285/75-16 tires... Duratracs?

[YFZsandrider]

I've got a 2000 Limited with Sonoran Steel 1.2 lift and 265/75-16 Duratracs in C load rating. I really like the performance and the wear life of the Duratracs that I've seen over the last 40k miles with them.

Originally when I purchased them, Discount Tire installed E load tires and after the short drive home, I realized they didn't sell me C load, and I took them right back and had them order C loads for me. In the 50 miles or so that I drove the E load Duratracs, I noticed that they rode terribly stiff, got worse gas mileage and felt more sluggish than the lighter C loads.

Question is, now I want to step up to 285s. They only offer them in a E load tire. Are they going to feel as stiff as the 265s did in E load, or are they softer with the 1/2" taller side wall? Any other tire size options I should consider?

 

[Tyler James Inc]

I don't feel that my E load KO2 are stiff- and I run 42PSI- but I don't have any experience with the same tire in C rated. They came out with 315/70R17 in C shortly after I ordered my E rated. I would have gone with the C if it were an option, but I'm very happy with my E rated KO2.
My fuel mileage is about 1mpg less than my buddy gets in the same rig on 265/75R16 C load Duratracs, so I don't see the load rating having much affect on fuel economy- if any at all. His driving style is more conservative than mine too. Our daily commute is nearly identical, and it's about 80% hwy.
I average about 15.5mpg, and he is about 16.5mpg.
My tires are much wider, taller, and heavier than his, so I would expect more of a mpg difference. But the numbers don't lie.
I blew past him just this morning, as a matter of fact [emoji23]

 

[Unner]

Nitto Ridge Grappler is the only 285 in a C load.

Duratrac 285 is a D load.

KO2 34x10.5r17 is a D load. Pretty much everything else is an E load in 33" and bigger tires.

 

[YFZsandrider]

Nitto Ridge Grappler is the only 285 in a C load.

Duratrac 285 is a D load.

KO2 34x10.5r17 is a D load. Pretty much everything else is an E load in 33" and bigger tires.

Duratrac 285s on a 16" are E load only, no?

 

[Unner]

Duratrac 285s on a 16" are E load only, no?

Oops, I missed the part about 16" wheels. the 285 Duratrac in 17" is a D load.

 

[3bears]

I don't feel that my E load KO2 are stiff- and I run 42PSI- but I don't have any experience with the same tire in C rated. They came out with 315/70R17 in C shortly after I ordered my E rated. I would have gone with the C if it were an option, but I'm very happy with my E rated KO2.
My fuel mileage is about 1mpg less than my buddy gets in the same rig on 265/75R16 C load Duratracs, so I don't see the load rating having much affect on fuel economy- if any at all. His driving style is more conservative than mine too. Our daily commute is nearly identical, and it's about 80% hwy.
I average about 15.5mpg, and he is about 16.5mpg.
My tires are much wider, taller, and heavier than his, so I would expect more of a mpg difference. But the numbers don't lie.
I blew past him just this morning, as a matter of fact [emoji23]

I'm not lifted other than 99 talls, don't have armor. I am running the KO2's 10 ply 265/75/16 and still getting nearly 20mpg. I do about 80% hiway, the rest forest service and logging roads, very little city or stop and go. I'm running at 38psi.
I went 10 ply because I have seen too many people putting holes in tires on the back gravel roads. I do think they are a bit harsh compared to the 6 ply that were on it, but then again, this is also a lot more aggressive tread than what was on there too. I don't mind the harshenss, One of my recent previous cars was a lowered bmw (318ic) with all poly suspension mounts,..stiff shocks and fat sway bars sitting on fat very stiff tires 60 series tires.that was a harsh yet fun ride.

 

[Shibby!]

Yes, the E will feel stiffer than your C's, and yes, the larger tire will feel more sluggish no matter C or E (worse with E). Your mileage will decrease 1-2MPG.

I have E 285/16 Duratracs and pretty happy with them. I haven't had C rated tires to compare though.

'98, 5Speed, 3.4, 33's, 17ish MPG. Mild driver.

 

[Tyler James Inc]

I'm not lifted other than 99 talls, don't have armor. I am running the KO2's 10 ply 265/75/16 and still getting nearly 20mpg. I do about 80% hiway, the rest forest service and logging roads, very little city or stop and go. I'm running at 38psi.

With an auto? Man, that's awesome mileage. I don't know what my buddy is doing wrong then. We've been calculating our mileage for the last 6 months or so, and the best he's gotten is 17. We've both tried all different stations, as well as various grades of fuel. We both seem to get worse fuel economy when we try to really "baby" it, and be as light on the skinny pedal as possible. Seem to get the best fuel economy when we drive normal to "aggressive". Our rigs seem to have equal results to each other, but seem to vary quite a bit from other reports from members here.

 

[Unner]

With an auto? Man, that's awesome mileage. I don't know what my buddy is doing wrong then. We've been calculating our mileage for the last 6 months or so, and the best he's gotten is 17. We've both tried all different stations, as well as various grades of fuel. We both seem to get worse fuel economy when we try to really "baby" it, and be as light on the skinny pedal as possible. Seem to get the best fuel economy when we drive normal to "aggressive". Our rigs seem to have equal results to each other, but seem to vary quite a bit from other reports from members here.

I've heard before it's better to accelerate up to speed semi quickly and then cruise at your set speed as the ECU sees it as acceleration and cruise, and the sooner you get to cruise the sooner it stops pumping the extra fuel for acceleration. Not sure how true this is, just sharing something I've heard before.

 

[Shibby!]

I've heard before it's better to accelerate up to speed semi quickly and then cruise at your set speed as the ECU sees it as acceleration and cruise, and the sooner you get to cruise the sooner it stops pumping the extra fuel for acceleration. Not sure how true this is, just sharing something I've heard before.

If you've ever used a scan gauge or ultra guage, you'll see that any more throttle than slightly cracked produces poor mileage.

Those who say accelerate as if there is an egg under the pedal are incorrect. Get up to speed with moderate acceleration, then use as little as you can to maintain speed. Prevent slowing and speeding up. Coast to stops as much as you can, etc.

I've never heard of an auto getting 20MPG, let alone one with AT's.

I used to get around 20 in my 5-speed prior to lift and 33's. 5-speeds on 3rd gens get better mileage. Unlike 2nd gen Tacomas where the 6 speed got worse mileage than manuals. (17-18 vs 19-20ish).

 

[3bears]

With an auto? Man, that's awesome mileage. I don't know what my buddy is doing wrong then. We've been calculating our mileage for the last 6 months or so, and the best he's gotten is 17. We've both tried all different stations, as well as various grades of fuel. We both seem to get worse fuel economy when we try to really "baby" it, and be as light on the skinny pedal as possible. Seem to get the best fuel economy when we drive normal to "aggressive". Our rigs seem to have equal results to each other, but seem to vary quite a bit from other reports from members here.

yesterday I drove to Redmond, then back to sisters, then back to my park. I filled up in sisters and it calculated out to 18.9mpg. I do use the ect transmission mode, don't use O/D on the big hills . I wondered if my speedometer is off, but passed through two of those speed trap flashing signs and my speedometer is right on, so I assume my mpg calculations must be too. I don't drive like an egg under the pedal, but don't stomp on it either and rarely drive above 70. when IM on logging roads, I like to take my time and unless going up hill, rarely above 2000 rpm so that might help
usually my fuel gauge warning light comes on at different times depending on how I am driving, yesterday it kicked on at 254

 

[Roc Doc]

I've got a 2000 Limited with Sonoran Steel 1.2 lift and 265/75-16 Duratracs in C load rating. I really like the performance and the wear life of the Duratracs that I've seen over the last 40k miles with them.

Originally when I purchased them, Discount Tire installed E load tires and after the short drive home, I realized they didn't sell me C load, and I took them right back and had them order C loads for me. In the 50 miles or so that I drove the E load Duratracs, I noticed that they rode terribly stiff, got worse gas mileage and felt more sluggish than the lighter C loads.

Question is, now I want to step up to 285s. They only offer them in a E load tire. Are they going to feel as stiff as the 265s did in E load, or are they softer with the 1/2" taller side wall? Any other tire size options I should consider?

E rated tires ARE going to ride rougher and ARE heavier. I had 315/75-16 Duratracs on my FZJ80 and even on that heavy pig I only ran them at 30psi.

The Maxxis Bighorn is D rated in 285/75-16.