150 jmo and you stole that low miles 9. Good luck.

Ride All You Can. Life Is Short.

 

THANKS Skid Mark. I don't know jack about tires. At what point does the radial vs bias debate become an issue, and is that just an issue with running the 260 metz rear? I hope i am not starting a new thread for something that has been talked about in another thread, but i haven't seen these questions brought up or if i did see it it wasn't answered directly.

 

Can't speak for either of the sizes you listed. I've had my bike since 2010. Run the stock size 130 until recently then I got a great deal on a like new Metz 160 for 75 bux from a member here. So far I really like it. I did have to make some adjustment to the fender to raise it up so it would clear. It tracks really well, feels much better handling also. As far as the rear, I would go with the Dunlop E3 250 over the Metz 260. It's cheaper, will last longer and is wider. Great tire IMO. I ran that before going to a 10" wheel/280 combo as many here have. Good luck on your choice.

 

Big B - I appreciate your opinion. I can't find the Dunlop E3 160/60-18 in anything other than BIAS-PLY though. I didn't find too much difference in price between the E3 and the ME880 260 tire either. In fact the best prices i could find the ME880 was cheaper at $181.99. The ME880 160 is 214.99 though, but at least i can find it online. I can't seem to find the E3 160 anywhere in a radial. This is what pushed me at Metz to begin with, and let me know your thoughts after given perspective. Lets take price and longevity out of the equation for a second and I'll come back to that. From what i understand the Metz are softer rubber that should give me more traction leading me to believe they will be safer. The profile is more rounded too, so this would help with leaning and consistancy through cornering. I take out the other two elements for one, because i found the metz cheaper, and two i don't put enough miles on a bike a year for it to really weigh as much as the other reasons i mentioned. Let me know if you think any of my reasoning is wrong so i can reconsider what i thought to be my mind made up. I am open minded and want the best option for my bike too, but now it seems the bigger road block is not finding the E3 160 in a radial to match the 250

 

Stick with radials.

 

NEVER mix bias-ply and radial tires! Stick to the radials. And I agree with Big-B on the 250.

 

Can I run a Dunlop 160 in front and a Metz 280 in back? I guess im asking if i can run different tires from different manufacturer?

 

After 73,000 ks with a back tire on the front correct rotation 150 and a Car tire on the back 265 a mixture of compounds and bias and radial... id have to say mixing brands and types is not as critical as some here would have you think. Its just my opinion but if you want to believe all the hype... its all good. Sideways out of corners and give it hell is my style so its tested vigorously.

Ride All You Can. Life Is Short.

 

hahaha. I am back to square one now. Looks like I'll be reading on this crap tonight.

After 73,000 ks with a back tire on the front correct rotation 150 and a Car tire on the back 265 a mixture of compounds and bias and radial... id have to say mixing brands and types is not as critical as some here would have you think. Its just my opinion but if you want to believe all the hype... its all good. Sideways out of corners and give it hell is my style so its tested vigorously.

Ride All You Can. Life Is Short.

 

I'm on my second 160 front. I only put about 4000 miles on the first one. Took it off because I got new wheels. Still lots of tread on the original 160. Just so you know, the 160 on a stock wheel will pinch the side walls in quite a bit. (See pic below) Even on a 4.25" wheel they are pinched in some. With either wheel size, you will never reach the edge of the tread on the front tire. The sidewall being pinched in rounds the tire out too much to reach the edge of the tread in a turn. In contrast, I have worn the edge of the tread off the rear 280 on the twisty mountain roads, so leaning it over is not a problem. I will say it is slightly slower going from side to side, but not so much that you won't be used to it after the first ride. You will still be flicking it from side to side with no problem.

I haven't had any unusual wear patterns. I run 42psi front and rear.

The 160 does give a better ride and grooved pavement is almost unnoticeable. Huge improvement over the 130!

One more issue for you to research and decide on if you go with a 160... The 160 is a rear tire. Most of us run it in reverse rotation due to the braking force applied to the tire and the way the tires are manufactured. Standing water is not an issue with the Metz tread pattern.

160 on a 3.5" stock wheel

160 on 4.25" wheel (I don't have any pictures taken at the same angle as above)

 

I would never go larger than a 130 front. A 160 is a back tire, not a front tire. 250 Dunlop rear, 130 front. Anything else is just a rear on the front. FAT front's suck!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I run the Avon 160 up front and have no plans to ever go back to the stock size tire. The bike, at all speeds, handles vastly better than with the 130 up front. With the 130 it always felt like the bike wanted to fall into corners, especially at slow speeds. The 160 cured that and feels/handles better.

Also, with the 130 the tire was wearing in a triangle shape after only about 3 or 4K miles. The 250/160 combo works very well for me.

 

Thanks for all the feedback. I do like the look of the oversized front, but with the feedback on here I am going to stick with the 130 front. My priority is safety and handling. My last bike was a Victory Vegas and talk about trying to fall in cracks. I think that thing had a 90 front tire on a 21" wheel. The brand choice is going to depend on availability. Think i would prefer the metz, but no one has stock. Looks like the Dunlop E3 260/E4 130 is winning that battle. Either way I am 100% confident i'll like anything better than these stock tires.

 

IMO you should go with the 160. I held out doing it for 5 years. I wish I had went to it sooner. It handles 100 times better then the 130

 

If your priority is saftey and handling the Metz 160 or 140 is your tire hands down..the 130 is just to thin for the wieght of this bike..after 80,000 kms on them my only regret is not buying a 4.25 rim,but have had zero issues with it (all conditions especially rain..best tire out there for the 9..sticks like flies to *****..
42 psi is the magic number for optimum wear and performance...with stock rim no extenders were necesarry ,just filed the mounting holes 1/8" and snugged it up as high as I could..

when I jump on a 9 with a 130 now,I can't believe how bad the 130 works with this bike..that's when I really appreciate the 160..

 

I am in the same boat as you and I decided to put a Dunlop E3 250 in the back . For the front , I am considering the Dunlop D251-150-60-18 or the 140-70-18 , so I am now down to those two choices for the front .
The Dunlop D251 150-60-18 is damn expensive compared to the 140 but I am still considering is it would be worth the extra money against the 140 less expensive tire .

 

I have the Dunlop E3 250. After the many posts and opinions from reliable friends here, it's the choice over the Mets 260. I haven't changed the front yet. Dyna beads are highly recommended over weights.

 

I am suppose to go in today to get the 250 E3 and was just going to get the 130 E4. Going with dunlop due to availability, and went with 130 front because I can't find a 140 or 150 radial e4/e3. I am kind of OCD about matching since i am buy both new at the same time, but can someone recommend a different front tire that will give me that radial in a 140 or 150? I don't really want a rear tire backwards so i can actually use the tread and like the peace of mind of using a tire the way it was intended. There has to be a reason they market the tires as "Front" and "Rear".

 

Metzeler used to have a page that stated that if you put a rear tire on the front, that you were supposed to run it reversed. The page explained that the belts were designed to be oriented specifically according to the force on the tires. When mounting on the rear, that force is acceleration, and it is oriented toward that forward force. The force for front, however, is created by braking, so the force is opposite the force of acceleration.

If you view images of a ME880 160/60R18 mounted reversed on the front and one of a ME880 130/70R18 front tire mounted properly, you will notice that the tread direction is the same.

 

Copy / Paste of what Metzeler had on their website.

Rear tyres can be mounted at front wheels?

When producing tires, the top cap is heated with an angle bump on the carcass. To prevent the detachment of the assembled edges the tire has to be mounted (concerning the main stress: acceleration force at the rear wheel or brake force at the front wheel) corresponding to the respective declaration.
Therefore the declaration of the driving direction at the tires sidewall is a very important safety regard and has to be noticed absolute. It is not allowed to mount front tires at rear wheels.
In case you intend to mount a rear tire on a front wheel it has to be assembled contrary to the driving direction declaration (direction of the arrow at the tires sidewall). Please observe the standards in your country. In any doubts we kindly ask you to consult your dealer.