Mickey Thompson Wheels

ameining

ameining

New member
I think I have seen a couple rigs on here running these wheels, I searched and did not see any. They have 4" BS with 12 mm offset on the 16 x 8 wheel. I am just curious if anybody would be willing to chime in on these wheels. I like the look, they are somewhat pricey...but ultimately I want to know how they fit. Currently I run 1.5" spacers, and ultimately would like to get rid of those things.

Any feedback would be welcome....also if anybody has any other fake beadlock wheels that they recommend!!

Thanks
 

Attachments

  • classic_lock_black.jpg
    classic_lock_black.jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 13,733
Register to hide this ad
Do you really like the beadlock look? I mean, is that one of the strong selling points? I ask because if you got wheels like I have, the Procomp 8069's, they're pretty cheap.
 
^^ You can also get that exact Mickey Thompson wheel above, in black, without the faux beadlock. On 4WheelParts they are just slightly more money than the ProComp 8069's. I think both wheels are awesome and I still think about selling my LC80 wheels and going with these!
 
Hepar said:
Do you really like the beadlock look? I mean, is that one of the strong selling points? I ask because if you got wheels like I have, the Procomp 8069's, they're pretty cheap.
Click to expand...

The 8069's are only a few dollars cheaper, and also an alloy wheel. I have tossed around the PC 152's which are a steel wheel and there is also one without the beadlocks that is cheaper. I do like the look though.
 
thorridder said:
no i dont, with the -12mm you dont need spacers for wheels up to 12.5" wide, the spacer is built in meaning the center of the rim is pulled back farther. i have zero rubbing with 33/12.5.
Click to expand...

your signature says 285's which are not 12.5" wide...?? Either way I am running a 285 mm wide tire...so that means I could possible shed the spacers. This is great to know. Thanks thorrider!
 
ameining said:
your signature says 285's which are not 12.5" wide...?? Either way I am running a 285 mm wide tire...so that means I could possible shed the spacers. This is great to know. Thanks thorrider!
Click to expand...

ok let me say haha when i bought the rims i had 33/12.5/17 coopers s/t. but with gas and wanting new i sold my others and got 285s. but im getting baja claw 33/12.5's and they wont rub.
 
rickashay said:
^^ You can also get that exact Mickey Thompson wheel above, in black, without the faux beadlock. On 4WheelParts they are just slightly more money than the ProComp 8069's. I think both wheels are awesome and I still think about selling my LC80 wheels and going with these!
Click to expand...

Let's trade!
 
Last edited:
Those wheels have the same size/backspacing specs as ProComp 8069's... 16x8 w/4" backspacing.

They look nearly identical to the 8069's, assuming you go w/the ones w/o the fake beadlocks.

The 8069's allow you to run a 285/75r16 without wheel spacers. Mine give me about an inch of clearance between the tires and the UCA. I could probably throw on 305/75's or 315/75's and still clear the UCA's. This was one of the major factors for me when I bought the 8069's.

The 8069's are 100% guaranteed to clear the calipers for a Tundra Brake Upgrade (231's or 199's), without spacers, so you have that option open to you in the future.

The 8069's are cheaper.

These MT wheels may NOT clear the Tundra calipers.

If I were you, I'd be looking at all those facts, and IMO if you want that look then why not go w/the 8069's that have a proven track record for a lower price?

RE your initial question, they should FIT exactly the same as the 8069's as far as clearance from the tire to the UCA, and will eliminate your need for spacers. The only unknown would be caliper clearance. They appear to have a slightly flatter face than the 8069's, which would mean less caliper clearance.
 
BigFishAllDay said:
Those wheels have the same size/backspacing specs as ProComp 8069's... 16x8 w/4" backspacing.

They look nearly identical to the 8069's, assuming you go w/the ones w/o the fake beadlocks.

The 8069's allow you to run a 285/75r16 without wheel spacers. Mine give me about an inch of clearance between the tires and the UCA. I could probably throw on 305/75's or 315/75's and still clear the UCA's. This was one of the major factors for me when I bought the 8069's.

The 8069's are 100% guaranteed to clear the calipers for a Tundra Brake Upgrade (231's or 199's), without spacers, so you have that option open to you in the future.

The 8069's are cheaper.

These MT wheels may NOT clear the Tundra calipers.

If I were you, I'd be looking at all those facts, and IMO if you want that look then why not go w/the 8069's that have a proven track record for a lower price?

RE your initial question, they should FIT exactly the same as the 8069's as far as clearance from the tire to the UCA, and will eliminate your need for spacers. The only unknown would be caliper clearance. They appear to have a slightly flatter face than the 8069's, which would mean less caliper clearance.
Click to expand...

BifFish, thanks for the heads up. I have been neglecting the brake upgrade for some time...and I honestly do not know why. I just need to pull the trigger on that. I happen to like the look of the fake bead locks for some reason, I think it adds a little extra to the flat black wheels.

Now you really made me question this decision!! Haha
 
ameining said:
BifFish, thanks for the heads up. I have been neglecting the brake upgrade for some time...and I honestly do not know why. I just need to pull the trigger on that. I happen to like the look of the fake bead locks for some reason, I think it adds a little extra to the flat black wheels.

Now you really made me question this decision!! Haha
Click to expand...

lgfp1839join-us-or-die-darth-vader-star-wars-30th-anninversary-poster.jpg~original
 
I really like the beadlock look also (even if it is fake). I like the 137 series Eagle Alloys. That's what I am running.

14864.jpg~original


Except I don't like chrome, so I painted the ring a dark bronze color. Also note that the "ring" is not a separate part that can be taken off. It is all part of the wheel.

On my truck:

PICT0225.jpg

PICT1003.jpg~original
 
Bandit Runner said:
I really like the beadlock look also (even if it is fake). Also note that the "ring" is not a separate part that can be taken off. It is all part of the wheel.
Click to expand...

I agree on the beadlock look. I like the breakup that it gives between the wheel & tire. I will say, though, that the M/T beadlock rings DO unbolt & come off. At least a set I had a while back did...and I think that is still true, because you can get the wheels with your choice of several different colored rings.

One thing I don't like though is how the fake beadlock wheels hold water in the bottom of the wheel. Aggravating because you clean them all up, then when the wheels start spinning they throw water all over everything! (I'd still run 'em though.) :D
 
Decisions

The thing keeping me from the MT's right now is that the M/T logo actually makes the fake locks not perfectly symmetric around the wheel. I think I would like the ring on the Eagle Alloys......ahhh decisions.

Ha

Thanks everybody, keep the good responses coming to keep me in the decision tree loop!!
 
Bandit Runner said:
I really like the beadlock look also (even if it is fake). I like the 137 series Eagle Alloys. That's what I am running.

14864.jpg~original


Except I don't like chrome, so I painted the ring a dark bronze color. Also note that the "ring" is not a separate part that can be taken off. It is all part of the wheel.

On my truck:

PICT0225.jpg

PICT1003.jpg~original
Click to expand...


Bandit, I remember seeing that you painted the outer ring on your wheels. I think it looks great. I have thought about doing a different color on the outer ring, how did you go about painting them?
 
Hub vs Lug Centric

I have also been eyeing the Pro Comp 7031, which is not a hub centric wheel...this is one little detail I have never fully understood. Would these wheels still fit since the lug pattern is correct??

Any feedback would be nice, always wanting to learn!!

Thanks
 

Attachments

  • images.jpg
    images.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 5,233
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 369 (members: 1, guests: 368)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,307
Messages
3,554,054
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top