This AI-generated summary may contain inaccuracies. Please refer to the full thread for complete details.
Members largely agree this is more likely a load-capacity or loading problem than a simple brand problem. The original poster described repeated rear dual failures including belt separation, tread crowning, a sidewall blowout, and follow-on failure after one dual carried the load alone. Several experienced members pointed to overloading, under-capacity tires, or inflation not matched to real axle loads, especially with two full-size motorcycles and gear in the rear of a 2001 Four Winds...
More...
Members largely agree this is more likely a load-capacity or loading problem than a simple brand problem. The original poster described repeated rear dual failures including belt separation, tread crowning, a sidewall blowout, and follow-on failure after one dual carried the load alone. Several experienced members pointed to overloading, under-capacity tires, or inflation not matched to real axle loads, especially with two full-size motorcycles and gear in the rear of a 2001 Four Winds Funmover on an E450 chassis. A smaller group also urged checking front and rear alignment and general suspension condition because the chassis is older, but the dominant view is that repeated failures across multiple tires are a symptom of load stress first, not tire brand alone.
The biggest practical takeaway is that the current LT225/75R16 Load Range E tires with load index 115 appear underspecified for this use case, especially on the rear duals. Members highlighted that a commercial or Euro C 225/75R16 tire can provide higher dual-wheel capacity, and specific models mentioned were the Goodyear Wrangler C, Firestone Transforce CV2, General Grabber HD, and Michelin Agilis CrossClimate in the commercial version. Multiple high-credibility members stressed that actual scaled axle weights, ideally with the motorcycles loaded, are still the key missing data because they determine whether a higher-capacity tire is enough or whether the RV is operating in an unsafe overload condition that no similar-size tire can solve.
Trustworthy sources: 6 posts; Untrustworthy: 0 posts. Core consensus points: verify actual loaded rear axle weight, current tires are likely under-rated, repeated belt separations usually indicate overload or inflation mismatch, consider commercial-spec 225/75R16C tires. Outliers: brand-only solutions without weight data. Top pros and cons by impact: Tier1 concern is rear tire overload and repeated failure risk; Tier2 concerns are possible alignment or suspension issues and confusion over LT versus commercial tire specs; Tier3 points are brand preferences such as Michelin, Toyo, Hankook, Sumitomo, Firestone, and General. The main unresolved question is whether the rear axle is merely close to its limit or actually overloaded beyond what upgraded same-size tires and wheels can safely handle.
