I'll snap one tomorrow. [emoji41] any excuse to take a few more shots
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Calling all k02 owners 265 vs 275 ?
- Thread starter rok medic
- Start date
I'll snap one tomorrow. [emoji41] any excuse to take a few more shots
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RaceAddict
Member
Thanks for that. Those look so much better than the OE tires in the same size. It's definitely helping make up my mind... can't do everything I want in the same year (new truck, new wheels, new tires, new suspension, new bumper/winch, etc) so having to pick and choose what goes on at each stage... seeing how good the stock size looks with properly aggressive tires means I can forget about a lift in the short term and do other things.
Cheers.
hockeypuck08
New member
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Axman,
Awesome ride! Can you share what roof basket you have on?
That's just a cheaper one off amazon. Think I paid like $80 for it. Gobi stealth leaves Colorado next Friday. [emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SierraMare
Member
The 5160 rear shocks don't lift. So those with stock springs should be stock height at the rear.
headpaneer
New member
I ended up sticking with the 265 (C rated) size for a couple reasons.
I had no direct experience to compare the ride difference between C and E rated tires. So, going with the Cs was the safe choice plus off road ventures will likely be confined to fire roads.
Because I will be doing so much city driving for the next couple years, I wanted to minimize any effect on mileage due to the heavier 275s.
Once installed, I was really happy with how the 265s looked. Much different to me in person versus seeing countless photos. I am very pleased with the ride quality, too.
Attachments
after reading this thread, has anyone taken the time to measure how tall and wide your tires actually are, mounted on the vehicle?
I'm curious in the actual difference between the c-rated 265 and the E rated 275. I know what BFG claims the measurements are, but mounted measurements are usually .5-1" smaller.
Point of reference, teh stock Dunlops (mine have 2500 miles) measure right around 30.5" tall on the vehicle, and closer to 31" when not on the vehicle (still on the rim).
I'm curious in the actual difference between the c-rated 265 and the E rated 275. I know what BFG claims the measurements are, but mounted measurements are usually .5-1" smaller.
Point of reference, teh stock Dunlops (mine have 2500 miles) measure right around 30.5" tall on the vehicle, and closer to 31" when not on the vehicle (still on the rim).
RysiuM
New member
kcsaysngo
New member
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sooooooo fresh n so clean cleannnnn
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tigertater
New member
Colorado S14
New member
275/70-17s with 5100s at 1.75" front with 3/4" Cornfed rear spacers. FN Six Shooters, 17x8 +0mm.
kcsaysngo
New member
Perfect. Thanks for giving me some perspective.
TrailPJ
New member
Wow that big ass tires you have. Like that?
Is it even street legal?:clock:
That's too funny! Thanks, I fixed it read properly: 275/70/17.
salong53
New member
Based on my experience with 275/70R17 currently on a non-lifted vehicle, I'll say that they look really good and fill out the wheel well nicely. The E-load is noticeably heavier than the stock Dunlops, and I've had to re-balance about every 5000 miles so far. 99% of my driving is on road (I take fire roads to remote hikes frequently), but I think when these wear out I'll probably go back to the 265/70R17 for some weight savings.
bjohnston115
New member
They now make the KO2 in a 255/75. Getting them on my truck this month. Bfg has a mail in rebate through 11/27
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
singletrackftw
New member
With the right (wide) wheels, 265's will look beefy enough and you get the benefit of the light weight C load
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
