many RWL options these days on 14" and 15" wheels. Since it essentially comes down to looks on this particilar car, my next set will likely be the Coopers and I will bank the savings.

 

I pretty much run BFG T/As on pretty much everything I own (hey, I'm one of the ones who was sucked in by the Tirebird Trans Am racing on shaved street tires in the early 70s - as an advertising campaign this ranks right up there with "Rocket V8"). I have no problems in the wet. No one will mistake these for drag radials, however. They do not hook up off the line.

 

Unfortunately, there really aren't any decent tires that fit your car in a 14" diameter. Everything that is currently available is outdated, obsolete crap. If you want a decent tire with modern design and rubber compounds, you need to go to a larger diameter wheel. Most likely in a 16" - 18" depending on the level of performance you are looking for.

 

If the OP has a stock suspension and only plans to drive the car to and from cruise night on weekends, I fail to see the need for "modern design and rubber compounds" - the expense would be wasted. Fixing the A-body front end geometry would reap far greater improvement than wheels and tires. It all depends on how the car will be used.

 

Joe,

I understand the A-body design suspension limitations, especially the horrific front camber curve and bump steer.

I didn't say the OP needed to go to better tires, I just said that if he doesn't want to run something obsolete and he wanted to benefit from newer tire technology, he would need to switch to a modern tire vs. the BFGs. I understand you have an opinion concerning tires and expense, but others, such as myself, might disagree and want something better. You think a BFG is a good enough tire, I think pretty much anything in an OEM size is a really compromised choice in terms of even everyday performance. Realistically, you are looking at about $30 extra per tire compared to the BFGs plus the cost of rims. For a street car, that is worth the investment to me.

Your response only seems to address lateral loads and acceleration. The OP asked about dry and wet traction. Well, that means straight line acceleration and braking too. Better tires, regardless of the handling deficiency, would yield increased traction in straight line acceleration and braking. You can also get tires that perform far better in the wet compared to any of the mentioned tires, but not in stock sizes. Finally, even with the suspension limitations, when pushed to the limits of adhesion, a tire with a higher grip level will produce a higher lateral acceleration number, it just won't be as high as if the suspension geometry, spring rate selection, shock valving, sway bar tuning, alignment, tire pressure settings, etcetera were optimized.

Tires are the number one thing that affect performance. Spend some time setting up cars for road racing and you will quickly realize that. You pretty much find with production based cars that you don't have to make suspension changes (other than alignment) until after you move away from non-performance OEM type street tires. The order you typically follow to set up a street car for the track is safety (DOT 4 brake fluids, race pads, brake cooling, roll bar, race harness, better seats), reliability (additional cooling for engine, engine oil, transmission, and differential, etcetera), tire pressures, alignment, tire size and compounds, and then make suspension changes to optimize tire selection.

For our A-body cars, my opinion is that there is no real benefit to modifying the front suspension geometry unless you are going to run sticker rubber. For example, the BFG in stock sizing will roll over on the sidewall as soon as you put any type of lateral load on it. So, while the suspension geometry may be lifting the inside of the tire up off the pavement, the tire itself is doing as much to degrade performance by rolling over onto its side. Then, you also have a rock hard compound. You can improve the suspension all you want on these cars, but if you don't switch to a better tire than the BFG, the car won't improve at its limits. It may feel better for everyday driving because it doesn't float around or lean as much, but it won't actually produce higher numbers.

 

I forgot the BLUF: If the OP is sticking with the OEM 225/70/14, the yes, I would run the BFGs.

 

If you can live with OWL's? General RT43 altimax tire P225-70 R14 . I have that same model in BW or my last gen Impala, excellent tire in all conditions. Priced a little higher than the Coopers and less than the BFG's

Pat

 

Thanks, all, for the input. I saw the first post came through by email, but didn't get any notifications of the others until I checked late last night and I had already placed the Cooper order. I guess I'll find out. Interestingly, General RT43s are a good bit cheaper than the Coopers at Tirerack.com. It sounds like there may have been better options, but the Coopers were the highest rated for traction in 225/70R14 in all but snow, which I will not drive this car in, so I hope not to have buyer's remorse. There are far better options with other wheel sizes, but I'm sticking with the stock wheels since they have been in my family 48 years as-is.

 

You won't be disappointed in the Coopers. I've personally run both Coopers and BFG on my Cutlass. Since I decided to go blackwall out this go around and the Coopers being quite a bit less expensive that's what I went with. They ride nice, have good traction and seem wear well so far. I'm running 33#'s of air in them. While Hancook may be a good tire, I just can't bring myself to run a S Korean tire on my car.

 

Got the new tires on and drove her home for the first time in 14 years behind her wheel.
F987t2k.jpg

 

I've never run Coopers on a muscle car before, but my truck and SUV are both shod with AT3's. They do every thing I ask and wear like iron in spite of a fairly soft compound. I know the Cobras have been around for many years and the configuration is probably pretty dated by now, but if their basic design and construction are anywhere near comparable to the AT3's, I'd go with them.

I will probably try a set on my '69 4-4-2 -- that is, if I ever manage to wear out the Radial T/A's that are on there now.

 

I have BFG'S on my 88 Cutlass on the factory aluminum rims. While they aren't a modern tire, they actually did OK even in ice and snow. Are they worth the extra price over the Cooper Cobra tires, no probably not. I have 14" Canadian Tire brand tires on the front, not bad and Cooper Cobra 275/60R15 on widened 10" rims front and back, Firebird Ralleye wheels. The Cooper Cobras look awesome black wall out, thanks to the big Cobra on the side. I did find a problem and not a good one, a shifted rear end. Driver's side is 2.75" from brake drum to frame, passengers side us 3.25", just enough to contact the outside of the tire. My fenders need replaced anyways, so grinding was the temporary solution. I had 215/75R14 and 225/70R14 on my 70S, just get lost in the wide rear fenders. Those Cooper look good on the narrower Convertible wheel wells, awesome you have a car your Dad bought new. I wish Dad kept his 56 Ford Crown Victoria 2 dr with the 312 Y block, coolest car he ever owned but Dad wasn't a car guy. Enjoy the memories and make new ones.

 

Curious what the code logic is

Keith

 

Most of the time when people refer to a DOT code, they are looking for the age of the tire. For a tire built in 2000 or later, the age is a 4-digit number found on one side of the tire. The first two numbers are the week of the year, which will be 01 through 52. The second two number are the year.

For example, a DOT date code of 2519 means that tire was built on the 25th week of 2019.

Tires built prior to 2000 have a 3-digit DOT date code.

 

Thanks so the spare in my car would be ?

 

post 1971 - DOT STANDARD

BFL7 DD1052

"BF" = tire manufacturing plant = Uniroyal Goodrich - Woodburn Indiana
"L7" = tire size = I don't have a listing for these - is it a F78-14?
"DD1" = tire construction/type =
"052" = production date = 05th week of 1972, 1982, 1992 (they fixed this for 2000 making the date code 4-digits)

based on the specific model of the tire you could probably figure out what decade that tire was available

 

Yes F78-14 Silvertron Belted, thanks for the reply and the good info I appreciate that, I would say it is probably original to the 72

Keith

I will be in the market for a new set of 14" as well I have the Coopers on my truck and always have had good luck with them They look nice Brown Car enjoy cruising on them!

 

can you post some pics of the wheel & tire, thanks!!

 

Here you go.