255s?

[99NWA4R]

I am hearing alot of talk about how these tires increase mileage over 285s, or so i've heard from some people maybe its just physicological thing. i want to find some 4th gen or even 5th gen wheels and powdercoat them black and get bigger tires as i have a lift waiting to be put on. it's just when christmas comes around to get new tires. so it i put a 2.5 lift on how big can i go? and what tire should i look into getting?

 

[brian2sun]

I've never heard that 255s get better mileage/life than 285s. If anything 255s have more lbs per square inch on their surface which would suggest to me that they would wear faster - less surface area with the same amount of weight. I really think it comes down to tire brand and rubber compound more than anything though. Rubbing issues are about the same with 255s and 285s. you'll need to do some fender trimming either way if you off road. In my experience, my 255s rub just a little bit more than my previous 285s did so I had to cut and pound a little bit more when I got the 255s.

 

[xskydivingdudex]

well im not sure if the MPGs are better but the main difference is width and weight... typically most 285s weigh a bit more and are wider which can be a positive or negative thing depending on what kinda of things u plan to do with ur rig. I know some of the guys on here who have 255s really like them bc they eliminate the need for wheel spacers with most factory rims.

I personally think my 285s look fairly decent/skinny already so i couldnt image if i had a slightly taller tire that has as skinny has my stock 265/70 tires

 

[brian2sun]

Hell yeah, 255s are pizza cutters but they are mean pizza cutters!

 

[99NWA4R]

haha well i see many 4th gens using 255s and brian2sun, you use em so why'd you switch to em? and would you recommend a mt or at, considering you said they wear faster.

 

[xskydivingdudex]

ya i know wat u mean brian, but a pizza cutter no matter how u dress it up is still a pizza a cutter! *sarcastic* haha jk dude...

 

[brian2sun]

haha well i see many 4th gens using 255s and brian2sun, you use em so why'd you switch to em? and would you recommend a mt or at, considering you said they wear faster.

I don't know if they wear faster. I'm just not convinced they last longer than 285s. Like I said, I think the compound makes the most difference. They're probably about the same.

I switched to them because I saw them in person on Proudrunner's truck and they looked rad. And I live in CA in a place that gets a lot of snow some winters and all the roads are steep and windy. Here it could be 10* the day it's snowing and 78* the next day so we get this deep wet snow that turns into what we affectionately call "mashed potatoes". The tall skinnies cut through that crap and down to the road better. They also make it easier to cut out of other people's tracks in deeper stuff. Off road I cant really tell too much of a difference between 255s and 285s.

ya i know wat u mean brian, but a pizza cutter no matter how u dress it up is still a pizza a cutter! *sarcastic* haha jk dude...

I don't care if you don't dig my cutters, lol! I like em. :cry2:

 

[99NWA4R]

alrighty, it appears on other's rides that it makes the tires look bigger bc of the height and i think i might put some on after my lift, what tire would you prefer? 255/70? since i'm only going up 2.5 inches?

 

[xskydivingdudex]

Ya i honestly agree with Brian that i dont think they make too much diff between the two and are just basically the difference of overall look u want on ur rig. Like if u want wider and a little shorter, go with the 285 but if u want taller and skinnier, go with the 255s...

Brian: yeah, u better cry... now can u plz cut my pizza for me?! haha Well i guess i cant complain bc im just glad i got some 33s of any kind for $100 that had 3/4 of the tread left! If i had the chance to get some 255s or stay with stock i would jumped on it just the same.

 

[runrunner]

I have been doing research on 255's vs 285's.

As far as fuel mileage goes, the 255's are a lot skinier. I think I read the the actual width is 7 and 13/16? That was for the Maxxis Bighorns. Thats way skinier than even the 265/75 Duratracs that I have. So less contact patch = better fuel economy? Maybe, but they are taller too so maybe not.

Being skinear I believe you can run them easier on stock wheels as conact with the UCA is less of an issue therefore you dont need wheel spacers. However being taller they may require more trimming for stuffing, etc.

Its my understanding that 255's are a unique size and their intent is to be ran on dually's. Due to this, most are E rated (10 ply) with the possible exception of one or two which are D rated? (8 ply) Some dont mind the ride while others warn it can be pretty harsh.

 

[Pikeman]

Ok the 255 size offers less rolling resistance then a 285 due to a smaller contact patch. So theoretically you could see a slight increase in MPG's. However I think it would be small enough to not use that as a reason to go that route. Brian is also right in the fact that they apply more PSI of their contact patch.

255/85/16= 33.3 x 10.00
285/75/16= 32.8 x 11.2

Only 1.20 difference in width. Also whether or not to go MT or AT, I have not been able to find any AT in the 255 size.

 

[theizzardking]

what do you guys think about the logic of having an extra 2.5 inches of contact on the ground to help counter act the increase of cg when you lift?

you know what i'm saying, it seems as if, an extra 1.2 inches on either side would give it a little more of a stable base when taking corners at speed and
just general driving.


i'm not arguing, just wondering if the assumptions pulled from my butt, are correct or not, you guys should know i only learn by being told i'm and idiot, lol

 

[99NWA4R]

i was planning get mt's if i found them cheap. do you know the few d rated tires? i dont believe e would ride good at all. i used to have a 03 f250 and i bet it would ride like if i had e rated tires.

 

[Pikeman]

I can tell you that Brian runs his pretty fast up and down a twisty Mtn road without swaybars. I also know that the tires I ran on many of the Military vehicles are the grave digger 9 inch wide tire on trucks up to 5 tons that were a lot taller and heavier.

 

[theizzardking]

i was planning get mt's if i found them cheap. do you know the few d rated tires? i dont believe e would ride good at all. i used to have a 03 f250 and i bet it would ride like if i had e rated tires.

can't you just run a lower psi in the tire to make the difference in ride comfort in load ranges? to a certain point at least.

i went with the 285's just because i wanted the duratracs, the m/t of at's ...lol

 

[brian2sun]

alrighty, it appears on other's rides that it makes the tires look bigger bc of the height and i think i might put some on after my lift, what tire would you prefer? 255/70? since i'm only going up 2.5 inches?

Are you talking 255/70/16 or 17? The 16s would only be like 30" (that's probably where runrunner was getting the 7" wide measurement). I'm not sure how all the different rim sizes work out for overall measurements, but most 255/85/16 measure to ~33.3x10 like Pikeman said. You couls try to find some 255s that measure out to be closer to 32s but I'm not sure about the numbers or if they are even made.

Being skinear I believe you can run them easier on stock wheels as conact with the UCA is less of an issue therefore you dont need wheel spacers. However being taller they may require more trimming for stuffing, etc.

Yeah, no spacers needed for 255s. Although I use 1"ers in the front to widen the track and lower my COG.

Its my understanding that 255's are a unique size and their intent is to be ran on dually's. Due to this, most are E rated (10 ply) with the possible exception of one or two which are D rated? (8 ply) Some dont mind the ride while others warn it can be pretty harsh.

My Bighorns are D rated so they ride softer than most 255s (which are E rated like you said).

Ok the 255 size offers less rolling resistance then a 285 due to a smaller contact patch. So theoretically you could see a slight increase in MPG's. However I think it would be small enough to not use that as a reason to go that route. Brian is also right in the fact that they apply more PSI of their contact patch.

255/85/16= 33.3 x 10.00
285/75/16= 32.8 x 11.2

Only 1.20 difference in width. Also whether or not to go MT or AT, I have not been able to find any AT in the 255 size.

I have never seen a 255/85/16 in A/T either.

what do you guys think about the logic of having an extra 2.5 inches of contact on the ground to help counter act the increase of cg when you lift?

you know what i'm saying, it seems as if, an extra 1.2 inches on either side would give it a little more of a stable base when taking corners at speed and
just general driving.


i'm not arguing, just wondering if the assumptions pulled from my butt, are correct or not, you guys should know i only learn by being told i'm and idiot, lol

Yes, that is correct thinking. It's the measurement from the outside edge of one tire to the outside edge of the other tire that matters so that's why I run 1" wheel spacers in the front - to add another 2" of width to my front. I don't run spacers in the rear for 2 reasons... 1) They make my rear tires stick out to far to tuck into my fender wells when stuffed and 2) the weight is mostly in the front anyways so they aren't needed for COG or stability and you can save money by not buying all 4.

 

[theizzardking]

I can tell you that Brian runs his pretty fast up and down a twisty Mtn road without swaybars. I also know that the tires I ran on many of the Military vehicles are the grave digger 9 inch wide tire on trucks up to 5 tons that were a lot taller and heavier.

brain and military are mad men, lol, no j/k kidding, but good point makes me rethink things a bit, really do wonder how that works out though, that if a taller tire or a fatter tire is better for such things or if it's just null, and has no real effect....

i liked the ideas of 255's but there were fewer options in tires and really thats what it came down to for me, what i could get for what price, now that have a good set i can save up and maybe find some 255's that i really want..

good thread....

 

[99NWA4R]

brian2sun, i want to either get some 17s, aftermarket or oem (sequoia, 4th gen). thats why i said 255/70/17.

 

[brian2sun]

brian2sun, i want to either get some 17s, aftermarket or oem (sequoia, 4th gen). thats why i said 255/70/17.

Those are only 31x10. If there are even made, you would be looking for 255/80/17s which I believe BFG makes a KM2 in that size but they are E rated. Many on here run E rated BFGs and seem to like them a lot. If you have stiff suspension like OME heavy coils (like me) the Es are a littel too much IMO.

 

[Pikeman]

Okay here is a link to a tire calculator. Of course some manufacturers will vary slightly on overall dimensions but it will give you a good idea.

Untitled Document

255/70/17= 31.1 x 10

General rule of thumb to translate equivalant tires sizes by going one up on rims is simply reduce sidewall percentage by 5. Example 255/85/16 equivalant would be 255/80/17. 255=width 85= height of sidewall in percentage of width 16= rim diameter