New EKKO Tires – Why We Chose the Toyo Celsius Cargo


This post may contain affiliate links.

– or –

No, you really don’t have to get giant ol’ tires to be cool.

I don’t really know what to call this piece, but there’s a lot of information flying around in my head right now, and I thought I’d try to get it written down in case it might help someone else. We just got new tires for our EKKO after about 40,000 miles, so this is all very much on my mind (and wallet) lately. Also, winter is coming up, and though we’ve bought snow tires for our vans in the past, we’re trying something different this time – so again,  more tires on the brain. And finally, when it comes to tire sizes, we decided to stick with the stock size, which is contrary to what almost every other EKKO owner who writes about it does. So I thought I might write this so that you know – it’s OK to stick with the tire size your vehicle came with. There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s get started.

Problems with the Stock Tires

The tires that come standard on the Transit-based EKKO are the Hankook Dynapro HT, in the 205/75R16 size – singles in the front and dual tires in the back. I didn’t have much of an opinion on Hankook tires before getting the EKKO, and after having them, I can say I’ll never ever buy Hankooks again.  The nicest thing I can say about the Hankooks is that ours never actually exploded.

They were well on their way to exploding though, after about 30,000 miles. The steel innards of the tires on the front wheels were broken, and poking through to the exterior of the tire. We started noticing a vibration in the steering wheel, and when we finally got it in to a tire shop, they found the issue and showed us how lucky we had been.

See the steel cables poking through? And the tears deep in the tread? That’s not supposed to happen.

Several other EKKO owners have reported “rapid unscheduled tire disassembly” events with the Hankooks between 20,000 and 30,000 miles, so I’ve begun calling them the “Dynaplodes”. When we had our issue, we decided to get two new tires for the front wheels. Unfortunately, the only tire available on short notice in the stock size was… you guessed it… the Dynaplodes.

This DOT code on the Dynaplodes let me know they were made in the 29th week of 2020. And then they sat in a warehouse for three years before being sold to me as “new”.

It gets even better – the “new” Dynaplodes they put on our EKKO were, as revealed by the DOT code on the tire, already three years old! Thanks, Hankook! So after paying top dollar for three-year-old emergency replacement tires (which were likely just as defective as the tires they replaced because they were made in the same batch), I had a bit of a bad taste in my mouth about the Hankooks, and I just wanted to be rid of them forever.

Just in case I haven’t been clear – It’s my opinion that the Hankook Dynaplodes are terrible tires, and nobody should buy them, ever, for any reason.

Choosing new tires: The size

This is where you’ll find I run contrary to the prevailing opinions on social media. If you looked at nothing other than the Facebook groups dedicated to the EKKO, you might think that it was mandatory to increase the tire size on your EKKO if you wanted to be in the cool kids club. I think nearly everyone who has posted about tires has either bought or expressed a preference for larger tires. Yet I chose to stick with the stock tire size. Why is that?

Well, first, let me just say that I think everyone should be free to modify their RV in ways that best match with their own personal RVing style, and that includes selecting tires and other suspension components. There’s not one right answer here – it all depends on what’s important to you. To some people, the increased ground clearance of larger tires might be more important than all the negatives I’m about to rattle off. And that’s completely fine: we’re all adults and we can make our own decisions. But here are some of the considerations that led us to stick with the stock size.

Errors in speed and mileage

This one’s pretty straight forward. Your vehicle knows how fast it’s going and how far it’s gone by counting the number of times your tires turn around. In the case of the stock tires on the EKKO, that’s about 750 times per mile, give or take. So once your wheels have rolled over 750 times, the vehicle’s computer knows it’s gone a mile. If it did that in an hour, it knows it’s going one mile per hour. Pretty simple stuff.

So now, let’s say you want to put a larger size tire on your EKKO. Nothing too crazy, let’s just say you wanted to put on 225/75R16 tires (a very common tire size). Since they’re larger, those tires only roll over about 709 times per mile. But your vehicle still thinks 750 rotations is one mile. So when it clocks over 750 rotations, you will have actually gone an extra 41 rotations further than a mile. If you do the math, what the computer thinks is a mile is actually about a mile plus 305 feet. Your speed will also be off by about that same 6%.

In some vehicles, it is possible to reprogram the vehicle’s computer with a new tire size. But that’s not the case with the EKKO/Transit. So running larger tires means that:

  • Your mileage is off
  • Your speed is off
  • Distance to empty is off. (Well, either the dash computer “miles to empty” is off, or the actual miles left to travel in real life are off – one or the other. They can’t both be right.)
  • Any other calculations your vehicle’s computer is making based on speed or distance are off.

 

I don’t even know what all of those last ones are, or how important they are.  The only people who can answer that question with any authority are Ford engineers. But I do know I didn’t want to have to do the mental math every time I saw a speed limit sign, or a highway mile marker. So sticking with the stock size made sense to me.

Ride height and handling

Time and time again, I see people posting that they “added a lift kit to their EKKO, and it handles so much better now!” I’m sorry, but unless they’re driving someplace where the laws of physics don’t apply, that simply cannot be true. More likely, what’s going on is some post-mod-rationalization, where they’re trying to convince themselves that the money they spent is worth it – physics be damned.

You already instinctively know what I just said about ride height to be true.  I’ll prove it to you. Look at the two pictures below, and tell me: which one handles better? Which one exhibits less body roll?

One of these vehicles can turn a corner without rolling over.

Here’s the thing. Raising a vehicle’s suspension or running larger tires raises the vehicle’s center of gravity. All other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity will exhibit more body roll, and less precise handling. End of story.

All other things being equal” is a very critical part of that last point. People rarely seem to raise the suspension or buy larger tires in isolation. They may add a lift kit and also add helper springs to the leaf springs in the back. Or maybe they put on larger tires, but also swapped out for new tunable shock absorbers. Or maybe they did all of this AND added a beefed up sway bar as well.

In those cases, what happened is that the handling improvements resulted from the increased spring capacity, or the new shocks, or the sway bar. The handling improved in spite of raising the center of gravity. Had they done those other things and left the ride height the same, the ride would have been improved even more.

None of this is to say that there aren’t valid reasons for wanting the increased ride height that would result from larger tires. There are plenty of reasons to want more ride height – but better handling isn’t one of them. Since I didn’t want a handling penalty from larger tires, staying with the stock size made sense to me.

Minimum dual spacing

The EKKO has dual tires in the rear. When tires are installed in pairs, tire manufacturers list a minimum dual spacing that they want to have between the centers of the two tires. They do this for safety reasons.

Tires tend to squat as they are loaded – they mush out a bit at the bottom, we’ve all seen this. Well, in a dual setup, if the tires are so close together that they rub when they “mush”, that will cause friction and heat, and will lead to tire failure. This is why the tire manufacturers specify a minimum distance they want the tires separated – the minimum dual spacing. Again, this is a safety thing.

Getting back around to the EKKO, this diagram shows the wheel geometry for the Ford and Winnebago wheels installed on the EKKO rears. From wheel centerline to wheel centerline, we can add up 238.7mm between the wheels.

What I found is that for larger tires, the minimum dual spacing was always larger than 238.7mm. For example, for Michelin Agilis C-Metric tires (a serious consideration) in a 225/75 r16 size, Michelin publishes a minimum dual spacing of 256mm. So that’s Michelin saying that, in order to be safe, you should have at least 256mm between your wheel centers.

That minimum spacing is just over 17mm greater than the spacing on the stock wheels. So, in order to meet the Michelin safety criteria for LT 225/75 R16 tires (which is a size I would have liked), you would need to add a spacer of 17.3mm, or slightly less than three quarters of an inch, between the two wheels. Now sure, adding a spacer is easy enough, and it would meet the tire’s safety requirements. But the design for all the wheel spacers I’ve seen necessitates a change in the mounting orientation of your tires. Basically, when you add a spacer, you have to rotate the wheels differently when you mount them – and that means your tires will be mounted so you no longer have clear access to the inflation valve on the inner tire! So then you have to install valve extenders or crawl on your belly under the van, or come up with some other solution in order to even air up your tires.  No thanks.

But How Do You RV?

This last reason really is (and should be) the main driver behind any RV modification you make… does it make sense for the way you RV? For some people, the increased ground clearance of larger tires makes sense. But for us, larger tires really didn’t make much sense. Here’s why.

Yeah. We rode out to the Biosphere. What can I say? We’re weird.

We’re primarily road cyclists. Road bikes need… roads. So we’re never usually too far from paved roads in our travels. In fact, I’d say our RV mileage is over 99% on paved roads. So for us, prioritizing paved road performance makes sense.

It’s not that we never go off road. We sometimes do. But cycling is such a strong part of our RV adventures, that when we do go off-road somewhere, we often find ourselves saying

“Uhhhh… OK. We’re remote.  Now what?”

There’s no right or wrong to that – it’s just the way we roll. We can stay someplace remote a day or two, but after that, we start getting antsy. So off-roading just hasn’t been a big part of our RV plan, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Sure, we go off-road sometimes, but we never stay there long.

AND… here’s the thing for us. Since we installed VB Air Suspension in our EKKO, we always have the option to inflate the airbag system to its maximum. That will gain us about 2 inches of lift in the back. Now granted, we can’t drive very fast that way, but we can at least drive over obstacles or get ourselves out of a jam. So, in a way, we can have the increased ride height when – and only when – we really want it.

Back around to picking tires

Remember, all this started when I wanted to replace the Dynaplodes, right? Well, it turns out, there are very few (like maybe 5, max) tires made in the stock size and weight capacity. If I were willing to select a larger tire size, I’d have a lot more options. But when I put everything down on paper in a chart, it came out looking something like this:

So with all that going against larger tires, it just made sense for us to stick with the stock size. Perhaps if I were a rock climber instead of a road cyclist, and I lived and breathed far from paved roads, then the improved clearance would really have made it worth it to get larger tires. But for us, it just didn’t make sense.

Choosing the Toyos

OK, first a bit about the numbers on the tires. Let’s take the first set. 205/75R16C. Those are the tread width (205mm) the aspect ratio (the tire sidewall is 75% of tread width) and the wheel radius (16 inches). And yes, I realize that’s an awful abomination of metric and standard measurements all jumbled together, but that’s what makes our country great, right?

That first set of numbers describes the tire’s geometry. The second set gets to performance. On the outgoing Dynaplodes, those were 113/111R. The numbers here refer to weight ratings – and there are two of them, 113 and 111. The first number, 113, is the weight rating when the tire is used as a single. In this case, that’s 2535 lbs per tire. The second number is the weight rating when used in a dual configuration 111 – in this case 2403 pounds.

(Interesting side note – I’ve found at least three different explanations for why the dual rating is less than the tire used as a single! Depending on where you look, it’s either because of a. unequal load sharing between tires when used as a pair, b. a safety factor so the surviving tire might be able to carry the load if one tire failed, or c. lower weight so the tire deforms less and maintains an adequate spacing from its neighbor.)

It’s very important to choose a replacement tire with the same or better weight ratings as the original equipment. So as an example, although the Continental Vanco are available in the stock size, they would NOT be an acceptable replacement, because their load rating (110/108) is a good bit less than the Hankook Dynaplodes (113/111).

And the final letter, “R”, is a speed rating. A speed rating of R is good for 106 mph. I don’t know how fast you drive your RV, but I’m probably good with that. Again, it’s wise to replace your tires with something with an equal or better speed rating.

So when filtering out the tires available in the right size with the right ratings (and not considering the Dynaplodes because they suck), the field narrows very quickly. In fact, I wound up looking at only two tires. The Michelin Agilis CrossClimate, and the Toyo Celsius Cargo. Besides brand and appearance, the one area where they had a notable difference is in the winter service rating and the “3 peak Mountain Snowflake” symbol (3PMSF).

But before I get into exactly what that symbol is, some interesting back story on the Michelin tires. They had been available before, and then they were recalled and off the market. Now, they’re available again. It turns out that the reason they were recalled is because they had a 3PMSF designation before, but they technically didn’t qualify for it. So Michelin recalled the tires, and basically just scratched the 3PMSF symbol out of the mold. That’s how they fixed the recall!

So apparently, there’s really something to that rating – if it was enough to make Michelin go through the expense of a recall. The Toyo Celsius Cargo tires have the 3PMSF symbol, and always have had it. SO what is it?

Well, the 3PMSF symbol indicates the tires meet certain U.S. Tire Manufacturer Association (USTMA) requirements for severe snow conditions. It’s a performance based rating – as opposed to the “Mud and Snow (M+S)” designation, which is strictly based on the tire tread design. A 3PMSF rated tire will have actually been tested to provide some level of traction during acceleration on medium packed snow. They’re not tested on ice, or for cornering, or a host of other things, so it’s not a perfect standard.  Nor is a 3PMSF tire a true winter tire.  But they should, under most conditions, provide superior winter traction to standard all-season tires.

One of the ways the Toyo Celsius Cargo tires get their 3PMSF designation is the tread design. The inner two tread blocks, as you can see, have more sipes and a winter tread pattern. The outer two tread blocks are a more typical all-season design. Interesting, huh?

Stef and I like to RV all winter, and to take our RV to ski areas and other snowy destinations. We had never had a winter traction issue with the Dynaplode M+S tires and all-wheel-drive, but having the 3PMSF tires seemed like a smart way for us to go.  So, even though we’ve had good luck with Michelins in the past, we decided to go for the Toyo Celsius Cargo tires.

Toyo Celsius Cargo Installed – What do I think?

We ordered a set of 6 tires from the local Discount Tire. They arrived inside of a week, and we had them installed a few days before we headed off on a 1500 mile trip. We went into Colorado, and up over Monarch Pass (11,000+ feet). Over the course of the week, we drove the tires on dirt roads, city streets, and plenty of highway and interstate miles. In one sentence: We Love These Tires!

This was sort of the most snow we saw though, so a full winter evaluation is still on the to-do list.

There are two main things I’ll point out about our tires. The first is this. I’ve found the tires to be considerably quieter, and much less harsh than the Dynaplodes they replaced. The whole RV rides much smoother and quieter now.  (And I’m kicking myself for not doing a proper before/after decibel test, but perhaps I can do something to compare to my numbers from last summer. Something for another day, and a different post. Anyway…)

This is purely conjecture on my part, but I’m guessing that the Toyo Celsius Cargo tires have softer sidewalls than the Dynaplodes. Besides being smoother and quieter, the steering response of the Toyos feels somewhat… softer??? than the Dynaplodes did. I’m probably not describing it correctly, but say like in hard cornering, I can detect a delay or a “shift” in the steering. For the most part, this doesn’t bother us, because we don’t drive the RV like a race car, so we don’t need twitchy super-excitable steering.  All of those observations line up with what one would expect from tires with a softer sidewall. I couldn’t find any sidewall stiffness ratings to compare the two tires, so this really is just conjecture on my part.

The other thing I like about the Toyo tires is that I was able to get proper load and inflation tables for these tires from Toyo. A couple years ago, when we first got Number One, I had tried to get load and inflation tables for the Dynaplodes, but Hankook just ghosted me and never responded.  Toyo customer service, on the other hand, was responsive, and sent me the data I asked for.  (They probably have more time than the Hankook people, because they’re not swamped dealing with people pissed off about their exploding tires.)

If you don’t know what load and inflation tables are, you should. They are what tell you – for your particular tire – what you need to inflate it to in order to carry how much load. I once wrote a post on how to use these tables and the actual weight of your rig in order to set your tire pressures properly. That post is here. I was happy to be able to set my tire pressures using actual data now that we had the Toyos.  I’ve excerpted the data from Toyo for our tire size in this PDF.

Toyo Load and Inflation Table

Really quickly, the heaviest I’ve ever gotten our rig was straight up 11,000 lbs. Right at GVWR – on the nose. Don’t believe me? Here’s the weight slip.

Well, that’s as heavy as I’ll ever get the RV, so how do I use that to set the tire pressure? Well, on the front axle, it weighs 4300 pounds – so that’s roughly 2150 pounds per tire. From there, I increase that weight by 10% to account for uneven loading and a general safety factor, and you get 2365 pounds.

Well, according to the load and inflation tables, to safely carry 2365 pounds, the Toyos need to be inflated to…. 70 psi. That’s exactly what’s listed on the door!

Same thing for the rear axle – instead there are four tires instead of just two to share the load. Also, you need to use the “Dual” line in the table instead of “Single”. And when you do that, the recommended psi is… 55 lbs! Again, exactly what’s printed on the door sticker. So – good news – the tire inflation pressures listed on your door sticker (at least in an EKKO) are accurate for the Toyo tires at a maximum load.

Conclusion?

Whew! That was a lot. (Like 3,500 words worth about tires.) I hope this was helpful to you. At the end of the day, as long as you’re safe, and you’re happy with the tires you have, that’s really all that matters. And I feel like I nailed both of those by switching from the Dynaplodes to the Toyo Celsius Cargo.

 



James is a former rocket scientist, a USA Cycling coach, and lifelong fitness buff. When he's not driving the RV, or modifying the RV (or - that one time - doing both at once), you can find him racing bicycles, or building furniture, or making music. In his spare time, he works for a large IT company.


    33 thoughts on “New EKKO Tires – Why We Chose the Toyo Celsius Cargo

    1. gerry

      Are your new tires C or E rated? I saw they were LT but cannot translate that to a particular load rating. Great article. Super helpful. Lots of black magic in picking out tires.

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        Ours are E rated. If you go to the official Toyo page with the specifications, they do have that listed as “Load ID”: https://www.toyotires.com/product/celsius-cargo/
        There is a “D”rated version in our size, but those aren’t the ones we got (or put in this post).

        Side note. C, D, E, whatnot… seems to be an older way of specifying the carrying capacity of the tire. Newer ones use the load index, which for these tires is 113 as a single, or 111 as dual.

        Reply
    2. R Brown

      Thanks so much for this feature! We had actually ordered these same tires when I saw the post on FB directed here, so that was a reassuring find! We arrived at these tires through pretty much the same decision tree you did (without the benefit of the science 🙂 ).

      I had these unidirectional tires installed last week, and I noticed today that the *outisde* duallies are each installed backwards, so the front tires are correct (“INSIDE” labels are inside) and the interior tire of each dually is correct, but the outside tire of each dually is backward.

      As it is Sunday, I haven’t been able to call the shop to ask, and I cannot find any mention online, but to your knowledge is there any reason someone might intentionally mount the duallies in this way? Does “bookmatching” the unidirectional tires on dallies make for one “mega tread”, or was it clearly a mistake?

      Thanks!

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        Very interesting!
        I checked ours when they were installed, and all the “insides” are on the inside. That puts the snow tread blocks on the inside on both. I liked your “mega tread” idea, but I’m not sure it works that way. I’m not aware of any recommendation other than what’s stamped directly on the tire.

        Probably best to contact Toyo on this. It may take them a day or two to get back to you, but they should respond. I’d be very interested in their answer.

        If anything, I would be more comfortable with the inside dually (instead of the outside one) flipped around. In a 4-tire vehicle, following the correct alignment of the tires would have the normal all-season tread on the outside, and the snow tread on the inside. I think I might like having the all-season tread on both outsides of my “mega tread”. But honestly, I’d follow Toyo’s advice here.

        Reply
        1. R Brown

          Thanks for the reply! Yes, I was thinking the same thing as far as which one I would want reversed if a “mega tread” was safe, that the reverse from what they did would be better.

          I’ll check with Toyo, and with the installer. In the short term I’m going to have them re-do the outside duallys to spec, but it’ll be cool to hear what Toyo thinks as well.

        2. R Brown

          Well, I never heard back from Toyo. Since getting mine re-mounted correctly, I have had a fair bit of traction and response from my FB thread on the subject though. It turns out there have been a fair number of Ekko-ers discover that their asymmetrical tires were at least partially mounted incorrectly. Most were these Toyo Celsius tires, but i believe there was at least one person with another brand. Mis-mounts varied from 2-6 tires mounted “backwards”.

          Happily, the post has helped them to identify the issue and get their tires re-mounted. It is concerning that there are likely more owners out there not aware of the issue. It might be worth an update to your story to help bring it to people’s attention! Although, this comment thread could likely serve the same purpose.

          I am still very intrigued at the thought of a tire set designed specifically for a dually configuration… the “mega tread” that takes advantage of the two side-by-side tires. Maybe it’s already a thing for the larger trucks, or maybe there’s just no real advantage to outweigh the costs.

          Anyways, thanks for all you do! I absolutely love these tires 🙂

    3. Robert Gedzelman

      Jim: What a wonderful discourse on tires! So educational! I didn’t realize the details about inter-tire distance with dual wheels especially critical under larger loads. I appreciate the time you invested in this detailed and VERY thorough presentation. One thing about increased diameter size: after three years of ownership, your mileage odometer might read “44,000”, whereas, you probably really drove 47,000+ miles. The real issue is that while most speedometers exaggerate by as much as 10%, you think you’re going 65 mph in a 60 mph zone but you’re really going 62 mph. With larger tires, your speedo is artificially reporting, let’s say 65 mph, but you’re really doing 66 mph. So, “Coegi cave!” (driver beware!)

      PS 1: Shameful that 2-3 year old tires were initially installed. There may have been issues with getting fresher/newer inventory. Glad you discovered the reason for the vibration…before potential disaster struck.
      PS: 2: I’m going to wait and see about the Sprinter chassis…higher road clearance, slightly higher end front seating, etc. supposedly improved handling (vs Transit), a bit sluggish accelerating, top higher than 10’5″ and perhaps 10-12% higher sticker price and yes, diesel has it’s issues + much lower number of M-B dealerships and propane generator (2,500 watts and NPS quiet rating?).

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        Glad you found it useful! And I wouldn’t have accepted 2+ year old tires if I had any other options. To be honest, I thought the tire shop was doing well even find anything in this size on such short notice (1-day turnaround). So I just took the tires to get on our way.

        Having driven it now, the SPREKKO is certainly more geared to off-road adventures right off-the shelf. I think that’s what the decision will mainly come down to for most people.

        Reply
        1. Robert Gedzelman

          I take it either you get a TrEKKO or a SprEKKO. If it was Promaster, then: “PrEKKO?” This could get out of hand!!!!! Anyhow, you’ve got a great sense of humor AND and inventive/creative spirit I find priceless!

    4. William B Holt

      Michelin has two Agilis style tires, “LT” and “C”. The “C” were the recalled ones. The “LT” are 3-peak.

      Your reference of a rocket exploding is normally only used by rocket scientist.

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        😉

        The “LT” tires, by the way, are not available in the 205/75R16 size and load range that is stock on the EKKO.

        Reply
    5. Grant Wilson

      Id venture if we did a slalom test between your van and my van, i could change your mind on the handling discussion

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        Now *that’s* a video idea. lol.
        I know you’ve made numerous suspension improvements. And I’m certain those have helped.
        But my point is that if you made all those improvements, AND the center of gravity was lower… it would handle even better.

        Interesting side note: after dirving on the Toyos for a while now, I think the Hankooks with their stiffer sidewalls might actually fare better in a high-g slalom. Fortunately, we don’t spend much time on the skid pad. We’re optimized for a comfortable highway cruise.

        Reply
    6. MARK SCOTT

      Hello James,
      You have definitely helped more than “someone” else! After reading this post last night, today I went to my RV storage location to check the tires on my 2022 Pleasure-Way Ontour 2.2 (2019 Transit chassis). Alas, I also have the Hankook Dynapro in the 205/75R16 size!

      I only have 7K miles on them but not waiting to make a change. I typically have put Michelin 3PMSF tires on our all-wheel drive SUVs for our NW weather conditions and occasional winter time mountain pass trips — but they ain’t cheap!

      So since I have to get six of them for my Ontour, I’m going to go with the same Toyo tires as you did!

      Thanks for sharing all your research…I wouldn’t have known without reading your post. I think this is the best PSA (S for Safety) you’ve ever provided!

      P.S I’m a fellow road/gravel cyclist…still waiting (hoping) you offer the FitRV cycling kit again…would love to sport it! 🙂

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        Interesting. I thought the 205 size was only for the cutaway chassis like on the EKKO or the Wonder. It seems not!
        Good luck with the new tires. Mileage-wise, you’re certainly well before anyone I’ve heard of having problems with the Hankooks.
        I hope you wind up liking the Toyos as much as we do.

        Reply
    7. Gene

      Hello James

      Of all your articles, this is the one I find to be the most useful for me. I really did learn a great deal and thanks for your effort to keep it real with RV safety.

      I have a 2020 Ford Transit 350HD dually windowed cargo van built out by Embassy RV and have about 50% tread life remaining on the Continental VanContact A/S in 195/75 R 16 C 107/105 R type.

      My van tops out at 9600lbs give or take fully loaded up. I will be moving to a more cable load range like you have chosen when that time arrives.

      Thanks so much for helping me out. It’s like having a second brain…LOL

      Reply
    8. Darrell Duchon

      Great article couldn’t agree more. Hopefully saved some folks from an unnecessary lift and bigger tires. I’m one of them.

      Reply
    9. Jim McCrea

      Other than the snow rating, it sounds like you had good Michelin experience. This is such a timely and helpful post as I am actively working to get the Hankooks off my EKKO at 25,000 miles. Thanks so much for putting your thoughts down,

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        True. We’ve had nothing but good experience with Michelins in the past. And I would have bought them again, but it was the 3PMSF rating that really got me looking at the Toyos.

        I would have loved to do a head-to-head on our same RV with both sets of tires. That gets a bit expensive though…

        Reply
    10. Scott Zuppan

      James,
      Did you check on using FORSCAN coding to address the wheel sizing issue? I do know it works on all the F-series trucks and I have read that it is also working on the later Transit series. It works on a wide range of programming on all Ford vehicles. Each model is different (as well as year range). Just wondering if you checked on using it. I have used it on my own truck (F-series SD) and have configured my truck into an almost custom make-up of Ford allowed sub-configurations. Just curious is all. Thanks for your continued posts.

      Scott Z

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        Yes, I did look into that, and for the Transit Cutaway, it doesn’t seem to work. At least according to all those who have tried it on the Ford Transit forum and in the EKKO owners group.
        I think it has something to do with it technically being a “commercial” vehicle.

        Reply
    11. Don Kane

      Hi James–

      Are the tires a Ford thing or an Winnebago thing? Our 2019 250 Transit has VanContact A/S tires, size 235/65 R 16 C. The load specs are: 121/119 B
      We have about 40K on the tires, they are down to about 4 mm, and will prob’ly replace them next summer.

      And just checking, your duels are the same specs as the front?

      Snow tires? I’m from Buffalo, so using snow tires (or 4WD for that matter) seems unsporting. We used to use snows in the bias wheel era, but I haven’t used them since using radials, about 1978.
      On the other hand, I do carry chains in the winter. And have used them!

      In terms of tire quietness, you could look at something like the Tesla tires for the front wheels, the ones with the foam backing the tread. Also, since you don’t carry a spare, I think you can run them flat for a while to get to a tire store…

      Cheers,

      –d

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        The tires (and the weird size) are definitely a Ford thing. Winnebago swaps the tires onto their new wheels, but doesn’t change them. Many of the Transits have different tire sizes, and from what I can tell, the 205 size is unique to the 350 Cutaway AWD DRW. It’s the same size all the way around.

        I don’t think there are many other options for tires in this size. Certainly not any Tesla or run-flat tires. I think we’re. probably too heavy for any run-flats!

        Reply
        1. Don Kane

          Opps, that was 121/119 R not B. (Yes, we go over 31 mph)
          Interesting that our tires much heavier than yours. Our GVWR is 9000; yours maybe 11500?

          I think because your Front GAWR is maybe 4500, FORD thinks 2535 x 2 is fine, and 2403 x 4 is more than enuf for the back.
          On the other hand, for our rig, the front doest matter but the Rear GAWR is 5515, so FORD thinks 3197 x 2 is enuf. (BTW, the our rears wear about 20% faster than the fronts. Rotate each oil change.)

          On a different note, our tires are 152.8 mm high; yours 153.8 mm. You big tire snobs just rub it in, saying your tires are JUST fine. I am so jealous.

        2. James - Post author

          Lol.
          I think you’re right – the dualies in the back make all the difference on the weight ratings…

    12. Alfredo Nava

      Where did you get the diagram of the wheel measurements? I can’t find that anywhere. Unfortunately I couldn’t find AT tires that supported E load under 225 width. I would’ve also preferred to keep the same width or at most 215, however they don’t go up to E for ATs. So if I don’t want to get a spacer seems like my only option is to find another tire that has bigger displacement to provide additional space between the tires. Do you know what is the measurement of the offset of the outside read dually tire? Most stuff I see online have an offset of +100mm, but i need to know the OEM offset to figure out how much additional separation that will provide.

      Reply
      1. James - Post author

        I’ve had that diagram of the wheel measurements for a while. I believe it was originally from Winnebago.
        All the info I’ve found on EKKO wheel offsets is in that diagram.
        If my math is right, it looks like the Hi-Spec wheels in the rear have about 117.05mm of negative offset.
        And the Ford steel wheels have an additional 4.6mm of offset – but they’re flipped around the other way so in that case, it’s positive offset.
        Unless I misunderstood your question…?

        Reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear once we have had the chance to review it.