Question
What year, make, model car are these going on? Years ago, during the restoration of my '54 Eureka hearse, I purchased a set of 235-75-14 Coker radials with wide whites to put on this car. I was told by the salesman that they should give me no problem on the heavier car. One by one, always at inconvenient times on the highway, the belts started separating. Coker replaced the entire first set, and at this writing 3 of the 4 tires that were replaced have had belt separation also.
Of course all my cars except for my '76 were originally fitted with 890-14 bias ply tires, but I opted for radials for "safety" and "handling". My good friend Paul Cichon has a set of extra ply 890 tires on his '49 Superior hearse (as seen in Albany). They apparently have some extra plys capable of working well on a heavy car. The overall height of the tire is noticeably different too. Last summer I purchased a set of these 890's for the '54. I wish I had my camera handy when the 890 and 235 tires stood next to each other. There was a 3" height difference from the ground up, 1.5" on the radius, or raising the car-height. I do remember that one of the 890's took about 4 oz. of weights to balance it out. I meant to phone Coker to see if that was normal for that tire, but haven't done that yet.
I only took the '54 on one longer trip with these tires so far, that being to the Gilmore Museum in Hickory Corners, Michigan, when the CLC had a Meet there late last summer. The tires have so far given me no problem, but I thought I'd share this experience, in case it helps someone. One nice thing about the 890's is strictly visual, that the car sits at the correct height it originally did when new. The 235's always make the cars appear more squat. I'm happy I made this change, and may purchase another set for my '60. I'll definitely at least purchase another tire to be a spare, as my luck with tires on the highway with hearses has not been good. The photo below shows the car still fitted with the 235's. Tom
