285/75 or 255/85

[StreetKill831]

285/75 or 255/85 in sandier terrain?

I'm ready to buy new tires. These will be a second set that I only use when going off-road. I just can't decide between 285/75 and 255/85 KM2s. A lot of the off-roading around Michigan is very sandy so I was thinking the 285s would be better since they have a wider footprint, but if the difference wouldn't be very noticeable I'd rather go with the 255s since I won't need to run as thick a spacer if any at all, they have a taller profile, they weigh less, and are cheaper.

Some input from people who run the 255s in sandier areas would be great as well as any other info people can provide.

Thanks!

 

[prospectator]

I went from 265 AT's to 255 KM2's and notice the difference in the sand. I don't think it's the width of the tire but the difference between an AT and MT. AT's are better in the sand, if you ask me. MT's seem to dig holes. If you could buy a 255 AT that would be perfect. I've been thinking of going to a 285 AT vs. my 255 MT. Although the MT's look better (I prefer the narrow tire look) IMO.

 

[illzoni]

On a lighter vehicle like the 4Runner, you want the width to 'float' over the sand. I'd say go with the 285.

I sold a '99 Dodge 2500 V10 4x4 that weighed about 6400 pounds. It was NOT going to float over anything, so I ran 255s and loved them.

 

[StreetKill831]

I will be going on dunes some but most of the trail riding places I go are a sand and dirt mix and there is usually a lot of mud which is why I am going with the MTs, besides the fact that they look B.A.

I've been looking at the specs for each size and the 285s have an almost 2in wider footprint than the 255s but the section width is only about an inch wider.
They are a bit more expensive and I will need spacers but I think it will be worth it for those extra 2 inches of footprint.

I do like the look of the taller/thinner tires better though.

 

[Pikeman]

With my armor I am close to 5000lbs so I am not sure I would consider our 4Runners a light vehicle once modded. I agree with Prospectator that a good AT is better for sand than a MT. I also have a preference for the 255 KM2. One thing to consider is that yes they are narower but when you air down they flatten out and become longer. Good thread that has been postedon Expedition portal and reposted here several times. Most say they end up with a larger contact patch. The thing that would make them ideal for me is a load range "D" instead of being stuck with an "E" this would also allow them to flatten out more under our middle weight.

 

[brian2sun]

With my armor I am close to 5000lbs so I am not sure I would consider our 4Runners a light vehicle once modded. I agree with Prospectator that a good AT is better for sand than a MT. I also have a preference for the 255 KM2. One thing to consider is that yes they are narower but when you air down they flatten out and become longer. Good thread that has been postedon Expedition portal and reposted here several times. Most say they end up with a larger contact patch. The thing that would make them ideal for me is a load range "D" instead of being stuck with an "E" this would also allow them to flatten out more under our middle weight.

My Bighorn 255s are load range D. FYI to anyone who's looking for an A/T in the 255 flavor.. Cooper makes the Discoverer ST A/T tire in 255/85/16s, but I'm not sure what the load range is.

I'm sure 285s will do better in sand than the 255s will. I just dig holes in the sand because they're pizza cutters. 285s will help float on top a little better.

 

[StreetKill831]

I'm going to be picking up the 285s either tomorrow or Thursday. Sometime before winter I will be buying a second set of tires which will be for DD use but will still be a 33" AT(probably something like the Duratrac). If I go out to the dunes or anything really sandy I will just use those.