# Tire Load ratings main diff between 103W & 99W



## Kcmover (Jul 20, 2005)

Currently my Phaeton has mounted on them Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 255/45R18 with a load rating of 103. 
I wanted to buy a 2nd set of tires to go on my Chrome wheels and a dealer offered me a heck of a deal on some Michelin pilot HX MXM4 tires with a load rating of 99 instead of 103. 
What risk is there to use the same tire but with a lessor load rating. This 99W tire is rated as follows:
(1709LBS/168MPH)
Tread Wear Rating: 300
Traction Rating: A
Temperature Rating: A
Thanks,
Larry


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: Tire Load ratings main diff between 103W & 99W (Kcmover)*

Hi Larry:
We had a long discussion about this topic before - the consensus was that we really should stick with the 103 load rating. A few people have tried out the 101 load rating, but personally, I think going to a 99 would be too much of a safety compromise. It's a big, heavy car, and weight distribution is not equal when you brake heavily or corner aggressively, or hit a pothole.
Michael


----------



## Kcmover (Jul 20, 2005)

*Re: Tire Load ratings main diff between 103W & 99W (PanEuropean)*

Michael. I understand that big difference in moving from the 103 to the 99. Found a guy selling some new 99W Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 tires for about less then half of the price of the 103W. (Michelin dealer going out of business-has 20 in inventory) I am very concerned about safety and asked my Michelin Truck tire guy his opinion and he felt there was minimal risk if any. 
The Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 is the same tire currently on my car and has worn well. I am only looking at changing as one of my tires currently has a sidewall cut. 
So I would be replacing all four tires . Two of them have 33,000 miles on them and the other two have 11,000 miles. 
This is the breakdown between the two tires.
Load Rating..............
Currently: 
103W 
1929 lbs per position = 7716 lbs total.
99W 
1709 lbs per position= 6836 lbs Total 
Total difference 880 lbs or 220 per tire position.
Just trying to decide if the price is worth the risk. 



_Modified by Kcmover at 8:16 AM 5-22-2006_


----------



## murphybaileysam (Dec 29, 2005)

I wouldn't give the Kansas City Chiefs defensive linemen a ride if I were you! They would definitely make the car unsafe at any speed, even if you put a WIDE LOAD sign on the back bumper! Stick with the load rating recommended or drive the car with no more than two passengers.


----------



## Kcmover (Jul 20, 2005)

*Re: (murphybaileysam)*

I wasn't going to put any of the Chief's linemen in the car. But I am getting mixed messages. My Michelin Truck tire guy indicates no issue and to do it but I am not a trail blazer.


----------



## car_guy (Aug 19, 2005)

*Re: Tire Load ratings main diff between 103W & 99W (Kcmover)*

Don't forget the weight of the car is not split evenly between the front and rear axles. I don't know offhand what the percentage split is, but it's probably around 55% front. I personally would keep to the 103 rating with the W12 and 101 rating with the V8.


----------



## cxg231 (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: (murphybaileysam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *murphybaileysam* »_Stick with the load rating recommended

Agreed. That being said, the load rating of a tire is the maximum *static* load the tire can handle. Dynamic forces are then accounted for in the design of the tire.
Assuming that the maximum gross weight of a Phaeton W12 is 6600 pounds, and a weight distribution of 58% front / 42% rear, we then have 1915 lbs on each front tire (at rest). This necessitates the 103 load rating.
I realize that the OP has a V8 Phaeton, but the maximum vehcile weight should be reasonably similar.
Bottom line is to stick with the load rating specified by the VAG engineers who know much more about cars than most of us ever will.


----------



## Andy C. (May 10, 2006)

*Re: (cxg231)*

I just posted the same question a couple of weeks ago but didn't get any discussion. I must have missed the earlier post on this...the only one I could find was the one regarding snow tires where the rep from Tire Rack stated you DON'T need the XL 103 rating. Ironically I got a contradictory answer from the Tire Rack when I actually tried to order the tires.
My post was:
"We had to order one replacement tire due to a nail in the sidewall. After looking at the replacement tires available at the Tirerack I opted for the Kumho Ecsta ASX. I figured I would just use it as the new spare tire since I had already mounted the full sized spare from the trunk on the car. Tirerack called me and politely refused to sell the tire stating that it did not have a sufficient load rating. 
Now I know the original tires had a load rating of 103 which would be sufficient up to 1,929 lbs per tire and the Kumho has a load rating of 99 sufficient up to 1,709 lbs per tire. Even with the 99s (which is the load rating the manual shows for the 17" Phaeton tire by the way) it would still total up to a 6,836 total load capacity significantly exceeding the 6,169 max allowed weight for a V8 Phaeton."
I understand the safety aspect but it seems the 103's are overkill for the base V8 since the owners manual shows a 99 tire available. The 99s exceed the max amount allowed for the V8 by 700 lbs, same as how the 103s exceed the max allowed weight for the W12 by about 1,000.
So much contradictory information.....


----------



## car_guy (Aug 19, 2005)

*Re: (Andy C.)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Andy C.* »_
Now I know the original tires had a load rating of 103 which would be sufficient up to 1,929 lbs per tire and the Kumho has a load rating of 99 sufficient up to 1,709 lbs per tire. Even with the 99s (which is the load rating the manual shows for the 17" Phaeton tire by the way) it would still total up to a 6,836 total load capacity significantly exceeding the 6,169 max allowed weight for a V8 Phaeton."
I understand the safety aspect but it seems the 103's are overkill for the base V8 since the owners manual shows a 99 tire available. The 99s exceed the max amount allowed for the V8 by 700 lbs, same as how the 103s exceed the max allowed weight for the W12 by about 1,000.
So much contradictory information.....

Did you read the post just above yours that refers to the unequal split in weight between the front and rear axles?


----------



## Eyecare (Apr 20, 2006)

Short article on tire load and speed ratings: Speed Rating, Load Rating and Service Descriptions


----------



## Andy C. (May 10, 2006)

*Re: (car_guy)*

Yes, I read the post about uneven weight split but the max load for a V8 on the front axle is 3,256 lbs or 1,628 per front tire which falls well within the load range for a 99 tire. The 103 even has a margin of saftey for the W12.
Static empty, the weight bias is probably close to 58% front but according to VW fully loaded the weight bias is only 53% front heavy. That makes some sense as all the load will be going in the interior and the trunk which is at the rear.
It just seems like VW built in a really large safety margin for the tires after you look at their load limits and what they are actually being asked to handle when they are on the Phaeton.


----------



## Eyecare (Apr 20, 2006)

I noticed a used Phaeton wheel and tire set on eBay. Nice tires but the reserve is around $3500. I should have kept the extra set of BBS rims I had on my 750iL.


----------



## Kcmover (Jul 20, 2005)

*Re: Tire Load ratings main diff between 103W & 99W (car_guy)*

Phaeton in booklet 3.3 Technical date page 5 notes:
Total permissible weight 6196lbs
Max Front axle 3197lbs
Max Rear axle 3065lbs
Somewhere else it was noted that the 17" wheels were only 99W tires. So the 99W does fall within the spec while its not the 103W tire. 
My wheels are 18" and my extra set are also 18"


----------



## cxg231 (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Tire Load ratings main diff between 103W & 99W (Kcmover)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Kcmover* »_Phaeton in booklet 3.3 Technical date page 5 notes:
Total permissible weight 6196lbs
Max Front axle 3197lbs
Max Rear axle 3065lbs
Somewhere else it was noted that the 17" wheels were only 99W tires. So the 99W does fall within the spec while its not the 103W tire. 
My wheels are 18" and my extra set are also 18"

While I agree that by the numbers the 99W should be fine, when it comes to things like tires, I like to defer to the recommendations of the manufacturer. Tires are the only part of the car that actually touches the road, and are critical to safety.
But hey, if you are comfortable with the numbers, then go for it.
On a subject unrelated to load ratings, the Michelin HX MXM4 are, well, to be brutally honest - they are total rubbish. Expect to have borderline dangerous hydroplaning performance when the tires get to 6/32nds and less. Wet traction will be very poor when the tires get below 4/32nds or so. It's not just me who dislikes these tires. They are standard equipment on many cars (VW, Acura, Volvo, etc..) and I know plenty of people who are very displeased with the tire.
My adivce FWIW, would be to ingore the sweetheart "deal" from the dealer, log onto http://tirerack.com, spend a few hours doing tire research and get a better tire, for less money with the 103 load rating.
If you would like to PM me or email me, I would be happy to offer you a few suggestions on tire selection. I am a bit of a tire geek.
Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Spectral (Dec 21, 2005)

*Re: Tire Load ratings main diff between 103W & 99W (cxg231)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cxg231* »_
On a subject unrelated to load ratings, the Michelin HX MXM4 are, well, to be brutally honest - they are total rubbish. Expect to have borderline dangerous hydroplaning performance when the tires get to 6/32nds and less. Wet traction will be very poor when the tires get below 4/32nds or so. It's not just me who dislikes these tires. They are standard equipment on many cars (VW, Acura, Volvo, etc..) and I know plenty of people who are very displeased with the tire.
Chris


I totally agree with ALL your comments about the stock Michelins. It is a shame VW but such a crappy tire on such a fine car. The HXMX4 is one of the lowest rated all season tires based on user reviews at Tire Rack. 
I was really happy to send the Michelins to the recycling bin...


----------



## Kcmover (Jul 20, 2005)

*Tire Load ratings*

Michelin Truck tire rep came out and looked at the tires and got a Michelin Engineering rep on the phone. No issues with them as to the load and handling capacity as the tire is designed for that load at 168 MPH and that is a rated limit (Min) They of course advised me to keep it under 100 mph and everything would be ok and to make sure that the tire pressure on the door placards are maintained.
Said this tire was better then the ZH rating on the OEM Michelins that are on the car presently.


----------



## scissor wizard (May 31, 2006)

Want to buy stock 12 Spoke 18" Phaeton Wheel(s) privat party. email or call 800 274-1866 jeff


----------



## PhaetonChix (Dec 16, 2004)

*Re: (scissor wizard)*


_Quote, originally posted by *scissor wizard* »_Want to buy stock 12 Spoke 18" Phaeton Wheel(s) privat party. email or call 800 274-1866 jeff

Jeff,
Please start a new thread if you are looking to buy wheels, do not add your request to other threads. This makes more work for the moderator. 
And which 12 spoke wheels are you referring to? See the FAQ's for a wheel style summary.
PC


----------

