Cooper ST Maxx 255-85-16 VS 265-75-16

[DPR64]

Crunch time, have to decide on a new tire and cannot decide on these 2 different sizes...
Have a 2.5 lift on my 2000 4runner and am running 265-75-16's now and they look a little small...
My choices:
255- 32.80 inches/53lbs/section width 10.20"
VS.
265- 32.00 inches/49lbs/section width 10.70


Current tires are 31.70/42lbs/section width 10.50
Will the 255's be too big or cause a big mpg drop?

 

[csp]

You won't notice any difference swapping to the 255/85s other than they look more proportionate to your lift.

 

[Asaspades93]

I'm running 255/80/17 st maxx. 3 inch suspension and 1.5 body, I needed spacers to clear the ucas though. Mileage isn't too bad, but I haven't done a full tank on the highway in a while

They stuff well also

 

[DPR64]

Ya, was hoping that since the 255 85 is a hair skinnier and the new wheels I picked up have a backspace of 4" vs. the OEM rim of 4.5" the tire will have plenty of room and not rub...

 

[PhdNPrerunners]

Ya, was hoping that since the 255 85 is a hair skinnier and the new wheels I picked up have a backspace of 4" vs. the OEM rim of 4.5" the tire will have plenty of room and not rub...

You shouldn't need spacers for those tires. I'm currently running 265/75/16s and my wheels have a backspacing of 4.5 with no rubbing issues at all. If I were you I would go for the 255/85/16s if you can. I wish I had gone with that size.

 

[masphx]

You shouldn't need spacers for those tires. I'm currently running 265/75/16s and my wheels have a backspacing of 4.5 with no rubbing issues at all. If I were you I would go for the 255/85/16s if you can. I wish I had gone with that size.

With the 5speed at 4.10 gears are you sure? I also wis I could go 33" but fuel milage is inportant.

 

[BrandonF]

With the 5speed at 4.10 gears are you sure? I also wis I could go 33" but fuel milage is inportant.

Then buy a prius

 

[DPR64]

You shouldn't need spacers for those tires. I'm currently running 265/75/16s and my wheels have a backspacing of 4.5 with no rubbing issues at all. If I were you I would go for the 255/85/16s if you can. I wish I had gone with that size.

The Level 8 MK6 wheels at discount are pretty nice... Good price and with the 4" backspacing and a 8" width vs. the OEM of 7". should push the tire outward a hair over an inch.
Combine that with the skinny tire and I think I am safe.

Revolutions per mile on the tires are:
255 85: 637 per mile
265 75: 660 per mile
The only thing I think that is going to be a "problem" is the weight of each tire being almost 10lbs. more each not to mention the wheels which I hope will be a wash.

 

[PhdNPrerunners]

With the 5speed at 4.10 gears are you sure? I also wis I could go 33" but fuel milage is inportant.

When I first bought my 4runner it had 285 KM2s on and the power wasn't bad at all. The only reason I got rid of them is because I had no need for a mud tire and I got a deal on my duratracs that I couldn't pass up.

 

[masphx]

When I first bought my 4runner it had 285 KM2s on and the power wasn't bad at all. The only reason I got rid of them is because I had no need for a mud tire and I got a deal on my duratracs that I couldn't pass up.

Was there an impovment in the gear to power ratio 'feel' when you downsized? It is not only the mpg that holds me back but it is the shifting feel. I like the pull the engine has with the 5speed (something I think an auto kind of lacks when a rig is weight down) and don't want to lose it.

 

[PhdNPrerunners]

Was there an impovment in the gear to power ratio 'feel' when you downsized? It is not only the mpg that holds me back but it is the shifting feel. I like the pull the engine has with the 5speed (something I think an auto kind of lacks when a rig is weight down) and don't want to lose it.

A tiny bit but not much. A couple people I have talked to said when they went from 265s to 255s they could barely feel a difference cause there is less tire contacting with the road.

 

[DPR64]

The 255 85 16's are in and I went to Discount to pick them up but oh my!!! Instead of the advertised weight of 53 lbs, they are 60lbs. EACH!!!! With the rim combined it comes to 82.5 lbs per corner.... Is that TOO much?
My old setup is 65 lb., tire and rim combined.

Also, my old diameter is 31 overall and the new (mounted but not on the truck yet) is 32.75 I suppose it will squat or go down to maybe 32.25 once the weight of the truck is on it.

Should I pull the trigger or go with the 265-75-16 which is a hair smaller in diameter and a bit lighter?

 

[csp]

Just run em for pete's sake!

It's not weight that kills mileage, it's increased rolling resistance along with improper gearing for the tire diameter. You have a narrower contact patch with that tire (meaning rolling resistance isn't an issue) and the increased size isn't enough to make any noticable difference.

If mileage is your concern, drive it like there's an egg under the accelerator pedal. That will do more for you than anything else.

 

[02SE]

Tire/wheel weight absolutely has an effect on fuel economy.

 

[lowlinkin]

I have 255,85,16 KM2's on stock wheels and love them. I don't have any rubbing issues and the truck acts normal. You wont regret it!!!

 

[DPR64]

I have 255,85,16 KM2's on stock wheels and love them. I don't have any rubbing issues and the truck acts normal. You wont regret it!!!

How heavy were those without the rims? Height of the tire mounted and unmounted?
Collecting info so I can make a decision! (tire rack says 55lbs and 33.3" tall)

 

[csp]

Tire/wheel weight absolutely has an effect on fuel economy.

Sure it does. To what degree though?! Not nearly as much as having the wrong gear for the tire size or more rolling resistance either from a change in rubber compound and/or contact patch size.

You all are making it sound like the OP is going from 30s to 42s with the argument of weight.

Instead of arguing theory, keep it practical as it applies to the situation at hand. It's not going to be a noticable difference!

OP if you want to do an apples to apples comparison of weight consider that your existing tires are worn and weigh less than they would if new.

IMO, you're making a mountain out of a molehill and that's 30+ years of auto experience FWIW.

 

[02SE]

Sure it does. To what degree though?! Not nearly as much as having the wrong gear for the tire size or more rolling resistance either from a change in rubber compound and/or contact patch size.

You think the difference in rolling resistance due to rubber compound is MUCH MORE of a factor than the weight of the tire? I'd like to see the data to support that statement.

Instead of arguing theory, keep it practical as it applies to the situation at hand. It's not going to be a noticable difference!

Calm down with your exclamation points.

I can give you observational evidence from running the otherwise same tire on my 4Runner, with the only difference being the respective load range of the tires. There was a 5 lb weight difference between the different load range tires, which worked out to about a 1 mpg difference. Not huge, but definitely noticeable. The difference in acceleration and braking was also noticeable to me.

You're right that not everyone is as attuned to their vehicles. I recall a woman driving down the road with a completely flat tire. She had no idea, until I mentioned it to her when we both parked in the same parking lot. You would think the smoking tire carcass, and visibly rough ride, would've clued her in..

I could give you exact specs of the difference slight weight changes in the wheel/tire combo make on a Professional Dragracing car, but releasing that hard-won data is frowned upon.

The bottom line is just about anything you do to modify a 4Runner from stock configuration, will have an effect on fuel economy.

 

[DPR64]

Sure it does. To what degree though?! Not nearly as much as having the wrong gear for the tire size or more rolling resistance either from a change in rubber compound and/or contact patch size.

You all are making it sound like the OP is going from 30s to 42s with the argument of weight.

Instead of arguing theory, keep it practical as it applies to the situation at hand. It's not going to be a noticable difference!

OP if you want to do an apples to apples comparison of weight consider that your existing tires are worn and weigh less than they would if new.


IMO, you're making a mountain out of a molehill and that's 30+ years of auto experience FWIW.

I was not very worried until I read about a few people moaning about how sluggish/different their 4runners/tacomas were after putting on the larger tires. Then this morning, while at Discount, I weighed the 255/85/16's that they were about to mount and install and it was 18lbs heavier (tire alone) than the nearly new Goodyear Adventure Wranglers I put on this spring (265/75/16) 60 vs. 42
The damn Cooper website said they were 53lbs.
So naturally I was alarmed!

 

[csp]

You think the difference in rolling resistance due to rubber compound is MUCH MORE of a factor than the weight of the tire? I'd like to see the data to support that statement.

Take much out of context?

Some light reading on rolling resistance, to which the rubber compound can be a contributor (that's what I actually said).

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=29

The point I'm trying to make is that things out of our control like being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic or hitting red lights all the way to work probably do more to effect the average persons MPG than a little extra weight.

Just trying to put it into perspective instead of having a chicken little reaction to more weight.