Tire Weight Concern
- Thread starter neatoneto
- Start date
Granitesilverunner
New member
I run stock 265/70/17 general grabber a/t2. They are heavier than the factory tires, took a slight hit to mpg but drive similar.
Jeremy556
New member
My 4runner curbs at 6200lbs, often crawling through sharp rocks at 8psi.
Gclark949
New member
I got rid of my stock size KO2 C rated at 23,000 miles because I felt they were a hazard on wet pavement and I slashed the sidewall on rocks too easily. Still stock size but now running Cooper ST Max E rated. They are louder and I can feel the weight but I don’t mind, just looking forward to more adventures.
For the OP mostly road needs, I would stick to a P rated AT tire.
For the OP mostly road needs, I would stick to a P rated AT tire.
BlackWorksInc
New member
Typically it has mainly to do with the tire construction, the E-Loads seem to have beefier sidewalls and central plys than a P-Rated Tire and in some cases compared to their C-Rated counterparts since typically these tend to be how the tire's load capacity is mainly increased.
The stronger sidewalls are desires for more resistance to heat & friction degradation as well as laceration/puncture resistance when the tire is aired down. The trade-off is a much stiffer ride for a much "stronger" tire, so typically E-Loads are desirable not for their load capacity (where as in your application that's their primary appeal/purpose) but for the secondary benefit of robustness vs. a P-Rated or even a C-Rated tire.
[MENTION=166036]neatoneto[/MENTION]
There's no real direct correlation between unsprung weight and sprung weight, it's not a simple mathematical conversion. Unsprung weight tends to affect the suspension more as it has to dampen/manage a more exaggerated weight when the suspension is compressed/relaxed. While it can be simplified as having more weight in the vehicle (i.e. sprung weight) that's not entirely accurate.
If you added 400lbs to the vehicle, you most likely would not see too much ill-effects on your suspension as a result. But adding a heavier and stiffer tire will put more stress on the suspension and might result in the new tires becoming oddly worn, feathered, and cupped in very short time; as well as the stock suspension giving up the ghost quicker. This is mainly because differences in unsprung weight will affect dampening rates of the suspension's spring and shock combinations mainly. A large contributing factor to why you'll see guys running 33" E-Loads with incorrect pressure (not chalked for the vehicle) on stock suspension end up with horribly cupped tires within 5-10k and more than likely leaking shocks. Where as someone who matched the heavier unsprung weight with a good shock/spring combination will probably see plenty of longevity in their tire wear because the suspension can handle the different dynamic better.
Long story short, there's no A=B here with Sprung vs. Unsprung Weight. If you're that concerned about fuel mileage don't mod the vehicle and don't drive it like anything other than a Prius (not trying to be mean, but these aren't gas savers, so if gas money is that tight it's probably not the vehicle for your commute and you should be looking for lighter tires with less rolling resistance).
If you're not going to go too heavily into a lift or anything else, then probably just matching the stock size with some KO2's will be the better option if you're that concerned about unsprung weight. The compromise in tire quality vs. weight for all-around use and mild use in snow will be a better bargin for you application probably. We sell a lot of KO2's and they seem to be a good tire for moderate winter use and general driving.
WVhillbilly
Member
In that case, you need an E rated tire.
I'd still think you're the exception, and not the rule.
I bought a used F150 that had E rated tires on it when I got it, it rode terribly.
After nearly selling it, due to the ride, I changed the tires.
Harsh ride gone, just like that.
I'll never hang enough stuff on my rig to need a tire that heavy, and neither will most other people who buy them.
Decipher
New member
I agree completely. While they look slightly better than stock, the trade off is not worth it. The E ratings are a horrific choice for our rigs unless you’re in MOAB every day.
OP, I’m in the same boat. I’m running the Falken AT3W in stock size, P series, and am one of the original buyers. This is with my 5100s set to .85F/ stock rear. In a P-Series, I’ve towed damn near capacity for the Runner, I off-road at least once a week for fun, and push my rig harder than my Jeep friends combined. The P-Series has done it all without an issue AND I get a great on-road drive.
I’m about to move my suspension up to your choice (2.5F/1.5R) and am sticking with the Wildpeak AT3W in P flare in the 285/70-17 size. Really take a look at them and really consider your needs. The E tires are going to murder your ride for extra ruggedness that I have yet to need. I wish there were more C rated options in a 285. I have zero interest in the Goodforayear duratracs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kenwilliams0803
New member
This. I have 4 of those sitting in my garage right now waiting to go on later this week.
Also remember that 5 lbs. here or there is kind of splitting hairs. Or at least I think it is. My JK tires are 78 lbs. each, add in the wheels and I am at almost 100 per corner.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Based on my experiences in the past with multiple different Toyota trucks, I found any time I went to a larger tire or to a AT tire it negatively affected mpg. For example on my 2012 Tacoma I went from a P265/65r17 Nitto Terra Grappler (stock size-42 pounds) to a P265/70R17 Michelin LTX M/S 2 (41 pounds) and I lost a 1/2 to 1 mpg depending on my city driving that week (and yes that was after making the calculations to get accurate MPG). When I went from the stock Bridgestone (36 pounds) to the stock Nitto's (again 42 pounds) I lost about a 1/2 mpg. Now for those who drive under 12k a year absolutely no biggie to lost that kind of mpg but I do about 25k to 30k and to me it just not worth the hit for larger tires that aren't going to give me any benefits other then looks. I have used the Michelin LTX's for years and they have always got me home and they have performed better then any AT I have ever owned except in the super rough stuff. In regards to AT tires there are a lot of very good ones but most of them you can only get 2 years out of them at that kind of mileage. In conclusion I have found tread design (AT/highway/Mud) and weight play a huge role in the MPG's in addition to how hard you are on the skinny pedal. Good Luck OP!
Nashville5thGen
New member
P265/70/17 - 47lb
P285/70/17 - 50lb
I'm running the 265s and noticed about .5 mpg hit. Not too bad. Going with the 285s next time.
2016 4Runner SR5
Senior Member
I'm at about 90 pounds per corner, not worried. Is what it is!
Explore604
New member
I know this thread is mostly about tires, but I'll add in that this past winter I bought and put on the Toyota steel rims with Michelin Xi2's in stock size. Now the tires are about the same weight as the stock Duelers, but wow those steel rims must be heavy. I knew they would be heavier but didn't think they would affect the drive that much. In stock form the 4runner (IMO) is JUST barely adequate in terms of acceleration, pick up, etc. With the steel rims it's a dog. Also need more braking force to bring it to a stop. Yeah you kinda get used to it, but I know that when I put the stockers back on soon it's going to feel fast all of a sudden. I'm actually considering finding a set of stock rims on Craigslist or something and switch the winter tires to those.
I estimate the steel rims may be 12-15 lbs more each than the Trail rims.
It was a good eye opener to what the feel of putting bigger heavier tires would be day to day. Don't like it. Eventually will put AT's on the Trail rims but try to limit increase weight to no more than 5 lbs per corner if possible.
Or put the Xi2's on the trail rims and get some TRD rims for rest of the year.
OT: with a stock tire (eg. Dueler), will the 7" vs 7.5" (trd vs trail) rim width have any noticeable effect on handling/cornering?
I estimate the steel rims may be 12-15 lbs more each than the Trail rims.
It was a good eye opener to what the feel of putting bigger heavier tires would be day to day. Don't like it. Eventually will put AT's on the Trail rims but try to limit increase weight to no more than 5 lbs per corner if possible.
Or put the Xi2's on the trail rims and get some TRD rims for rest of the year.
OT: with a stock tire (eg. Dueler), will the 7" vs 7.5" (trd vs trail) rim width have any noticeable effect on handling/cornering?
Nokian rotiiva at
I really like my Nokian(Finnish company) Rottiva AT,
They look rugged, all terrain, but comfortable in highway and good in mpg.
I drove them on sand, rocks, mud, gravel, light snow, wet snow, deep snow, freezing rain and on ice. They perform well in all conditions.
They are all weather tires, so they have the snowflake symbol, rated better for winter usage. They can be used all season including summer.
Good in sand and beach, goes a bit deeper than the original tires.
Mud performance is acceptable, but they are AT not MT.
Perform great on rocks and gravel, off road, climbing, fast speed gravel.
I have stock tire size, my mpg is 21.4 mixed 80% highway. They are light at 37 pounds.
They are also cheap, company is trying to gain market in the US. ($100-$130)
https://www.nokiantires.com/all-weather-tires/nokian-rotiiva-at/
They developed a technology called Aramid sidewall to beef up sidewalls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5LvBke-UqY
The only issue, 265 is widest on 17 inch tires. It did fit to me, I didnt want to lower potentially mpg, and acceleration.
I really like my Nokian(Finnish company) Rottiva AT,
They look rugged, all terrain, but comfortable in highway and good in mpg.
I drove them on sand, rocks, mud, gravel, light snow, wet snow, deep snow, freezing rain and on ice. They perform well in all conditions.
They are all weather tires, so they have the snowflake symbol, rated better for winter usage. They can be used all season including summer.
Good in sand and beach, goes a bit deeper than the original tires.
Mud performance is acceptable, but they are AT not MT.
Perform great on rocks and gravel, off road, climbing, fast speed gravel.
I have stock tire size, my mpg is 21.4 mixed 80% highway. They are light at 37 pounds.
They are also cheap, company is trying to gain market in the US. ($100-$130)
https://www.nokiantires.com/all-weather-tires/nokian-rotiiva-at/
They developed a technology called Aramid sidewall to beef up sidewalls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5LvBke-UqY
The only issue, 265 is widest on 17 inch tires. It did fit to me, I didnt want to lower potentially mpg, and acceleration.
neatoneto
New member
Great info here. Did a little more research and BFG recently came out with the KO2’s in C load range!! I guess this was in pressure from Jeep with the new Wrangler since the rubi’s come stock with 285/70r17 KO2 C range!
Decipher
New member
A good friend of mine just bought a new Rubicon with the KO2s. They look great but there are so many sketchy reviews about their wet performance and complete loss of traction at the halfway wear mark that I have taken them off my list. Wish it wasn’t the case but I’ve read enough to stay away personally.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
T4 Leaf
New member
My comment was tongue-in-cheek...its from an old Seinfeld quote I think... I based my decision on the Tire Fitment guide and comments here ... I haven't had any issues on wet pavement yet...but I am looking out for it.
WVhillbilly
Member
I believe load range C would still be good for 7K lbs.
If you're heavier than that you wouldn't be going fast enough to matter anyway.
