how big is 265/70/r17? how would you read this?

Or you could go with pizza cutters and with the narrower tread maybe get a little better mileage. 255/75/17. Will also fit in your spare carrier and will give you a mean looking stance. I almost got those, but was harder to find a shop locally that had that size in my brief window of time.

doesn't that size make it look way taller? anyone have a pic of their truck with this size? would like to see to somewhat make a comparison. :girl::fish:
 
doesn't that size make it look way taller? anyone have a pic of their truck with this size? would like to see to somewhat make a comparison. :girl::fish:

I'll try and see if I can find some guys. It looks great. I know going from my worn factory 265s to new 270 A/T's made it a little taller, but you are correct the 255 definitely make it look taller.
 
doesn't that size make it look way taller? anyone have a pic of their truck with this size? would like to see to somewhat make a comparison. :girl::fish:

I've ran both sizes 265/70/17 (past) & 255/75/17 (present). Same make BFG, model difference between the 2 (TA vs. KM), and E rated (TA) vs. C rated (KM).

Pics are in my album for reference.
 
Last edited:
255-75-17 KM's

2.jpg
 
Also.. tire manufacturers always measure from the ground up INCLUDING the bulge of the sidewalls. So the listed diameters of tires will always be larger than what you'll get if you measure the tire from the ground up NOT including the sidewall bulge. Keep that in mind.

That surprises me as it wouldn't seem to make sense since pressure and loading, and thus bulge, is dependent on the specific service of the tire.

It definitely doesn't apply to my tire which comes very close the published spec when unloaded but is about an inch less when measured on the truck (tread wear accounted for).
 
That surprises me as it wouldn't seem to make sense since pressure and loading, and thus bulge, is dependent on the specific service of the tire.

It definitely doesn't apply to my tire which comes very close the published spec when unloaded but is about an inch less when measured on the truck (tread wear accounted for).

Just off the top of my head I can think of over a dozen different MT and AT tires that I've used or owned and in every case, the actual height of the tire (ground up in a straight line) was around 1" shorter than the listed diameter of the tire. BFGs run small, Coopers run big.. but they all measure shorter than listed diameter because you and I care about ground clearance so we measure straight up.

But again, it's just because tire manufacturers include the sidewall when measuring. They also do this on a specific width wheel, which they will also list for you.

The one exception to this rule is Treadwright. Treadwright uses the ground-up method just like you and I do, and therefore the listed diameters on their website are all spot-on. The retreading process adds both height and weight to the tire.
 
Just off the top of my head I can think of over a dozen different MT and AT tires that I've used or owned and in every case, the actual height of the tire (ground up in a straight line) was around 1" shorter than the listed diameter of the tire. BFGs run small, Coopers run big.. but they all measure shorter than listed diameter because you and I care about ground clearance so we measure straight up.

But again, it's just because tire manufacturers include the sidewall when measuring. They also do this on a specific width wheel, which they will also list for you.

The one exception to this rule is Treadwright. Treadwright uses the ground-up method just like you and I do, and therefore the listed diameters on their website are all spot-on. The retreading process adds both height and weight to the tire.

Thanks.

I see now that I misread your earlier statement (the one I quoted) and so posted unnecessarily.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,120
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top