REAL difference between 140/90-16 & 150/80-16
When the time is right, I am considering changing from rear tire OEM size 140/90-16 77H to the slightly wider (~0.36") & shorter (~0.55") 150/80-16 77H on my '03 800 Classic. Main reason, a Michelin COMMANDER II 150/80-16 is slightly less expensive ($8.00) & I marginally prefer the look of a wider rear tire, but NOT at the expense of any real performance changes.
I am interested in information re: performance (not appearance)
Assuming published data is accurate, I do know:
1. The 150/80-16 WILL fit the 800 Classic (MANY had done it).
2. The 150/80-16 is not quite as tall (0.55", 2.07% shorter, new vs new), so speedo's current "reads too high" inaccuracy WILL be 2.07% more pronounced.
One has to hope there was some reason Kawasaki built this with 140/90-16 as stock, so I'm looking for actual performance related reasons why NOT to go with the 150/80-16.
SO - ALL things being equal (brand, psi, tubes, riding style, etc):
1. Will the wider 150/80-16 tire last more or less miles (& why)?
2. Will the bike ride differently on a 150/80-16 (if so, in what ways - and why)?
3. Does anyone KNOW any rational/technical reasons why Kawasaki mounts 140/90-16 as stock?
On one hand, I subcribe to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". It ain't broke.
On the other hand, if I can get the plus features (lower cost & wider look), without giving up anything (performance or tire life), why not.
Obviously, I'm on the fence and wish to make an INFORMED decision.
Montani Semper Liberi
2003 Vulcan® 800 Classic - Pearl Mystic Black
National Cycle Custom Heavy-Duty Windshield
Mustang Two-Piece Wide Vintage Touring Saddle
Volar SissyBar/Backrest - K&N Air Filter
Viking Quarter Circle SaddleBags & SissyBar Bag
Scootworks Sprockets (18/40 - 2.222:1 ratio)
Baron 3" Bullet Tachometer - Engine Guard (black gloss finish)
Michelin COMMANDER II front 130/90-16 73H, rear 140/90-16 77H
EK X-Ring Chain, Deer Warning Whistles & BackOFF® Brake Module