Cranky as a hornet!

[rushN]

I've spent days searching the 'net and ringing tyre retailers. As it stands, the only tyre on the market that I can legally fit to an ML Triton with the OEM 17" rims are the crap, and frankly dangerous, Dueler HT's that come fitted from the factory. The problem is that there are few tyres in the standard 245/65R17 fitment available, and those that are available don't have a load rating that meets the minimum 111 rating required (other than the aforementioned OEM duelers). I can't fit wider tyres (legally) due to the increase in diameter that takes the increase over the 15mm that the RTA allow.

So...the options I'm left with are to keep the sh!t OEM Duelers and pray that it doesn't rain for the next 40,000kms, OR fit tyres that are either illegal in load rating or diameter and hope I don't have an insurance claim or get a defect notice (or both), OR change rims to 16" so I have more choice of rubber (at greater expense to me).

I'm pissed off that Mitsubishi choose to fit a tyre of an unusual size to a vehicle that most owners are likely to want to change. The thing that shits me more is that the official Triton brochure states that "The tyres fitted to your Triton are designed primarily for use on sealed roads. If your Triton is to be driven mainly on unsealed roads, please consult your Mitsubishi dealer for advice on appropriate tyre selection." What I'd like to know is, what other tyre are they going to fcuking recommend???

Rant over. I thought I'd feel better after typing this, but I'm still cranky

[Homer]

I don't blame you! That's news to me. 90% of everyones driving is on the blacktop and anyone can drive safely in the dry.
It's the wet road performance that saves your panels - and maybe lives.
Is this an Aus wide legality issue does anyone know???

[Mantis]

Move to QLD, they are changing that law from 15mm to 50mm up here as of Jan 09 I'm pretty sure....

[rushN]

Lol. It'd be cheaper to buy the 16's methinks

[Iron_eagle70]

Not from what I've heard Mantis. I hope your right but pretty sure the 15 is gonna stay even though we go to national standards on the rest.

[jop]

I've heard the same from fourby's at marooka, mantis.
Here's hoping but i have heard it before so we'll see.
Mark

[barraxt]

From an insurance point of view...

If you have tyres that are regarded as "illegal", an insurer will only negate the claim in the event it can be proven that the offending item was the cause of the incident. So, just because you have 265/75 tyres does not mean the accident where you hit someone else in the rear will be declined. If on the other hand, the same tyres were well worn (or badly worn) down to and into the wear indicators and the same accident happened on a wet road, then you will be in the shit if they believe the tyres were at fault.

As an ex-insurance company manager and now with my own broking firm, I can attest to many incidents that were paid (and correctly so) even though the vehicle involved had modifications that were "illegal" by nature. The insurers are not stupid (they are human too) and any assessor will look at the factors and data supporting the claim before making any recommendation to either settle or decline.

It is even better if you use a reputable broker as we can really lay some pressure and leveridge on insurers.

Whilst I am not recommending or condoning making modifications or fitting aftermarket gear that is not clearly "legal", I am stating the circumstances behind the claim are all important. Similarly, I DO RECOMMEND that all accessories and modifications are listed on your policy...exactly as to what they are and the value. Once declared and accepted by the insurer, they cannot be denied in a claim.

Eg: A mate has an old 2.8 diesel Hilux 4x4 that we insured as part of his business and he wanted to fit an aftermarket turbo system. When I spoke to the insurer, they did not want to know about so I remarketed the vehicle mid terms and sourced cover ($100 a year dearer) that would provide full cover for the modification.

My profile exactly matches the additions to my policy (same pricing, no adjustment), so I know there will not be any other issues with OME suspension, 265/70 tyres, dual battery, Anderson plug, nudge bar, spotties etc...etc...

Similarly, our VE SS has been noted having multiple dyno sessions and ECU reprogramming - fully covered under the policy and in the event an accident occurs and the ECU is replaced or reset, the insurer will have it remapped again to current specs.

[jop]

Thanks Barra, that's the most informative info i have heard on this issue.

[rushN]

Thanks Barraxt. Very useful info there that puts my mind at ease re: insurance...

...but there's still the issue of driving a legally "defective" vehicle if a different tyre size is fitted.

[barraxt]

rushN, that will be your call as far as complying with transport rules. As far as insurance is concerned, I wanted to quantify how and why these things are addressed and what information you need to arm yourself to get the correct result.

Let me put it another way. I spoke to the dept of Transport over the phone and whilst they are aware of the 50mm rule not being in (if it ever does get approved), they accepted my comment that the 265/70 tyres actually corrected the speedo and had no problems.

It also comes back to how you are using the vehicle...are you driving like a dickhead and attracting attention to yourself (this is an ambiguous question, so I am not asking for a response). The police are also human and most have bikes, 4WD and modified cars, so if you attract attention, expect problems.

One of the senior sargents I know wanted to go for a ride in the SS after he had heard of the power gains. They then put it on a radar to see what it would do. I did it to see and they then had all their SS, SSV and Typhoons specced up as most HSV's and SS's in town are all modified. With 358kw, I have not had a ticket in it in 2 years. It is how you drive them that attracts the attentionm whether 4WD or performance car.

I am yet to hear of a 4WD with slightly larger tyres being defected or declined in a claim

[4wd26]

Barra is confirming all the info I have received by talking to the right people.
My neighbour is the state claims manager for one of the large insurers, they cannot deny a claim if you have done all the things outlined in Barras post.

However what they can do is make it hard to insure the vehicle either by costing you out of the market (based on risk research) or refusing to accept the risk (refuse you a policy)

With reagrd to the Police, unless you have been a bad boy, I would doubt you would ever attract unwanted police attention due to larger tyres (again its all about perspective) don't go too silly with the diameter 35" and don't go outside the guards. Oh and the more the vehicle stands out the more police attention it is likely to get.

I'm happy to run tyres that are fit for purpose (MT MTZ 265/70/17) and accept the risk that they don't quite conform. I thought long and hard about going up another size and in the end it wasn't worth the hassel, a lot having to do the the "stand out" factor not so much the risk factor. We all speed a little don't we? and if we get caught we accept the fine, I consider this the same, and if I get caught I'll accept the fine.

[rushN]

Thanks for all the info and advice fellas. I've been on the phone with my insurer and all's good with fitting the larger tyres as long as I inform them when done so they mark it so on the contract (as you have recommended).

I've also rang the tyre retailer and explained the situation to them, and they are now happy to fit the tyres. Will happen later this week.

Many thanks for your comforting insight and advice.

Cheers