Jump to content

Lwt tyres; 6.50 x 16 or 7.50 x 16


Recommended Posts

Who in the UK can supply (& hopefully fit) some new tyres for my Lwt with the 'Army' pattern, the name of which I forget after a few years of looking. Were they Goodyear?I think 6.50 x 16 are best for a realistic look, as I seem to remember hearing  that 7.50 were never used on Lwts.

Edited by LarryH57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told new Deestones were no longer available?

Incidentally what wheels were fitted by the Army to take a 6.50 x 16 and where can I find the marking. My existing wheels with 7.50s could do with sand blasting and painting before they get a new tyre. I am not sure of their pedigree and if they would take a 6.50?

Edited by LarryH57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for safety I will have to buy new tyres, so the copies of those Goodyears will have to do. As for the tyres were there Goodyear ZXLs or similar, which is the name I'm after? I'm away from my references at the moment.

£100 per tyre seems to be the going rate but that's not a fitted price and without the inner tube, which hardly ever gets mentioned.

Any names of suppliers, in Southern England would be of help.

Edited by LarryH57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodyear XTRA GRIP are still made in Indonesia and are (or were) used on the Australian Perentie RFSV for one.


Not available through Goodyear in the UK though, as far as I know.

I was looking at Deestone as they were readily available on eBay just a few months ago but not now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were a few  6.50x16 'grey imports' from USA ,  they are now arriving with CE.

Tube type  -  take a look at  STA Traxion  (USA made)



There is a good reason for 6.50x16 on Lightweights , whilst  6.50x16 are OK for a civvy 88" /  88" CL , in theory you may be just squeaking it with a Lightweight.  The Lightweight Utility was never lighter than a 88" Basic Utility - check VIN plates on later vehicles.  User Handbooks  pre- VIN..   Kerbside max. gross - a Lightweight is the heavyweight & so you 'should' use 6.50 - that extra 1/2" on width take the extra load.

Myself - I don't like 7.50's  - that adds 2" to the rolling dia.  My choice was the original aspect ratio (IIRC 83)   on the original Range Rover (designed for)  Michelin or Pirelli but fitted to 109" rims (the overall width was just within the 5'-0" bodyline.

I have run LASSA  OK-144  (mede in Turkey)  far better rubber than The Deestone & other clones.  However they were not available in 6.50 , so I used 6.00 - they stopped importing them to UK.

Goodyear Extra Grip  mare in England  =  OK  , if they stated made in Morocco - they were total rubbish - the sidewalls cracked out very early.  Bit more to it than stirring carbon black into a mix of natural/synthetic rubber & throwing a few extras in.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


There is a good reason for 6.50x16 on Lightweights , whilst  6.50x16 are OK for a civvy 88" /  88" CL , in theory you may be just squeaking it with a Lightweight. 

Should read  :-

There is a good reason for 6.50x16 on Lightweights , whilst  6.00x16 are OK for a civvy 88" /  88" CL , in theory you may be just squeaking it with a Lightweight, however most  X ply 6.00x16 I have seen don't.  Although some radials did - BUT you are not going to find them now.. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, LarryH57 said:

Thanks Ruxy. And the markings or serial number on the Lwt wheels? What is that?



Have a look for US imports for Jeep (early CJ types)  in 7.00x16 , these are often NDT bar-grip types but others are imported from US  , IIRC you don't need to change/remark your speedo head like with 7.50's .  The big plus is that the rolling dia. will only be abt. 1/2" more than 6.50's.

You should have 231601  branded rims (part No.)  - check all , yours will have a riveted nave plate , later welded type may have a different part number,  You will see the D trade mark = Dunlop branded and the offset.  If I were going for new Radial TUBELESS , then I would fit the rims introduced by Ford with the PUMA Defender, these have the safety hump that you hardly notice.  You would be taking punctures to a tyre depot in any case , not as if you are going abroad with spare tubes & a set of levers.  Nothing to stop you investing in a bench bead breaker if you are keen.   Most important make certain tubes are TR15 valve , you do't want TR13 with a Appaseal plastic bush.

I have a bit of a collection (stored in dark) of  205R16 by Semperit and Vredstein , snow tyres intended for the early Merc. G Wagen - I use these on 109"/Defender width rims.  Don't know what they fit now, the original 205R16 Michelin XM&S that was designed for Range Rover & Pirelli that followed were always good for Lightweight.  The newer  20580R16 tyres went a bit wider and are outside of the Lightweight 5'-0" width , also I can't think of any with the traditional block tread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAMAC  are Portugese remoulds , they come & go , mainly go - one of the reasons I believe is that they can't get the casings,



They obviously made it worth while for Avon (one of the few UK based manufacturers)  to run of some.   ISTR that back in history - the 7.00x16 was only OE on  Series One  107"  inc. SW



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately I am able to pull out the Avon Commercial Tyre DATA books from April 1984 and October 1990.   btw   Both Dunlop and Firestone did their identical version of the Avon 'Traction Mileage'  -  I have some for reference.

The Tables are to ETRTO  ,  the Avon  7.50 was known as  Ranger Mk2 (it had two sipes instead of three) - in fact my Sankey WIDETRACK still is fitted with them.

Interesting - Avon did the Land Rover sizes in both 6PR and 8PR  (however the 6.00 was only in 6PR - tells a story)

Comparison of  6.00  ,  6.50,   7.00,  7.50

Overall dia.  (inch)     28.6"  29.2"  30.4"   31.6"

Unfortunately - the data does not indicate the weight of each size , BUT - I can tell you it is considerable.

I will quote the pressure (psi) and Graduated SINGLE axle loads - but just at 33 psi

2470 lb  .  2670 lb  .  3195 lb 


The Ranger Mk.2  data only starts at  40 psi  =   SINGLE   @  3815 lbs

If you need to learn anything at all about LR tyres for Series and L'wt in particular - that needs to be absorbed and explains why I would never ever fit 750's to a L'wt.

So - I may as well give you the further "graduations" for the three smaller dia's on SINGLE but at 40 psi

2755 lb.  3000 lb   3570 lb

Basically - it goes like this - the bigger the rolling / stratic dia. & PR  , it takes more psi just to hold the heavier casing just held up.   To get all the benefits of best steering / suspension from tyres (that you need on L'wt 7 leaf HD's)  - you always choose the optimum section width & PR..





Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of interesting points have been raised in this thread which prompted me to look a bit deeper.  I am fortunate in having a copy of the FVRDE “Notes for Acceptance Meeting on Lightweight Landrover” dated 20 April 1967 in which these points are clarified.  Attached to the Notes is an additional 4-page summary of the “Lightweight Version of Short Wheelbase Land-Rover” which gives the initial requirement, description and “Standard Specification – Land-Rover Models, Model – 88” Lightweight W.D”.  It claims that the oil cooler has been deleted, suggesting that it is an earlier document than the “Notes for Acceptance Meeting…”  But, disappointingly it lacks any further provenance.  I refer to it below as “the attachment”.

FVRDE’s own figures in the Notes state that, “the Lightweight vehicle is about 260lbs lighter than the comparable Mk.8 in both built-up and stripped forms”.  That is significantly lighter – over 18 ½ stone: a fully-equipped infantryman.  Elsewhere in the document the weights are detailed: “Unladen (without fuel):  Mk.8 Rover 3220lbs completely weatherproofed, 2856lbs stripped, compared with the Lightweight Rover’s 2957lbs and 2593lbs respectively.  These figures are for the GS version as, at this stage, the trials FFR was still using the radio harness of the Mk8 – the URS had yet to be designed.

Reading the Notes, it is clear where the weight-saving came from.  There was a small amount in the chassis in that its overall width was reduced.  The same is true for the front bumper and, of course, the bulkhead was narrower and lacked the parcel shelf.  The rest of the bodywork differed markedly with resultant weight loss.  And of equal significance was the replacement in the Lightweight of the heavy-duty springs used on the Mk8 and the change to 5.00Fx16 well-base wheel rims from the Mk.8’s 4.50Ex16 divided rims.  Incidentally, according to the Notes, both the springs and the wheels adopted for the Lightweight were to have been introduced on the Mk.8 had that remained in service, as an economy measure and with a resultant loss in weight of that vehicle. 

Initially, the oil cooler was discarded, but, during the trials it became clear that one was required and so the weights above include one (there is an alternative, lower, weight in the attachment of 2795/2495lbs unladen: it is possible that these weights refer to the vehicle minus the oil cooler, as it further states, “to save weight, well-based wheels replace the W.D. divided type, the oil cooler is deleted and standard suspension replaces the normal W.D. heavy duty one.  This is acceptable due to reduced gross weight.  If required, any of the deleted items could be fitted in service”.

Regarding tyre sizes.  The Lightweight was certainly designed and passed its acceptance trials on 6.00x16 tyres with the understanding that the Mk.8’s 6.50x16 tyres might be used if required in service at the cost of 8 ½lbs additional weight per tyre (34lbs all up).  The attachment also mentions that 7.50x16 tyres are optional and adds that, “provision is also made to fit 7.50x16 tyres if required”.  And, of course, the fitting of sand tyres would also have been considered.

Separately, I was particularly intrigued that, among the summary of some 24 user comments (from the trials vehicles) one complained that, “the fitting of the rear view mirrors to the door hinge is unsatisfactory”, leading to the FVRDE advice that, “Present location and (sic) [of] mirrors as for Mk.8.  Improved type of mirror will be specified.”  So they put them on the wings – that WAS an improvement wasn’t it?

What can be read into all that?  Well, compared with the in-service Mk8 (Rover 8), FVRDE certainly considered that the Lightweight WAS lighter at the introduction into service stage by a considerable margin.  And it was this comparison which mattered, not a comparison with any other Land Rover type.  What happened to it thereafter as it developed through into the Series 3 is another story.  And, of course, FVRDE had no qualms about running the Lightweight on 6.00x16 tyres, or, indeed 7.50x16, the latter being specified, of course, by some overseas users and did appear on occasion on British in-service Lightweights towards the end of their careers.  (There is, incidentally, a photo of 00WA25 on 7.50x16s undergoing trials at Chertsey in Mark Cook’s book, though this was an early Series 3).  But, 6.50x16 was the production tyre of choice whether Bargrips, Dunlop T29s, or, latterly, Goodyear Xtra Grip Hi milers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So -  how was  6.50x16 size arrived at ?

Well you can play around with PAYLOAD  Kerbside weight - but Solihull play around with a driver / amount of fuel etc. ,  but civvy and military differ with rating.  All SWB earlier from 1948 were rated at 1/4 ton.  The L'wt pre-pro were 1/4 ton.

The FFR L'wt has more weight (a little 120 lbs) on the front axle , however the front axle loading is less then the fully laden rear axle - so it matters not.

Between the earlier stated User Manuals S2A & S3, there is one difference - the S2A states - Cross Country the , rear axle load must be reduced by 200 lbs.     In both books - the FFR modular radio kit is not accounted , so comparisons 12v / 24v are empty tub.  The max. axle load is same for 12v & 24v  =  2625 lb.

So - then we go to the ETRTO Tables,   the tyre makers data sheet will state  , conforms to ETRTO data  (European Countries)

So - we look for a pressure of 30 psi (needed max. laden on rear axle)  ,  the nearest is  29psi

So reading down the graduated tables for 29 psi :-

6.00 16c  SINGLE  2315 lb

6.50 16c    -do-         2515 lb

7.00 16c    -do-         3000 lb

We need tyres suitable for  -  2625 lb  (no less)  as unsafe.   7.00x16c  has plenty of capacity in hand. But adds weight , £ and performance suffers a little.

So that leaves us with  6.50x16c    BUT that only permits 2515  lb  ,  however if you inflate by another  1 psi  then that gets you another  110 lb.   So simple - basic maths.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - you find any make of 6.5x16  & new should be E marked , old rubber is very risky.  The pressures are 25 psi Front and Rear ,  however once you start loading the tub you increase to 30 psi (when you are at the max. payload).

The CL 88"  - was provided with bench seats in the rear  and was fitted with 7 leaf (rear only) and 6.50x16 tyres.   You will note in a lift car , the load-plate  , the old BS2655 allowed 150 lb per person ,  so  150 x4  - 600 lbs and that is your 1/4 ton ,  add a bit of weight for kit & you would be getting into overload for standard rear springs on 6.00x16 tyres.

Springs - if there is a difference in weight between 7 leaf HD's and standard civvy front & rear , then it is negligible because the individual leaves are of thicker stuff - the pack is abt. the same thickness.  

  The HD's do improve the payload a little , but in conj. with HD shocks they give more compliance cross-country - when fully laden, thus stand up better o speeds above suggested in User Manuals..

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On the Lwt reference site (below) you helped with, it also mentions STC 3402 which are welded wheel rims for a Lwt; surely these came after 231601 riveted ones ; so does my late 1980 GS needs these.

I'm not sure of the pedigree of those fitted to my Lwt at the moment, so it may be best if I source and fit replacement wheels and once painted have new tyres fitted to them and have the old ones cleared and repainted. One appears to have been white or cream coloured before so no military and many coats of NATO Green paint over matt black on two of them when cast!

http://www.land-rover-lightweight.co.uk/LRL Wheels.html

I'm still trying to make sense of the tubes to fit if I find a set of 6.50's or the 7.50 Goodyear lookalikes? 

Edited by LarryH57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The welded  nave=plate 5.00 rim  (STC 3402)  supercession of   riveted  231601  , years after production of Lightweight ceased .

With rims you will often find suffix letters after - that is just the paint finish (PM = primer).

If yours have 231601 branded on nave - then OK provided undamaged & not found rusted when the tyre is removed.

You must have the correct type/size of tube & cheap thin butyl are not so good,  if German made they will be OK , £ expensive but most reliable is the Michelin airstop.

When Paddocks several years ago were selling new rimes very cheap , it didn't pay to shot blast.  I used to get then done free on a conveyor shotblaster - a large steel fabricator,  often with the tyre still on if serviceable - ball shot just cleans & bounces off rubber.  These tube-type rings are no longer  £ cheap.   I have often purchased sets on eBay with good tyres - New Defender owners wanted shot to fit fancy alloys.   Due to the present  6.50x16 tyre situation (lack of)  - I would if I were you try and get by with what you have , or buy some good used.   You don't know what may come on the market in tyres 6.50x16 , they could be tubeless - so best on the newer Tube type rims.   If you get desperate , then probably some cheap far east 6.50x16  Bar-grips from a Jeep type place will be best - more so for a parade type truck.  The better name brand bar-grips by such as Firestone cost a lot more but could also be made in far east  !

Tyre fitting with tubes - take your own shaker of  TALC   , and get plenty used , few keep it handy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, Something was a bit odd about the first link I gave you for North Hants Tyres - try this link instead.  https://www.northhantstyres.com/tyre-finder.php then look for 6.50x16.  They seem to have just one in stock at the moment and, while not exactly Goodyear Hi Milers, they're about as close as one can get readily in new tyres https://www.northhantstyres.com/img/tyres/sta/STA-Super-traxion-650x16.gif

Edited by 10FM68
crap link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would need to see the full data sheet on these , car typeish but have their purpose & almost certain the 80 aspect ratio is just right.  I used to use similar RADIALS on a Lightweight for long distance caravan towing. The ones I used were Michelin XCA  but in 6.00x16  , slightly smaller rolling dia on for on steep hills and the Fairey overdrive more than put it back. The bonus is that I still have a full set stored and will use them on a Sankey narrowtrack.  These seem a copy of the XCA.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...