4th gen 4runner tire size

[XpeditonTERRA]

When I first got my 4runner I wanted to do a suspension lift and get larger tire but the more I drive it on and off road the more I am considering leaving it stock. After going on some adventures with it I feel it is quite adequate for my needs. I even got to pull someone out of a ditch up on the ridge. Another consideration is it is my daily driver and I often have to drive between 60 and 100 mile round trips for work. So I want to keep it as safe and road worthy as possible which means keeping the center of gravity low. I am thinking of just doing a diff breather mod and getting 265/70/17 Bfg AT KO2's and calling it done for the most part.
But now I am weighing the pro and cons of 265/65r17 vs 265/70r17.
Is the decrease in torque noticeable with the 265/70r17? How is acceleration and hill ascending effected? I rely enjoy the quick acceleration and power it has now.
Is there much benefit to the 70 besides the 1/2 inch lift. That is the main advantage especially if I am keeping my rig stock.
Should I even be this concerned with a 1/2 difference either way?
I have not been able to decide which size I want. I find myself far down remote snow covered trails with street tires because of my indecisiveness, so I would like to have a conversation with some one with experience on this subject. I think it would help me decide.
Thank you,

 

[94toy22re]

I bought my 4Runner with 265/70/17 (Cooper AT3) already installed so I have never driven 4Runner on the factory 265/65. When I needed tires this past fall I was looking at 65 and 70 for replacement. I think you'll notice that the 70 series is cheaper and their is a lot more tire options. I ended getting the K02 with a C load rating, no regrets.

 

[p nut]

I noticed the difference more on my old 3rd gen (3.4L) 4Runner going from 31 to 32" tires. I don't think you will notice as much difference, since you've got more power, but it will still be there. Also, MPG will decline a bit.
_
I don't know the roads you drive, but if you're not rock crawling and haven't experienced a lot of scraping on the trails that you've been on, I would just get some stock sized 265/65/17 BFG KO2's and call it good.

 

[Watt maker]

I bought my 4Runner with 265/70/17 (Cooper AT3) already installed so I have never driven 4Runner on the factory 265/65. When I needed tires this past fall I was looking at 65 and 70 for replacement. I think you'll notice that the 70 series is cheaper and their is a lot more tire options. I ended getting the K02 with a C load rating, no regrets.

I agree with this. 265/70/17 is a more common size than 265/65 and they're usually a little cheaper. I've owned my 2008 4runner since 2008 so we drove it around for some time on the stock 265/65's. I couldn't really tell a difference in power when I made the jump to 265/70's and there was only a small mpg penalty, probably mostly due to going to a aggressive tread. Honestly, 265/70's worked pretty good for me over the years and I tackled some pretty challenging terrain with them. I ran Hankook ATs for quite a while then made the switch to the KO2, which I thought was a very good tire. I've since moved to a 255/80/17 (33") tire which I like but they are hard to find and it did take some trimming to get them to fit.

 

[p nut]

I agree with this. 265/70/17 is a more common size than 265/65 and they're usually a little cheaper...

"Usually" is the key word. Currently on tirerack.com, KO2's in 265/65 is cheaper than 265/70 by ~$80 (for 4 tires). I do agree there are more tires for the 265/70 size, but with tires like the BFG KO2's, and more road oriented A/T's like Michelin AT2's (among others), I don't know if that is that big of an advantage.

 

[94toy22re]

"Usually" is the key word. Currently on tirerack.com, KO2's in 265/65 is cheaper than 265/70 by ~$80 (for 4 tires). I do agree there are more tires for the 265/70 size, but with tires like the BFG KO2's, and more road oriented A/T's like Michelin AT2's (among others), I don't know if that is that big of an advantage.

I'm almost positive you can only get the KO2 in a E load range in 265/65/17 which will have larger impact on mpg then moving up for to a 265/70/17 in a C load range! When I pursued my tires at Discount tire I paid $204 per for 265/70 and the 265/65 would of been $220

 

[p nut]

I'm almost positive you can only get the KO2 in a E load range in 265/65/17 which will have larger impact on mpg then moving up for to a 265/70/17 in a C load range! When I pursued my tires at Discount tire I paid $204 per for 265/70 and the 265/65 would of been $220

It could be a factor. I don't know if it would be enough to offset the height penalty of the 32" tire, but 6lbs per corner would definitely affect it. One advantage of LR E is the robustness of the sidewalls. Something to consider.

 

[Desert Dan]

I would go with 70 series tires to get more sidewall and a better ride.

Here are 265x70x17 BFGs (old style)


Next time maybe 275x75x17s to get a 75 series tire

 

[XpeditonTERRA]

Thanks every one I am leaning more toward the 70s. Especially if I cant get the 65s in a c load range.

 

[birdmann]

You won't really notice a difference due to size (going from 265/65 to 265/70). You will notice a difference from what load range you choose.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk