LR3: Wide vs Narrow? 245 vs 265

[Mack73]

An interesting dilemma I am working on: wide vs narrow on an LR3. I'm moving to 17" wheels to get an MT tire in <32"

I'm looking at 2 different sizes for KM2's: 245/75-17 or 265/70-17

- Both are the same outer diameter (31.7) so no difference in side wall, this is simply about section width.
- I have read Expeditions West discussion on wide vs narrow: http://www.expeditionswest.com/research/white_papers/tire_selection_rev1.html
- Both are probably still in the "narrow" range (no 12.5" here) so maybe this is more "super skinny vs skinny"
- My offroading is in the Pacific northwest. So think trees/roots/rocks. Not a lot of mud or sand.


I am leaning towards the 245 (I love the skinny look on older LR's, not sure if it translates to the LR3 or not........) but I worry the 245's too skinny for the offroading I do and the heft of the LR3 (7121 lbs GVWR)?

 

[Red90]

If you have to ask, it probably does not really matter much. Not trying to be negative, but if you were doing serious off roading where a bit of tire size mattered, you would have seen it first hand. For the average light off roader that does not air down to the minimum levels, tire size won't come into play very much. The wider tire will let you air down safely lower and will work better because of the lower pressure.

 

[David Harris]

When you air a narrow tire down, the contact patch gets longer which I think is better in most conditions than wider, because a wide aired down tire has more frontal area to act as a brake in soft conditions. In other words, you also have to overcome the wide tire patch pushing through the mud and sand like a plow. . . This plow effect can also cause reduced steering control because the tire is in fact hydroplaning a bit in the mud/sand. I used to live off the grid at the end of a long muddy track. My Tahoe with 265's was a lot more difficult to control in the mud than my Toyota truck with 225's, which would track much better in such conditions.

 

[proper4wd]

Very simply 245's are going to be very narrow for the standard wheel and will be more likely to unseat a bead and will be more vulnerable to sidewall damage.

 

[David Harris]

Very simply 245's are going to be very narrow for the standard wheel and will be more likely to unseat a bead and will be more vulnerable to sidewall damage.

Good point. Rim width limits your choices, unless you change wheels. . .

 

[Mack73]

Wheels are 17x7

They are sufficiently narrow for a 245 tire

 

[PTB]

I'm curious what rim you got and the source. The smallest I've come across for the LR3 are 18.

 

[Mack73]

I'm curious what rim you got and the source. The smallest I've come across for the LR3 are 18.

17's were sold in Europe and Australia (probably other non NA markets). There were also I believe 20 test LR3s brought to the US with the 17's. Requires the use of v6 brake parts. Only 1 style of 17" was made.

Here is a photo of the 17's

 

[nwoods]

Do you need to fit snow chains? If so, you might want the narrower one.

 

[Mack73]

Do you need to fit snow chains? If so, you might want the narrower one.

This is really the only thing that differentiates the 2. I don't have chains, or have needed to use chains in the past. But the fact that I can't fit them is annoying. I do need to go over the cascade mountains pass from time to time.

I just can't find a compelling reason for either size. 265/275/285 is more common, but is that because no one runs 17's so they do not have the option (IE. DI and DII frequently run with 235/85), or simply because a 265 is more appropriate....



The argument I can make for the 245 is lower weight, lower cost, better MPG, and ability to fit chains. The 1" in width is really probably nothing that can be felt out on the trail.

 

[Storz]

I have nothing constructive to add other than skinnies belong on Land Rovers

 

[proper4wd]

If you are fitting 17s, the obvious answer is 255/80R17

Or 235/80R17

 

[Mack73]

If you are fitting 17s, the obvious answer is 255/80R17

Or 235/80R17

Interesting size the 235/80 - but no MT's are available in it, all I can find is the druatrac.

I'm staying below 32". I've seen way too many suspension faults disable air systems. I think I have personally disabled the air system (pulling fuses after getting the faults cleared so it could get some air in the system) after issues on 4 separate occassions (None on my truck.. knock on wood). The last one on 32's caused some wiring to be ripped off in the driver's wheel well simply trying to drive it over to a spot where we could work on it (bent air spring/shock broke the sway bar end link and took out the hight sensor dropping it down to bump stops)

I do have preparations to fix air issues, I simply rather not go to a 32"+ at this time.

 

[Mack73]

Oh and other reasons to stay below 32"
- I would need to cut off the frame horns at the back of the front wheel wells.
- I need to re-route the rear AC pipes in the rear wheel wells and modify sliders
- I run these tires at stock height, I can do it with <32", but won't be able to with >32"

Also if anyone is curious about the reasons for faults so they can be prepared out on the trail:
1. If your tie rod end is bent, or for some reason the steering angle is too far out of spec (you are driving straight, but the steering wheel is 30degrees off) the steering angle sensor will throw a fault
2. Failed height sensor, throws a fault
3. Sway bar end link was broken, air compressor worked way too hard and overheated, multiple faults
4. Bent strut, caused sway bar end link to break taking out the passenger front height sensor, ripped wiring on driver's front driving on 32" tires off the road, multiple faults

At the end of the day, all vehicles had methods to clear faults. That let us pump air back into the system, then terrain response/air system was disabled by pulling 2 fuses in the engine compartment. If we didn't have fault clearing tools we would have needed to jump the compressor to get some air in the system, or use my emergency air kit to plumb in a valve for filling.

 

[PabloM]

I just moved from 265 to 235 and the steering in low speeds feels a lot beter. I yet have to see how the 235 performs in mud, but I think that it will do just fine. Having a rear locker is what gets you out of mud better than just a wider tyre IMHO.