Help With The 285 vs. 265 Question

[Maz]

I've done research here and on other forums for my Trail. Lots of hits come up, but very little is on point. My off road use is at least 80% very soft sand on the beach. The rest is trail with some mud during the rains, and occasionally traversing mild and rounded rocks (such as a stream bed).

AT's are far better for our sand, and none of us have ever cut a sidewall. So MT's are not in play, and let me add the beach part of the drive is done at speed where we don't air down. I'm ready to swap out the OEM's for AT's with a P rating for the better ride on pavement.

With that in mind here is my question: Several companies offer the 70/17" series in a P rated 265 or 285 size. For example the Terra Grappler (my favorite), Cooper AT3, Goodyear Silent Armor, , Bridgestone Revo, and Toyo Open Country II. I haven't been able to confirm all the tread widths, but the 285 runs approximately 1/2 to 3/4 inches wider.

Of course I'd have to add a spare with 285's, in addition to a slight up-charge per tire. Then there's the question of what, if any, rubbing comes up by going bigger? For those of you who went from the OEM's, or another 265/70/265, up to 285's....I'd sure appreciate your experiences and opinions.

(P.S. The up-charge from 265 to 285 was the least by far on the Bridgestone Revo. Usually just a few dollars, and on tirerack.com it was actually $1.00 less!)

 

[Ducmonsta]

With that in mind here is my question: Several companies offer the 70/17" series in a P rated 265 or 285 size. For example the Terra Grappler (my favorite), Cooper AT3, Goodyear Silent Armor, , Bridgestone Revo, and Toyo Open Country II. I haven't been able to confirm all the tread widths, but the 285 runs approximately 1/2 to 3/4 inches wider.

Where's your question?

Of course I'd have to add a spare with 285's, in addition to a slight up-charge per tire. Then there's the question of what, if any, rubbing comes up by going bigger? For those of you who went from the OEM's, or another 265/70/265, up to 285's....I'd sure appreciate your experiences and opinions.

Is your question about rub with a 285?

 

[1engineer]

Click the link in my signature and all will be revealed.

 

[eddiebx]

Just itchin' to test out that new signature of your's huh? Show off.

 

[Maz]

Where's your question?



Is your question about rub with a 285?

Yes I do wonder about rubbing, and wondered if that's a difficult or expensive item to fix? However let me be more specific on the real question (sorry I wasn't clear).

Disregarding which size tire may or may not look better:

1. Do forum members think the extra 1/2 to 3/4 inch tread width will make a noticeable difference for the use intended. That is extra float on sand or mud? If so how much...10%....20%?

2. What, if any, was the MPG loss when up-sizing from 265 to 285 size?

3. Considering the additional cost of a spare, up-charge, and potential future loss of MPG, what is the opinion of forum members on whether the upgrade in tread width a questionable item....or worth it?

Thanks in advance for any help...this forum is an invaluable resource, and I feel privileged to be part of it.

 

[Maz]

Just itchin' to test out that new signature of your's huh? Show off.

Got me......:whoo::wave::hatsoff:

 

[Titanpat57]

Being a Revo II guy myself (LT's) I doubt there will be any difference at all between the 265/285.....IIRC there was a 6 lb' difference between them....but rolling resistance would be negligible.

I'm switching over to 285's this spring.

 

[grey_ghost]

There's one additional detail to this decision that maybe wasn't mentioned (but I'm sure 1engineer has an aswer to it)... the spare placement on a 5th gen has extremely minimal clearance as it is installed, especially if there is a trailer hitch. So if you're talking about a 285 as a spare as well... you might do some research and make sure it will fit.

 

[Ducmonsta]

There's one additional detail to this decision that maybe wasn't mentioned (but I'm sure 1engineer has an aswer to it)... the spare placement on a 5th gen has extremely minimal clearance as it is installed, especially if there is a trailer hitch. So if you're talking about a 285 as a spare as well... you might do some research and make sure it will fit.

To save from someone searching...
A 285 WILL fit underneath our trucks regardless of (factory) trailer hitches.

 

[grey_ghost]

Darn! gray ghost is another annoying non-searcher.... :wink2:

 

[Maz]

Click the link in my signature and all will be revealed.

Thanks for the heads up engineer. I do have the 7.5" minimum width wheels for 285's and could probably have someone move the fender liner. However I wouldn't be crazy about removing a mudflap. Especially on the front since otherwise mud gets thrown up on the side windows and obstructs your sight lines.

Does anyone know if changing to the Terra Grappler 285 requires the mud flap to be removed?

 

[1engineer]

Thanks for the heads up engineer. I do have the 7.5" minimum width wheels for 285's and could probably have someone move the fender liner. However I wouldn't be crazy about removing a mudflap. Especially on the front since otherwise mud gets thrown up on the side windows and obstructs your sight lines.

Does anyone know if changing to the Terra Grappler 285 requires the mud flap to be removed?

Look, I know you are searching for answers but there comes a time when you just have to either "do it" or not.
By going to 285's of any brand you are going to rub. With that said all tires are not equal, even in the same size. Some are "big" 285's, some are "small" 285's. If you decide to go to LT instead of P then that affects the clearance issue. Then there is the issue of your caster setting. Moving it up to closer to 4 is better, but many can't accomplish that with stock UCA's. Then there is the issue of "all 4Runners are not created equal." You might have an 1/8" less on your than mine do to assembly deviations. Bottom line, if you want to change factory specs then you need to man up and make the adjustments as necessary.

I made that chart to address these questions. You have to take it at face value and know you will have to do some modifications. If you are not willing to do them then pick a size that is in the green and you will be fine.

Oh, mud gets thrown up on the sides even with the stock mud flaps. The only way to stop that condition is run a "Baja" or "Rally" style flap that goes almost to the ground.

 

[jrandom]

1. Do forum members think the extra 1/2 to 3/4 inch tread width will make a noticeable difference for the use intended. That is extra float on sand or mud? If so how much...10%....20%?

Well you have two opposing uses.

Sand you want flotation with very little penetration. The taller and wider the lugs the deeper the penetration and disturbance you create in the surface of the sand the easier to sink. The idea with sand is too make it think you are not there That said besides a paddle, worn down wide at or mt tires work best in sand.

Mud on the other hand is the opposite, wider spacing, taller lugs allow for easier cleaning, so material does not build up giving you more traction, or at the least better swimming through. The basic idea for most mud is to cut through it and get down to firm ground so a taller narrow tire with large deep lugs is usually best. Think swamp buggies

 

[Canazes9]

I find it difficult to take the request for off road tire information seriously from someone that won't air down their tires off road. You are debating a 10% diff in contact patch when 100% larger contact patch is available for ~ $150.

Buy a compressor and some deflators.

Amazon.com: Staun Tire Deflators: Automotive

Q Industries MV50 SuperFlow High-Volume 12-Volt Air Compressor : Amazon.com : Automotive


I don't understand the whole P rated tire for ride business. Its a truck, LT tires will barely be noticed as far as ride quality on the highway. LT tires will be much tougher....

A mild LT AT tire would be perfect for your use. Mickey Thompson STZ 275/70R17 would seem like an excellent choice to me. They will fit with no rubbing:

Mickey Thompson Performance Tires & Wheels



David

 

[Intruder]

However I wouldn't be crazy about removing a mudflap. Especially on the front since otherwise mud gets thrown up on the side windows and obstructs your sight lines.

Only if you're throwing up some pretty crazy rooster tails while bogging. I removed the bottom part of my front mudflaps long ago and my tires poke out beyond the fenders but I've never coated the side windows in mud so bad that I couldn't see through them.

 

[Maz]

I find it difficult to take the request for off road tire information seriously from someone that won't air down their tires off road. You are debating a 10% diff in contact patch when 100% larger contact patch is available for ~ $150.

Buy a compressor and some deflators..

A mild LT AT tire would be perfect for your use. Mickey Thompson STZ 275/70R17 would seem like an excellent choice to me. They will fit with no rubbing:

Mickey Thompson Performance Tires & Wheels



David

David I'm afraid you've misunderstood and that's my fault. Let me explain that we're talking about destination off roading to surf spots in the bush, for lack of better term. I actually do carry a compressor, and this isn't a case of refusing to air down. The peculiarities of the region make driving with speed on the sand virtually mandatory.

Then we have awkward transitions, such as one spot where you go directly from the beach onto a very narrow trail pinned against train tracks. Often one or both tires is up on the slope of the track bed in the gravel, and I wouldn't even want to try that aired down.

The other issue is time, and there's almost always someone needing to get back to the city for business. For example one of the my friends is a Vet, and another has a manufacturing facility. I agree airing down makes a huge difference on the footprint....it also takes precious time we're trying to avoid losing if we can.

Wanting P rated tires is based on a set of Duratrac LT265/70/17's we installed on a Nissan Frontier. I found the ride surprisingly rough compared to the P rated tires they replaced. However that may have been a bad example, and I think your suggestion of a mild LT275 is really worth looking into. I hadn't heard of the STZ before....thank you for the link.

 

[Canazes9]

David I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I actually do carry a compressor, and this isn't a case of refusing to air down. Let me explain. We're talking here about off roading to surf spots in the bush, for lack of better term. The peculiarities of the region make driving with speed on the sand virtually mandatory. Then we have awkward transitions, such as one spot where you go directly from the beach onto a very narrow trail pinned against train tracks. Often one or both tires is on the slope of the track bed in the gravel, and I wouldn't even want to try that aired down.

Why wouldn't you want to try that stretch aired down? That would seem to be the preferred way to tackle something like that...

The other issue is time, since there's almost always someone needing to get back to the city for business. For example one of the my friends is a Vet, and another has a manufacturing facility. I agree airing down makes a huge difference on the footprint....it also takes precious time we're trying to avoid losing if we can.

A good set of deflators will have you aired down in 2 minutes or less (total time).

With the right equipment, it's 10 minutes or less to fill. CO2 systems can be had that are almost like filling from a 4gallon compressor.

PowerTank - CO2 Systems and Accessories - Non Model Specific

Its more a matter of getting in to the habit of doing it in my experience.

Wanting P rated tires is based on a set of Duratrac LT265/70/17's we installed on a Nissan Frontier. I found the ride surprisingly rough compared to the P rated tires they replaced. However perhaps that was a bad example, and I think your suggestion of a mild LT275 is really worth looking into. I hadn't heard of the STZ before....thanks for the link.

Nissan?

Well there's your problem...

:biggrin2:

Seriously, the 5th Gen 4Runner shrugs off LT tires in my experience. My 4Runner is my wife's daily driver and it's wearing Mickey Thompson MTZ's at 42psi - she enjoys the way it drives. I have the same tires on my '12 Tacoma and they are noticeably rougher, though still not bad.

I just took my parents (both well into their 70's) on 1600+ mile road trip in the 4Runner. They both commented on how pleasantly it rode and drove (they both took their turns driving a little on the trip...). Try a set of LT's, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

HTH
David

 

[Maz]

Being a Revo II guy myself (LT's) I doubt there will be any difference at all between the 265/285.....IIRC there was a 6 lb' difference between them....but rolling resistance would be negligible.

I'm switching over to 285's this spring.

pat - I'm not doubting you at all, but could you be more specific as to your thinking the rolling resistance would be negligibly different with the width / weight differential?

Thanks,


P.S. I've been doing some research, and happened to run across some information on the Revo 2 that might be useful for you:

Revo 2 LT285/70R17 121/118R E

Max Load - 3195 lbs.
Max air pressure - 80 psi
Tread Depth - 16/32"
Weight - 54 lbs.
Rim Width Range - 7.5-9"
Measure Rim Width - 8.5"
Section Width - 11.5"
Tread Width - 8.7"
Overall Diameter - 32.8"
Revolutions Per Mile - 636
Country of Origin - US

(Source tirerack.com)

 

[LandCruiser]

I have two 4Runners with 285s running nothing but Toytec spacers up front and pulling away the front fender liners, the Trail with its weird mud flaps needed them to be removed, that took about 5 minutes.

I can stuff a 285 spare and it has about 1/2" clearance with the hitch hardware, it also looks like the 4Runner shit its pants.

Alignment isn't perfect with a small lift, but "good enough."

I have a set of OMEs and UCAs I'm going to pick up Monday for the Trail since at full lock and full flex you will get rubbing with 285s, so I will properly lift the vehicle--because I don't want studded tires rubbing.

The wife's LE doesn't go off road, but may get the Emu love, too, if she lets me.

 

[Maz]

Well you have two opposing uses.

Sand you want flotation with very little penetration. The taller and wider the lugs the deeper the penetration and disturbance you create in the surface of the sand the easier to sink. The idea with sand is too make it think you are not there That said besides a paddle, worn down wide at or mt tires work best in sand.

Mud on the other hand is the opposite, wider spacing, taller lugs allow for easier cleaning, so material does not build up giving you more traction, or at the least better swimming through. The basic idea for most mud is to cut through it and get down to firm ground so a taller narrow tire with large deep lugs is usually best. Think swamp buggies

Thank you j. That was a very well written synopsis of the dilemma for anyone with a focus on sand and mud. We're at cross purposes, and it's a delicate balancing act to reach the perfect compromise.

A couple people (including LandCruiser & Intruder) have made it clear the 285 size presents at least some fit challenges. Canazes made a very interesting suggestion for 275's that provide a wider tread and will fit. However as many people know there's next to nothing available in that size.

The Mickey Thompson STZ Canazes linked look fantastic. They get excellent reviews, and spec out with a very impressive 8.85" tread width (and 32.18" diameter). Then again they should look great at $228. a copy. With the spare and size up-charge we're talking a good $500. more than installing four P265's like a Nitto or Toyo. :bolt:

There may be another option as the Cooper AT3 surprisingly comes in that odd size, and is very well priced at $164. (C Load) or $172. (E Load) The tread design looks very good for sand, and people like 1engineer and known bloggers have reported it does better than expected in mud. However there may be a major fly in the ointment. Some reviewers claim the Cooper actually measures out smaller than listed. So much so it may be only be marginally bigger than other manufacturer's dimensions for the popular 265 size.

I'm very concerned this is true, based on the BFG example. The specs on tirerack.com show the BFG KO 275 and KO 265 to be very close in size. For the all important tread width 9.2" vs 9.0," and the diameter barely larger at 32.2" vs. 31.8". With such minor improvements going "bigger" makes no sense. Especially with the cost of bringing the spare into the mix.

The only thing to do here is get hands on, and fortunately I live very close to a major Discount Tire store. They don't carry Mickey Thompson or Toyo, but do have the Cooper and Nitto so I'll go and take measurements. There's also a 4 Wheel Parts store I've done business hereabouts, and I think they'd be willing to measure out the tread width and diameter of the Thompsons.

I'll post the hard numbers, and we'll be able to compare some real world dimensions (we'll assume the exact Nitto measurements would hold true for for an equal size Toyo). At that point I think reasonable comparisons can be made with some confidence we're talking apples and apples.