Would like to get feedback from those of you that opted for H rated tires instead of the OEM G rated. What differences could you tell in ride quality, handling characteristics, mileage, etc. and whether or not you've been pleased enough to purchase H rated again. The 1997 40' U320 we are in the process of purchasing needs new tires. GVWR 32,000#. I'm trying to determine if H rated tires would be overkill though the difference in price between the two doesn't seem to be that much.
Thanks, Gary
I would put the H rated tires on. On our 98 u295 when I weighed the front axle with it fully loaded, would have had the tires overloaded if g. On our 03 it had g on it when we got it. I had it weighed and found the front tires were overloaded, so replaced with h on the front and the next year replaced the others with h.
H rated for sure on a U320 40'.
+1 on what Brett said.
It does of course depend on what your individual wheel weights are, but from recollection of past posts where folks stated their wheel weights, with a LRH you will have margin for weight carrying. With a LRG even at max inflation you could easily be approaching the weight limit, particularly on the front, for a 40' U320.
If you haven't already done so, do find an opportunity to get your coach wheel weights, loaded as typical for a trip. This will assist in determining proper inflation pressures.
I agree with Brett and Michelle. Load Range H. Stronger side walls, tougher tire.
I have BF Goodrich 275/80R22.5 ST244™ LRG now that will be 6 years old in November. They are getting replaced this fall if we are going anywhere in the winter or in the spring before we go anywhere.
My 2001 U320 36' has this for GAWR
Front axle 13,880 lbs max
Rear axle 21,000 lbs max
Actual weights fully loaded in 3/2013
Front axle 11,940 lbs.
Rear axle 19,880 lbs.
From BFG Loads per Axle
Single Dual
psi lbs
100 11560 21040 <- Rear at max load
105 11960 21760
110 12350 22700 <- Front at max pressure insufficient for max load.
I run 100 rears and 110 front. OK for actual wt but just barely.
Do the LRH. Don't take short cuts.
Roger
I have LR H Michilens 5 years old in a few days. No problems with them. No complaints.
(deleted unneeded, excessively-long quote of an entire post - Michelle)
We have always used LR-H. Can't have too much safety when it comes to tires.
I calculated my current xca-1's g rated pressure and capacity. 12350 pounds with a 12,000 actual fully wet load.
Requires 108 pounds out of 110.
Same load on h xca-3's is 100 psi out of a 120 psi max as they are rated at 14,320.
Not sure what the actual axle rating is at this point but lower pressure and more reserve seems a better setup easily.
Plus 19/32nds tread depth versus new xca-1's that were 18/32nds.
Have a good time going thru all that is necessary in buying a new (to you) coach. Tires a certainly a concern. We have owned our 270 for nearly 15 years and replaced the tires it came with (G range) with load range H at the first swap out. FT said not to do this, citing several issues of front tire rubbing and so on. Never happened.
The increase in capacity of using H allows for a margin of safety so huge that the price difference is no consideration. In normal operation, I can have a dead tire on the rear and not stress the tire beside it, if such misfortune happened. Do the numbers; you will be impressed.
The larger load range allows me options such as less pressure in the tires for a "softer" ride on some of the rough roads we choose to go. (I have been to Chaco twice. I also have fitted the air dump valve with a "T" and an output to connect air hoses to increase tire pressure when and where I want.)
I have also learned to use the "bean bags" to balance the tires. No one in this rural area where I live can balance these large rims. And I have invested in a torque wrench (and cheater bar) to ensure that wheel lugs have proper torque.
I am not an engineer, but it seems obvious to me that a larger footprint, more rubber in contact with the road, would aid traction and stopping.
andy1
Per Michelin's site, there is no dimensional difference between LRG and LRH for 275/80R22.5 XZA3 tires Tire Selector | Michelin RV Tires (http://www.michelinrvtires.com/tires/selector/#!/info/xza3+-evertread)
Perhaps you are thinking of the change some folks have made from that size to a tire that is a 295/75R22.5? That was one where some folks had to modify the airbag mounts to avoid rubbing on the steer tires. Of course the question of the stops on the steering box comes into discussion WRT rubbing as well.
Does anyone have a difference in ride or handling perception to add to this discussion? Nothing will keep me from getting H's just interested in your experiences. Thanks. Roger
Roger I am wondering if some of the mpg differences posted here might be from the tire technology resulting in lower rolling resistance.
The xza-3 evertreads tout the energy efficiency and are carb approved.
Bet that's a big factor in better mileage. Duh...
I believe Roger is asking if anyone has noticed differences in ride and handling between LRG and LRH.
I have not noticed any difference in ride or handling, just more peace of mind.
Good info, H it is. ^.^d
I had G's on my old 36 foot and I put H's on. No change in ride or handling at same inflation.
When Forrest got new shoes after 10 years of wearing XZA2's G, they were replaced with ZXA3+ G's. As it is 5,600# CCC is plenty. More is not always better.
What are your individual wheel weights? Given it's a 34' U270, they are likely
much lower than a 40' U320 like the OP has, so you aren't approaching the upper rated inflation limit with LRG on your particular coach.
CCC is irrelevant in this; tire load range is much more about safety, not how much extra stuff you can pack. You inflate to adequate pressure for your wheel weights plus a small margin. The concern with using LRG is that in many instances, particularly on the front axle, the actual wheel weights as loaded for typical travel dictate an inflation pressure that is very near, at, or possibly even higher than the maximum allowed per the manufacturer.
Looks like we may not be able to get six Michelin XZA3+ LRH tires at this time. LRGs are available and are rated at 5675 lbs/tire @ 110psi for duals. GVWR is 20000. Would the total max. load range using the LRGs be 22700 lbs and should that amount give an adequate margin of safety? lf so, would it be acceptable to use LRH for the front and LRG for the back? The only other option for having H rated Michelins would be the XZE model. Not sure if Michelin still make the XZA2. I'd like your opinions on what you would choose given this situation.
Thanks, Gary
Are the tires not in stock?
The first three locations we called had a total of 5 LRHs. Fortunately I just found a store that has at least 6 LRHs. Would still like an answer to my previous questions because we probably won't finalize the purchase of the coach for approx. a week assuming all goes well. Several of the stores I contacted said that model Michelin in LRH have been on back order for some time with no ETA.
if that is the case, I would check the date codes on the tires at the store where you found six - may be already over a year old
I had a problem finding (Michelin) H's when I replaced our tires a couple of years ago, and just went back with the G's, which were plenty fine for our coach anyway. Something about the 275s and load range H is apparently not so common. Could find 295-Hs with no problem, but didn't want those.
Not being disagreeable or recommending load range G. Forrest has this CCC based on FOT's and Michelin's recommendations for axle ratings.
We have Michelin XZE tires on our coach. They are a Regional High Scrub tire but they are included in the Michelin RV Brochure. We did not select these tires. They were installed as part of our purchase agreement when we bought the coach from FOT. They have been on for almost two years and we have not had any problems with them. They are size 275/80R22.5 Load Range H.
Larry
Personally, if H's were not available from Michelin, I would look at another brand, particularly on a 40' U320 for full timing.
Have you contacted Redlands Truck and RV. I know they were loading up a full truckload of Michelins to take to the FMCA Convention is Pomona. Mike is the service manager there. (888) 249-0124.
I had Michelin XZE load range H installed a year ago. I inquired about XZA3, but the dealer said they install more XZE on motorhomes. I don't know which tire is better, but I'm happy with the XZE. Mark
In case you haven't tried them, TCI is one of the larger big truck tire dealers in our area of Texas and have stores in many states. They are Michelin dealers and generally have large warehouses to pull inventory from. Might be worth a call http://www.tirecenters.com/store_loc/store_locater.cfm?myword=all
What does FT put on these coaches new from the factory..G or H?
If your 34' U270 is like mine, the G rated tires were OEM.
But, a 34' U270 is a far cry weight wise from the OP's 40' 320.
From Barry's site...
1997
U270 36'
GVWR 30,000
GAWRF 12,000
GAWRR 19,000
GCWR 36,000
U295 36' and 40'
GVWR 30,000
GAWRF 12,000
GAWRR 19,000
GCWR 36,000
U320 36' and 40'
GVWR 32,000
GAWRF 12,000
GAWRR 20,000
GCWR 38,000
Note the 6,000 lb towing capacity.
A 34' will be lighter off the line and there is less room for stuff. I think tires should be selected to meet vehicle and axle weight ratings. Your actual wt my be lower. But like most of us the longer we own our coach the more stuff (toys, tools, etc) we carry around. Just my opinion. Roger
We had our 1999 40ft U320 (no tag) weighed in at Livingston SKP.
The key takeaway is the rear kitchen side duals typically support more weight than the other side duals.
We then did what we could to adjust our storage to better even out the loads.
If you're in Nac, SKP is close enuf to get yours weighed. Make an appointment.
Its an RV Park, too. But I do wish they'd drop the phrase, "Rainbow's End" :o)
I really don't have to be reminded of that final outcome we all share ;o)
best, paul
(quote of entire post deleted. Please remember to clip your quotes - Michelle)
Maybe a little off topic but any thoughts on the Continental HSL 2 LRH 275/80 R 22.5
verses the Michelins? TCI here in Lakeside Ca. has a very good price on them.
Pros/ cons?
Not too far off topic. Maybe a different one.
If Michelins are in short supply then what else?
Continentals?
BF Goodrich?
Hankook?
Toyo?
Something else?
Why buy something else?
I have no complaints about the BF Goodrich tires that were on my coach when we bought it except they are LRG.
Roger
I have no problem with that tire.
When I was shopping for tires last year I checked out some of the tire company's charts and found that even though they were the same size and all load range H, the michelins could carry more weight than some others. Not a big difference, but it could matter to some. Mark
Continental HSL 2: 275/80R22.5* H load Single 7160 @ 120. Load dual 6610 @ 120
Identical numbers to Michelin XZA3+ and XZE in that size and load range ;)
I ran Continental HSL H range on my U280 and was quite happy with them.
Gary B
The michelin man on the phone today mentioned that the xze had thicker sidewalls and resisted curb abrasion and because of the reinforced side walls they turned slightly better.
Versus my old Xza-1's the xza-3's smart tires were 8% less fuel cost per mile.
The michelins were two pounds heavier than the continentals and specifically designed to lessen the carcass heating issues on line haul vehicles.
He said from them the xza-3+ were all evertreads and the trucker boys were getting 200-300k miles on them in steer locations.
All tires drive different. Switched tires multiple times to get the best drive on a particular model.
Foretravel built the original unihomes around the original pxza+ pilot tires.
Cm mentioned at the unihome intro meeting that they built and adjusted the suspension around the exact tires like the euros do.
Changing tire tech can and has altered steering and handling and turning and ride quality countless times for me in my Rv manager days.
Some are un noticeable. Some are but the drivers did not notice. Or thought the difference was "normal"
Michelin man said most asked their buddies " what pressure do you run" or run full sidewall max lead pressure. Wrong.
So any comparison needs to state at what load and pressure versus the sidwall ratings.
I took very new or used coach to a scale then adjusted the pressure everytime.
Repeatable results
Had Michelin, and Continental 275 80R 22.5 LRH, now Othsu 295's can't tell much real difference in any of them.
Can anyone comment on which tire of any brand, weight rated for the coach, will track the best ie. straightest? I have wondered about the wisdom of putting steer tires on the rear.
In my quest for new Dual (rear) tires I have been checking out a few brands as well as the Toyos that I like M154 and do notice that the Continentals that have been mentioned HSL are steer type, the HDL are for drive position. So, I will be reading any comments to Chuck's question on the difference anyone may have found. I also would find it hard for any of us to know the difference when put on a coach due to the weight and good handling of our coach's anyway. Would any of the makers really be honest to us on how much better or worse their tires are against others, I doubt it!
JohnH
I am not sure what the difference between steer and drive tires are. Probably drive tires have to transfer torque to the road in the plane of the tire and steer tires get more side loads as they deal with steering forces. Is there any reason not to put steers in the front and drives in the rear since that is what they were designed for?
I don't think wear is ever going to be an issue. It is handling and minimizing the risk of a blowout.
Roger
Roger, I used Continental HSL LRH steers front and rear on my U280 and had no problems.
I SUSPECT that the only difference Will be a more aggressive tread pattern on the drive version and they will probably be noisier on a MH.
Gary B
On a motorhome, you will ABSOLUTELY want steer tires on all wheels.
Off road traction/aggressive snow traction is not something you are looking for (I don't think).
Bret, makes me feel better about my decision to put the HSL LRH all the way around.
Richard,
How was the price on the Continentals Vs. the Michelins?
Don
The Toyo's I am thinking of using on rear M154 can be steer as well.
JohnH
Don, the Michelins are $479 for G and $495 for H verses $394 for the HSL2 continentals. That's not including tax,stems and balancing( which I don't need ) because of the centermatics. Am waiting for a call from them when the next shipment comes in.
Forgot to add this is from TCI in Lakeside. They have an in house discount program for the Conties.
Thanks for the info Richard, the TCI in Lakeside is where I got the Michelins on the front with the FMCA discount. It was a pretty good experience, compared to some other types of service that I have had ::) I would go back there again, and like will when we need drive tires, though I will probably look to get another couple of years out of the Toyos on the back before I change them out as they were new in 2011.
Don
I'm really hoping someone with experience with steer vs drive tires and vehicle tracking differences between the two will comment as requested. Michelin recommends steer tires at steer position, traction tires in traction position. They also allow steer tires to be used in drive position. I want to know which tracks straighter, don't need to be told what I ABSOLUTELY want.
Don, glad to hear that about the service. Would of gotten the Michelins but are on back order and no telling when they'll come in.
My reading of the michelin charts published shows that the second letter in this case a "z" denotes the axle or use. The "z" is all position I suppose allowing rotation within wear limits.
The Oem tires were all position.
There would seem to be a real reason why Brent would state "absolutely" to run the all position tires on the coach.
He's probably busy at the FMCA rally today across town from us being the moderator for the technical "ask the experts" group there.
I have never seen dis similar axle location tires mounted on any Rv in 30 years in the biz but you could be the tester?
No, I'm hoping to avoid being the tester. If you've not seen it in 30 years then I'll accept the fact that there is no advantage to tracking in using traction tires. I'm sure Brett has a good reason for his recommendation also. My apologies for the curt response, I like knowing the reasoning behind decisions.
Don't think too many RV's see logging roads...would be my WAG.
Load range "H" verses "G" - Why the debate?
Michelin publishes safe load ratings at various psi in tables for each tire they sell.
Michelin engineers and manufactures tires with a safety margin.
Early Foretravel U320 motorhomes (without slides) have GAWR where the maximum weight on a tire will be 6000 pounds on a front tire.
Michelin 275 80R22.5 "G" has a maximum single tire weight rating of 6175 pounds (was more in the past).
Michelin RV Tire load/psi tables indicate running 105psi front and 95psi rear on my 1996 U320.
Michelin Truck Tire load/psi tables indicate running 100psi front and 90psi rear on my 1996 U320.
I believe that Michelin has added 5psi to RV tables because many motorhome owners run low pressure. This low pressure results from never checking the pressure in their tires. Running low pressure has resulted in more failed tires on RV's than on Trucks.
Michelin "H" rated tires have a thicker, stiffer sidewall and ride harder than "G" rated tires at the same pressure. Other manufacturers tires ride different than Michelins.
Unless you drive over curbs with your rear tires, or drive on rough, uneven roads (i.e. logging roads) there is little benefit to "H" tires if "G" tires are recommended for your coach and your coach is load balanced (i.e. same load on each front tire, and same load on each rear dual).
Most truckers run "G" tires because road traffic laws limit the weight that a 275 80R22.5 tire can carry.
Most truckers do not run "H" tires, so "H" tires are not as available as "G" tires.
I run "G" tires because I trade them in every three years and truckers do not want "H" tires (this is what the dealer told me).
The load carried on driver side verses the passenger side and maintaining correct pressure in your tires are far more important then "H" verses "G" tires. Weigh every corner of your coach and move things around to obtain even side to side loading. I had my coach weighed at a Good Sam Rally, by Pete's. They weighed it twice because they thought they had made a mistake. The load difference in rear duals: 200 pounds, in front 100 pounds. They told me that most coaches they weight are 1000 to 3000 pounds heavier on one side. To achieve this even loading, I moved two 8D coach batteries from behind driver seat to behind passenger rear dual. I also put the heavy things on the passenger side in the basement and in the kitchen.
I have spin on pressure gauges on every tire and check the pressures at every stop.
The thicker sidewalls on the "H's" ride that much difference?
My xza-1 g's are at 108 on the front. If I ran H's I would be at 100 psi.
I would have thought the lower pressure might offset the stiffer tire.
What do you think?
Which ones do you recommend, Wyatt?
best, paul
On my coach LRG tires have insufficient capacity at max psi for the GAWR on the front axle. Even though I am not at that weight in the front it seems reasonable to use LRH at a lower psi + a cushion for the actual wt.
LRG has 6175 at max psi x 2 = 12,350 lbs capacity for the front axle. On mine the GAWR in front is 13,880 lbs.
At the same psi LRH rides stiffer than the LRG. What about when you adjust pressure for the wt between the two? LRH is going to be lower psi. Shouldn't that adjust the ride?
Thanks for the feedback on this issue. I am buying tires in the next 6-9 months so it is timely. Seems to me to meet the GAWR I need LRH in front and could get by with LRG in the rear. It just doesn't make sense to me to put on a tire that cannot carry the rated axle capacity.
Roger
Michelin tire pressure/load charts a few years ago indicated that the "H" tire required the same pressure as the "G" tire for a given weight. Now Michelin charts indicate a lower pressure for the "H" tire than the "G" tire for a given weight.
I am not sure that the ride difference between a Michelin "H" tire and a Michelin "G" tire would be noticeable.
I do know that the ride difference between tires from different manufacturers is very noticeable.
Our coaches when fully loaded have the same load on the tires. I believe 108 is too high in your front tires. I run 100psi and check the temperatures often with an infrared temperature gauge when fully loaded. However, if running the wrong pressure, too high is better than too low.
That previous comment about 108psi being to high was for Caflashbob. To confirm if 108psi is too high, measure the tread depth at various point across the tire tread after 5,000 or 10,000 miles. If the tread depth in the center of the tread is less than the tread depth near the edges of the tread, 108psi is too high. The last set of tires I traded in (15,000 miles) had very even tread depth across the tread with 100psi front and 90psi rear.
Those of you with slides will have much higher loading on your tires than my old coach and you must run tires which the manufacturer indicates can carry that increased weight.
I run "G" tires front and rear because I carry a mounted spare tire in the front basement cargo bay.
Just got off the phone with a TCI tire center outlet near L.A. to get a price on the Continental HSL2 LRH. The guy said he thought Continental may have discontinued the HSL2. I told him we were FMCA members.
He had HSR2 LHR 275/80RX22.5 in stock and quoted $4067 out the door which included new valve stems, mounting, balancing all six tires (not sure balancing the rears is necessary) and disposal fee for the old tires. Not positive but I think he said $558/ea. He said the HSR2 was probably more forgiving than the HSL2 and would probably handle better on non-interstate roads, possibly because it has stiffer sidewalls.
The current FMCA Michelin Advantage program price for the XZA3+, MSPN# 39174 is $538.26 + 34.59 FET.
The local outfit that currently has a stock of XZA3+ is charging $428 or $482 for labor which I believe covers everything but the cost of the tires and fet. I say believe, because I can't find where I wrote the quote. Anyways, I roughly figured it will cost between $3900-4000 for all six out the door. The only draw back is that the date codes are approx. 3 months older than those for the Continentals. Of course we could always buy some XZEs. Jeeeeezzzze
I know what you mean. Decisions, decisions!!
I am in the market for new tires.
I will be going with H series tires.
My question is, since I run only in BC on winding two lane highways, should I buy a regional tire like the ZXE's or stick with the XZA3 that are on my coach now. I have no plans to make long trips south (not for a decade or so), so am I right in thinking the stiffer side wall of the ZXE will be a better choice for going around in circles and up and down the mountains of British Columbia.
PS. my 7 year old tires look brand new........but.
Steve
Versus the 12,350 at 110 psi the calculated pressure is 108. Will verify tread depth as I have the gauge.
Went and measured. Backs are 12/32nds with variations of 1/32nd.
Fronts vary all over but the edges are worn more than the middles by 2-3 32nds.
One inside is down to six/32nds. 05 dated. Time for all six.
Then watch the tread depth and ir temp....
Was at 95 or so on the fronts when I got it. Unknown loading so who knows.
It is time for tire buying decision. I am FMCA member so I can buy tires through Michlein Fleet program.
I have 1996 FT 270, GAWR Front 12k, GAWR Rear 19k. OE tire size 275/80RX22.5
Current tires are 295/75R22.5 (Low Profile) Bridgestone R250. Mfg date of those tires range from 1504 to 2604 (2004).
I am looking into BF Goodrich ST244 in 275/80R22.5 (LRG) and the invoice price is $412 (per FMCA Fleet discount), is that good choice?
I have not weighted my coach loaded yet, but I think I might be pushing close to max (we are full timers so lot of stuff to bring).
Checking that tire specs and it is enough tire to meet my max GAWRs.
Thanks
Jamie
1996 FT 270 "Miss Blue J"
jclak93
I've got those BFGs on my FT and had them on as the previous tires. Load range G easily well exceeds my axle load ratings so unless your FT is overloaded, they should be fine.
On the other hand, I've read that the ST244 is a rebadged version of an older Michelin design and it seems to have the same problem that I've seen on other Michelin tires which is early sidewall cracking/weather checking. I've noticed this on my pickup truck tires and RV tires so it seems to be due to Michelin's rubber formula. When I replaced my RV tires the last time, they showed plenty of weather checking/cracking but the tire guy didn't seem to think it was anything to worry about. I changed them out anyway. While talking to the guy changing out the tires, he indicated that there were much better tires on the market if I stepped up to 295/75R22.5. Just a heads up.
We have the BF Goodrich LRG tires on our coach from the PO. I don't have anything else to compare them to but they handle and ride well. For our coach LRG does not have the capacity for a fully loaded front axle. It is OK in the rear but not a lot of extra. New tires soon, LRH.
Before you buy be sure you get an accurate 4 corner weigh so that you know for sure. Assume someday that your axles could be fully loaded. Somehow stuff accumulates.
LRH in 275/80R22.5 or 295/75R22.5? Brett checked my coach recently and he did not see my old tires touching the air bags area.
Only buy Load Range H.
We have big coaches, weight shifts from side wind & highway turns and carrying capacity is lower when psi is below fill setting from higher altitude, cold days, and over time, not to mention carrying all our stuff. Small price to pay for tire safety.
I run Load Range G on my u270. I'm not even close to the tire capacity. I run 100psi all around too. Maybe a slight bit higher, but I like the extra margin.
Toyo tires works for me on all our vehicles.
Toyo M154 295/75R22.5 H rated Product #548230 $332. I think that tire will do the job well. We gotta replace them 7 years regardless of the wear. I probably will drive about 3,000 to 5,000 miles a year so by 7 years it would be about total of 35,000 miles so that should be enough.
This discussion is very useful for me. We will be due for new tires at some point about mid-2017 and so I really hope the discussion continues. I really look forward to many more actual-experience reports. Once again: Foreforums is an incredible resource!
I'm going with toyo's too.
i will be putting on new tires this summer. i am a tire dealer but almost exclusively car and light truck. i have done my research and consulted my wholesale salesmen (who are bona fide experts) and will be going with 295/75/22.5. H they are 1/10 of an inch wider and 1/10 of an inch larger in diameter then 275/80/22.5. this is so close that it is acceptable to run them mixed on the same side duals. they are many more brands in that size and they are significantly less expensive. i will probably use toyos, IMO if your but is so sensitive that the very slightly harsher ride of the H rated tires bother you, then you are too delicate a flower to be outdoors.LOL
This is from the open road forum in 2012 and matches my Rv management experience long ago.
" replaced the 11 year old Michelin tires on my 2000 Holiday Rambler last year with the Toyo 154s and noticed a change in my handling and tracking. Thinking it was new tires vs old tires, I took it to a shop and they pronounced the suspension as ok and suggested toeing in the tires 1/16" and that helped but the darting and jumping still made driving testy. After reading about a number of others who experienced the same problem with the Toyos, I took them back and put on new Michelins. Problem solved. The tire shop said they had replaced 2 other sets of Toyos on motorhomes because of handling issues. The Toyo has a stiffer side wall, because it is a truck tire, than the Michelin and thus handles differently. I am a fan of Toyos as I have them on 2 of my cars but this is not a tire made for motorhomes. I am sure the handling may not be noticeable on some MHs but on mine it was. Yes, there is a big difference is price that has to be considered. If you are a member of FMCA, you can purchase the Michelins through a program they offer. I saved $600 off the best price I could get without it which made the price difference from the Toyos much more competitive."
Coach was designed around the Michelin's.
Farmerstu, I agree on the 295/75/22.5 H tires and I also like the Toyo tires but have seen different models in that size. Which model Toyo are you considering?
I put Toyos on a Sprinter Class B I had, handling & ride deterioration made me change pretty quick back to Michelins. Your luck may differ.