Dougster
Veteran Member
Galen is right about the "new" rear tire size... 16.9x24-8 on my 2004 4110. According to the Titan Tire corporate website, the rolling circumference of your rear tire is 145 inches while the rolling circumference of mine is 153 inches. Funny how that works given the seemingly contradictory tire designation (i.e., 16.9 vs. 17.5). The new (16.9) tire is also 20 pounds heavier, 0.3 inches wider and can carry an extra 480 pounds of load... apparently due to 2 extra pounds of specified inflation pressure.skipmarcy said:To answer a couple of your questions - one & all. My front tires are the Titan 10-ply, 12-16.5 NHS (skid steer tires). The rears are Titan 17.5-24, 8 ply R4.
So if the new rear tire size is perfectly correct in terms of front vs. rear travel ratio... and if all other things remain equal... it means that older 4110s are, indeed, pulling way too hard with their front tires to the tune of 8 extra inches of attempted travel per single rear tire revolution. In other words, Nightrain1 was dead right in his observation... and I'll bet the axle forces are much higher with heavier FEL loads holding down those front tires that will want to be turning faster than the rears will allow. It does seem that Mahindra had the pressure thing backwards unless the point was to try to *skid* those front tires more easily with very high inflation. It obviously shouldn't have been an attempt to "grow" the front tire's rolling circumference.
Not to be intentionally funny... but is that why we have skid-steer tires on the front? Because they literally have to skid so much?
Dougster