Re: Load Rating - 620kg - Help!

Slybacon · Post by **Slybacon** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:56 pm

Should I rush out and buy new wheels for the old girl (Bongo that is!)?: I've been getting ready for holiday and just noticed that my rear wheels have 620kg stamped on them. They are fitted with 225/50/r17/94 tyres. Now I know the standard rear tyres are load rated at 96 which is 710kg, but the old girl has obviously been running around Osaka in these wheels and tyres for a good few years.........so should I change 'em?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Post by **Simon Jones** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:01 pm

I'm not an expert on these matters, but as you have 4 wheels (hopefully!), that gives you a total capacity of 2480Kg, which is about 1/2 a ton more than the Bongo weighs.

mikeonb4c · Post by **mikeonb4c** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:17 pm

I agree with Simon. Whilst we are all older and wiser now about what tyres should be on the Bongo, I personally wouldn't go into a tailspin if I discovered I was running on 94s. I think the 15 wheels that I just took off mine were 94s and they had come off a Bongo and I'd done 10k on them and they look fine (whereas the low profile 91s 17" that were on it when I bought it DID seem to have slight cracking between tread and wall). Maybe avoid filliing the boot with builders rubble and doing ninety down the motorway though.

Slybacon · Post by **Slybacon** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:59 pm

Thanks guys.

I'm needing to put new tyres on the back. Was thinking of putting 98s(750kg) on, but didn't know if there was much point if the wheels were rated at 610kg. I suppose there would definitely be no harm(?) My guess is that wheels are less likely to have a decrease in their strength as time goes on whereas tyres will. There will also be a factor of safety built into the wheels.

The thing is two 94s will cost me £60 less than two 98s!

Anyway probably time to hit the hay.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

dipstick · Post by **dipstick** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:19 am

So whats £60.00 compared to a disaster?

bigdaddycain · Post by **bigdaddycain** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:14 pm

I'd be inclined to agree with the above slybacon, those wheels should be well up to the job, i have a similar load rating on my alloys, no worries...

mikeonb4c · Post by **mikeonb4c** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:52 pm

If you are getting new, I'd definitely pay extra and fit 98's . Worth it for the peace of mind. My new tyres are 98's. You may even get better wear as a result. My earlier advice was only by way of saying that if you have 94's on and can't easily afford outlay for 4 new tyres, then I wouldn't go into a tailspin about it.

Slybacon · Post by **Slybacon** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:26 pm

Yeh, I reckon I will go for the 98s. Like everyone else money is object but safety is more important. I reckon the 98s would be better even if they are rated higher than the wheels - stronger and more likely to cope with pot holes.

Cheers

mister munkey · Post by **mister munkey** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:48 pm

Getting back on thread again, my swirly alloys also have 690kg stamped on them but 6 months & 9,000 miles later all is well.

As long as the tyres are right (92 front - 96 rear) its not a problem.

mister munkey · Post by **mister munkey** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:09 pm

Not wishing to slur slybacon in any way - why does my end show mike as the author of this thread?

Is this a cheat to make the 7000?

bigdaddycain · Post by **bigdaddycain** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:15 pm

Mike is showing up as the author here too...Your furry eyes ain't deceiving you!...

Slybacon · Post by **Slybacon** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:01 pm

It was defo me that started the thread - bit of an odd one!

mikeonb4c · Post by **mikeonb4c** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:13 pm

Pete & Sue · Post by **Pete & Sue** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:02 pm

Should be fine. Mine are rated at 690kgs and not a spot of bother.