Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH (Read 1394 times) previous topic - next topic

Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH

It's time for new tires on our 1997 U295. We've had good service from XZA-1+ LRG tires, but plan to switch to XZA-3. Several folk have suggested that the "3s" track a bit better than the "1s." I don't plan to travel in conditions where the more "aggressive" tread pattern of the "1s" would provide more grip.

Load range G tires are adequate for the measured axle weights of our coach. Load range H tires are a bit more expensive and could be run at lower pressure. The lower pressure might provide a "softer" ride, but the steering might be a bit "softer" as well.

Please share specific experience, or advice based on expert recommendations. What are the trade-offs of LRG vs LRH, given that LRG tires have sufficient capacity for our vehicle?
J D Stevens
1997 U295 CAI 36' Build #5085
2002 Subaru Outback
Motorcade 16869
Bellville, TX

Re: Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH

Reply #1 –
I had XZA 1 LR G on my 270 and put the XZA 3s LRH on the coach. It was a smoother ride and it was more noticeable in the front axle.
2025 Wanderbox Outpost 32 on F600 Expedition Motorhome
2015 Born Free Royal Splendor on Ford 550 nonslide version  for sale
Former Coaches  covering. 360,000 miles
1999 34 U270
2000 36 U320
2001 42' double slide U320
2018 Jeep Rubicon

Re: Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH

Reply #2 –
Quote from: John S –
I had XZA 1 LR G on my 270 and put the XZA 3s LRH on the coach. It was a smoother ride and it was more noticeable in the front axle.

Same exact previous tires and the same new ones with the same results.  Added centrimatics and koni FSD shocks to finish the wallet destruction.

90 rear and 100 front is the calculated pressures on my u320.

Fixed all the front end pieces and slightly preloaded the front wheel bearings so no dead spot and it's a pleasure to drive now.

Tires seem to "tuck in" in big turns.  Hard to describe but it's noticeable as is the straight line steering that Michelin mentions.

Rides better.  Quieter.

Hope this helps

Bob
"Riding and rejoicing"
Bob
1997 U320 40' Mid entry, build 5132,  wtbi ce27, 4th owner
2007 Solara convertible
2 prodeco tech outlaw ss electric bikes

1095 watts solar
08 Ls 460 and a sc430
2000 Ford F-250 superduty 4x4

Re: Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH

Reply #3 –
Pretty much ditto John S's comment.  Our coach had XZA 3s LRH steer tires on it when we purchased, but they were 7 years old.  We wanted new.

We had the coach weighed at GrandVention and were surprised we were 10 pounds under optimal pressure front and rear.  Despite all of us enjoying a soft ride — FT's outboard airbags are great! — we've found our coach handles best at the higher pressure (115 front, 105 rear for us).  We would actually like to stiffen the shock settings, too, so there isn't quite as much "marshmellowing" through dips that cause a slow 2-3 cycle oscillation. 

Don't know that any of that helps you and others may have better advice.  Just thought we'd add our experience and two cents (maybe not worth that much?).  <smile>
The selected media item is not currently available.Richard & Susan Peck
____________________
1999 40' U320 "Bob Patrick"
(2000 4010 U320 WTFE Floor Plan, Single Slide)
Build #5567  |  MC #17522

Re: Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH

Reply #4 –
Richard,
My experience when I changed from the original shocks to the new FSD version was clearly a large improvement on the bounce on I-20  near Jackson, MS. Biggie whoops they have there east bound.

Re: Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH

Reply #5 –
For us, when it comes to tires, stronger is safer & one cannot have too much safety.  LR-H have extra safety that can help when tires are older, when driving on a cold morning or higher altitude when pressures drop.  How about a hard turn when weight shifts to outside tires or a rear dual loses air and the single tire has to carry all the weight of that side for a short time.  We only buy LR-H and found after weighing each of 9 points, adding 10% safety margin plus some, 100 psi all around works for us to carry our 30,000's.

Re: Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH

Reply #6 –
Quote from: LookingWest –
Pretty much ditto John S's comment.  Our coach had XZA 3s LRH steer tires on it when we purchased, but they were 7 years old.  We wanted new.

We would actually like to stiffen the shock settings, too, so there isn't quite as much "marshmellowing" through dips that cause a slow 2-3 cycle oscillation.
The change to new FSDs when I bought the coach was huge and I changed them again about 100k miles on them and no more porpoising on I 20.
2025 Wanderbox Outpost 32 on F600 Expedition Motorhome
2015 Born Free Royal Splendor on Ford 550 nonslide version  for sale
Former Coaches  covering. 360,000 miles
1999 34 U270
2000 36 U320
2001 42' double slide U320
2018 Jeep Rubicon
 

Re: Michelin XZA-3 LRG vs LRH

Reply #7 –
Ditto John S and Berry.. LRH all around...
"97 40' U320 build 5035

The best things in life are not things.... It's fulltiming in a Foretravel.