265/70 on 17x9?

IRONSHIEK

Member
Is anyone running 265s on 17x9 wheels? The set of wheels I’m looking at are this size but it would be a deal breaker if I’ll run into problems. 2” lift and stock uca. Thanks
 
Register to hide this ad
Offset options are 1 or 20 w Bore 106.

+1 will sick out further than +20 - if you ever plan on going bigger on tires or just like a wider stance - +1 is the better option, otherwise go +20 since it's only 10mm off factory offset. 106 bore should work.
 
265/70 fit just fine on 17x9s. Here they are on my 17x9 Level 8Mk6 -12. This is stock height as well.
 

Attachments

  • 4runner.jpg
    4runner.jpg
    138 KB · Views: 5,184
Is anyone running 265s on 17x9 wheels? The set of wheels I’m looking at are this size but it would be a deal breaker if I’ll run into problems. 2” lift and stock uca. Thanks

265 is the stock width tire on 4th gen 4runners, 265/65/17. stepping up to a 265/70 is the same width but the tire is slightly taller on the 70 series. tons of guys run 265/70 including me with stock suspensions heights. shouldnt be any problem running that size especially with a 2" lift.
 
265 is the stock width tire on 4th gen 4runners, 265/65/17. stepping up to a 265/70 is the same width but the tire is slightly taller on the 70 series. tons of guys run 265/70 including me with stock suspensions heights. shouldnt be any problem running that size especially with a 2" lift.

By a bit wide, I meant the wheels not the tires. Stock is 17x7.5.
 
I appreciate all your feedback. My main concern is having any sort of alignment limitation while running factory UCAs as well as having to cut fender off the body.
 
I’m not a tire installer/expert, and your results may vary, but the TireRack website says most 265-width tires are meant for 7”-8.5” wide rims.
 
Yeah, running a 9" wide rim is definitely going to give the sidewalls a stretch. They're going to be either perfectly vertical or perhaps bowed a smidge (where the rim face if flush with the tread edge, or even protruding further out).

I have a 285 on a 9" wide rim, and it's very "square". I really prefer the rim face to be sunk in slightly into the tire (a 305 wide tire would do this nicely on a 9" wheel).

I don't think this would be an issue for mounting... it just might not be aesthetically pleasing, but taste and mileage may vary person to person.

+20 is probably high for a 9" wide wheel, that's over an inch deeper into the chassis than my wheels. I don't think there'd be UCA contact, but it certainly would invite problems. Wheels that wide should be very close to 0, or more towards -10/-12 for that real "flush" look with the fenders.

Sorry, gotta go, hope this helps
 
Last edited:
Yeah, running a 9" wide rim is definitely going to give the sidewalls a stretch. They're going to be either perfectly vertical or perhaps bowed a smide (where the rim face if flush with the tread edge, or even protruding further out).

I have a 285 on a 9" wide rim, and it's very "square". I really prefer the rim face to be sunk in slightly into the tire (a 305 wide tire would do this nicely on a 9" wheel).

I don't think this would be an issue for mounting... it just might not be aesthetically pleasing, but taste and mileage may vary person to person.

+20 is probably high for a 9" wide wheel, that's over an inch deeper into the chassis than my wheels. I don't think there'd be UCA contact, but it certainly would invite problems. Wheels that wide should be very close to 0, or more towards -10/-12 for that real "flush" look with the fenders.

Sorry, gotta go, hope this helps

I'd go with +1 over the +20 to be sure, especially if he's gonna upsize at any point.

I'm gonna put 295s on my 7.5s. :shrug:
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,309
Messages
3,554,075
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top