Tires rubbing?

#1

I am hearing a growling from somewhere along the rear end when the springs are near or at full compression. The only thing is, its been doing this for a while now, and I have yet to find rub marks on anything under the wheel wells.

It dosent seem to change with how deep im planting the go pedal, and if the car is loaded with stuff, it growls when the car sinks down into the dips on the road when traveling above overpasses.

I was wondering if anybody else noticed this in the sedan? Its limiting me from loading the car without doing stuff like putting stuff in the front seat or making 2 trips.

#2

Could be one or more CV joints that growl when working at the extreme angles, or the rear u-joint. Just off-the-top guesses.

#3

When I was running 215/60-15s my car would rub under those circumstances in the rear.

I found it was rubbing on the rear fender wells near the top which was hard to see.

I went to 215/50s and the rubbing went away.

#4

asavage wrote:Could be one or more CV joints that growl when working at the extreme angles, or the rear u-joint. Just off-the-top guesses.

Im actually gonna try rebuilding my cv joints, Anybody know if its possible, to replace the needles inside the bearings, I think there may be play inside them

Ill try pulling the wheels off one day and check the wheel wells

#5

When the needles are worn, so are the races the needles run on.

#6

You are running down a rabbit trail with the Cv axles. It is the rear tires....somewhere. I have found that 195/70r14 is a good size for the front and 215/75r14 or 225/75r14 for the rear. I have had 225/70r14 rub at times on the back. Next best repair is a new set of rear springs (cargo coil). I have not found a good source for springs in over five years. I have never had to replace front springs.

#7

asavage wrote:When the needles are worn, so are the races the needles run on.

Sounds expensive, mabye ill replace the boots as preventive maintainence, I dont think ill be seeing any cv joints off any maximas on this side for a while.

You are running down a rabbit trail with the Cv axles. It is the rear tires....somewhere. I have found that 195/70r14 is a good size for the front and 215/75r14 or 225/75r14 for the rear. I have had 225/70r14 rub at times on the back. Next best repair is a new set of rear springs (cargo coil). I have not found a good source for springs in over five years. I have never had to replace front springs.

I dont think the cv axles are that bad though, it growls at low speeds too, instead of a crunch crunch or clack. I think I run 185 or 195/70's all around, im not big on handling. My springs and shocks are about 10 months old, and they seem to still be holding weight fine, and ride height is still acceptable, with no-medium loads.

I belive the rear springs are way too small for this application, they get relaxed way too fast. Im running springs from NAPA, not sure about their quality, I try not to load the car much to prevent sag though, compressing strut springs always makes me sweat, ive had some close calls.

#8

Follow up on the larger tires, the rears do rub with 205/70's, upon closer inspection and inspection of my old tires I found that the lip of the mud guard towards the rear of the wheel wells where rubbing on the tires. Surpringly I was able to reshape it away by pushing on the edge and now, no more rubbing, sweet deal. Im probably going for 70's on my next set, the fatter they are the more plush and better highway fuel economy im gonna get. I also get a bit more ground clearance which is always a plus.

Oh and follow up on the cv axles, after replacing one boot, I found its almost in brand spankin new condition with 40k (that I know) with ripped boots. I keep getting the outers as the inners from the FLAPS (NAPA) so they are ordering me a outer to see if itll send the inner, never know

#9

the fatter they are the more plush and better highway fuel economy im gonna get. I

I've always heard that skinny hard tires gave better fuel economy - less flex and contact surface = better (less) rolling resistance.... ?

Rufus

#10

thiner and bigger rolling dia gives better economy from friction.
i believe that the old rag tyres arnt low friction even though they are thin.

the modern design and material claim to reduce friction,big sales point.
ie tyres like handcooks claim that they use silicon[?] for economy.
the old micholen cheese cutters lasted longer and gave fuel economy gains.

tyres over 185 are a waist of time in a maxima size car.bluebird and skyline in australia [similar to USA] use 14/5.5 15/6 rims.[japan is 13/5-14/5] so this is equal to 175-185.in aust 75 profile was about the tallest-i have had USA 85-95 profile versions of local tyres imported in the past to gain ground clearance.
had a set of firestones that had 120% profile and white walls,these perished before they wore out.

205/55 15[not for economy] very hard on tyres.

rail has lots less friction-ride a train.

#11

rlaggren wrote:
the fatter they are the more plush and better highway fuel economy im gonna get. I
I've always heard that skinny hard tires gave better fuel economy - less flex and contact surface = better (less) rolling resistance.... ?

Rufus

Oh as in fatter I meant the sidewalls, not the 205 part, the 70 part as apposed to 60. Yeah, thinner tires give you better fuel economy, and thicker sidewalls make the diameter bigger, so highway miles would go up.

#12

Add a data point here.

Replaced the rear tires on my 82 wagon w/some 215/75 per notes in this forum. They fit (close - 3/8 to 1/2") with the suspension 1/2" from bumper and I've hit the damn thing enough driving to say they clear at full compression (no marks on tires) - I haven't got decent springs on it yet. I might be able to use cables but chains would pretty surely require some surgery, especially at the rear bottom bottom fender bead. Sorry, the camera has been hiding for the last six weeks - its on the list.

I couldn't get 225/75's here (or anywhere actually) which was probably lucky - I think they might not clear at full compression. Maybe there's more room with the IRS in the sedans.

There is noticeably more load when accelerating from stop and also in 2nd and 3rd from 12 to 30 mph. Not a problem at all, just needs more "foot" if you're going to move out smartly; usually I don't. Above that I don't notice much difference, except: The cruise control seems to respond a lot more slowly. This may be unrelated.

I also notice more wiggle from the rear end on grooves or lane changes; nothing to make me run and fix it and I probably will get used to it and forget about it, but it _is_ different from the stock config.

Don't have much data on indicated mpg yet but it looks about the same; need a few tanks to tell. I don't have the circumference figures in front of me but I seem to recall these tires are about 8% "longer" around so that would be mean better actual mpg.

Rufus

#13

I noticed light rubbing with the sheet metal (read above) with the IRS sedan suspension. I believe the wagon may have more room because live axles keep the wheels perpendicular to horizontal at all points of travel, instead of the IRS that has caster and camber changes.

[EDIT]- thats with 205/70's

#14

Would anybody advise against running 195/75-14 goodyear wrangler at's all around? I am looking at a set of new tires on my local craigslist and it appears to be a winner if i can run them in the front without rubbing. Im afraid of modifying a fender or anything

#15

Wrangler-- Isn't that a truck tire?

NissanDiesel Forums

Tires rubbing?

Tires rubbing?

Who is online