Tire decision help

[huntsonora]

Here is a review from this thread on the Tacoma forum...

http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-Build-2013-Toyota-Tacoma-DC-TRD/page3

"Originally Posted by montypower
New shoes installed today!!!

(5) TRD 16x7.5" Alloy Wheels
(5) 235/85/16 Firestone Destination MT Tires

I finally chose tires after weeks of contemplation and reviewing specs of nearly every tire on the market.

Here was my primary considerations when choosing a tire:
1. Aggressive Tread (which limited choices to: BFG KM2, Toyo MT, Geolander MT, Duratrac, Kevlar MTR) - NW off road requires aggressive tread thanks to all the rain, mud and rocks.
2. Durability (needs to be a tough tire - 3 Ply sidewall and E Rated)
3. True 32" (not any of the 265/75 stuff which is 1/4" shorter than 32" diameter - don't want 33s to avoid rubbing, trimming, gearing change, loss in brake performance and steering response).
4. Low Weight (factory tires are 37lbs - most tires weigh in 54lbs on up - less weight = better braking, acceleration, fuel mileage/travel range)

The Firestone Destination MT was the best overall match. They weigh 47lbs which is 4-5lbs less per tire than most other options. True 32" diameter. E Rated - 3 ply sidewall. Skinny! The narrow look is growing on me somewhat... The Destination MT tires have excellent reviews. I've had them on another rig several years ago and they performed very well.

Initial feedback: Excellent steering response, track very well (no wandering or pulling), little reduction in braking / acceleration feel, quiet (less road noise than factory tires)."

 

[Mitubitchy 3.5]

Hi,

on my old Paji ( Gen. 2.5) I`ve go from 265/75 15 to 235/85 16.

Overall its much better, but yes, on the Road I cant go around curves with the same speed.

But this isnt a Racecar, and I`ve never an unsafe feeling while driving...

Stephan

 

[magoh76]

That's a good looking Pajero. Did you see any change in fuel economy when you changed sizes?

Hi,

on my old Paji ( Gen. 2.5) I`ve go from 265/75 15 to 235/85 16.

Overall its much better, but yes, on the Road I cant go around curves with the same speed.

But this isnt a Racecar, and I`ve never an unsafe feeling while driving...

Stephan

 

[Mitubitchy 3.5]

On the Highway its a little less, but in Town it goes up a little.

For a Overlandvehicle I think the 235/85 16 are better then the 265/75 15, and the steering on the old Pajeros with the wide tires always a little bit on the nervous side...

But I realy dont know the steering on the Gen III, maybe some of the other Paji owner will give you a word on this.

Stephan

 

[Kaisen]

If a 235/85-16 is awesome, then a 7.50R16 is EPIC!

Only 7.5" wide (195mm), but 32.2" tall!!

They are available in E load range (2755# ea) and all terrain tread

Just think of the fantastic fuel economy and light steering feel!!

 

[Mitubitchy 3.5]

Hi,

dont know what is hapen with you and the Tire question, but maybe a little reading is a good idea?

http://www.expeditionswest.com/research/white_papers/tire_selection_rev1.html

Happy trails.

Stephan

 

[Kaisen]

I've read Scott's argument, and here are the takeaways:

ON-ROAD performance is hindered by narrow tires
OFF-ROAD performance is hindered by narrow tires in loose, soft terrain -- like snow, sand, or mud

Increased fuel economy from narrower tires is a fallacy
Decreased aerodynamic drag from narrower tires is a fallacy

All of these things are stated in Scott's article

Stability, safety, load capacity, loose-surface performance, and on-road performance are all better with a 265/75-16 than a 235/85-16. Period.

When your Land Rover or Tacoma will not fit a tire that is both tall and wide, you pick tall. But we're not talking about that. In fact, he's going 4" narrower!! than his truck was designed for.

I certainly hope I'm not sharing the highway with someone in a Montero "Overlander"with 200 pounds of crap on the roof and a narrower footprint (yet taller sidewalls) when they have an emergency maneuver at 65 mph on their way to their rock crawling "expedition"

Trading safety for steering feel and "contact pressure" on dry rocks is more a fashion statement than good engineering

 

[Mitubitchy 3.5]

Did you drive your Truck with both options?

I`ve read your arguments, and if you read mine you see that I write that my old Rig change in some ways.

And yes, I can not go curves with the same speed after I go for the 235.

But overall the handling was better after the change, this is my experience...

Stephan

 

[Desert Dan]

Those HDT 12 ply 7.50-16 tires with 60 psi would be great on washboard roads

 

[stioc]

I went with the 235s instead of the 265s because for almost exactly the same weight I was able to get stronger sidewall (E load), a bit more diameter, less rolling resistance and a lot less fitment/rubbing issues. With the E loads now I'm also a lot more comfortable loading up the truck with 800+lbs of armor, expedition gear, batteries, water, fuel, recovery equipment, fridge etc on our 5+ day expedition trips.

My 2nd gen Pathfinder came with everything from 235s to 255s depending on the model year between 1996-2004 (same shape, minor changes). I was running 245s so stepping down to 235s wasn't a big change width wise.

Lateral handling wise there's actually less flex due to the stiffer sidewalls vs. the previous C loads (same tires, Duratracs). The only two things that I find adverse are braking and the steering feels more touchy. I'm sure the braking is because of the larger/heavier tire and a 265 wouldn't be any different. I'm upgrading the brakes soon to fix this issue and the steering feel will just take getting used to.

If I were to do this again though I would probably go with a different tire and might be tempted to consider 255/75/17 (wheel change required) but for now I like the upgrade and the 3/4" ground clearance I gained. For a Montero the 235s may be a tad too skinny so the 255/75/17 (32") would be a better option.

My 2 cents based on my personal experience going from 245/75/16 Duratracs to 235/85/16 Duratracs.

 

[Co-opski]

Those HDT 12 ply 7.50-16 tires with 60 psi would be great on washboard roads

Even more fun in a 70s era jeep.

:smiley_drive:
BTW I'm a card holding 235/85 16 driver and I support this message.

 

[bfdiesel]

Those HDT 12 ply 7.50-16 tires with 60 psi would be great on washboard roads

Even more fun in a 70s era jeep.

:smiley_drive:
BTW I'm a card holding 235/85 16 driver and I support this message.

My fillings hurt thinking about it.

I've read Scott's argument, and here are the takeaways:

ON-ROAD performance is hindered by narrow tires
OFF-ROAD performance is hindered by narrow tires in loose, soft terrain -- like snow, sand, or mud

Increased fuel economy from narrower tires is a fallacy
Decreased aerodynamic drag from narrower tires is a fallacy

All of these things are stated in Scott's article

Stability, safety, load capacity, loose-surface performance, and on-road performance are all better with a 265/75-16 than a 235/85-16. Period.

When your Land Rover or Tacoma will not fit a tire that is both tall and wide, you pick tall. But we're not talking about that. In fact, he's going 4" narrower!! than his truck was designed for.

I certainly hope I'm not sharing the highway with someone in a Montero "Overlander"with 200 pounds of crap on the roof and a narrower footprint (yet taller sidewalls) when they have an emergency maneuver at 65 mph on their way to their rock crawling "expedition"

Trading safety for steering feel and "contact pressure" on dry rocks is more a fashion statement than good engineering

My 7,000 pound truck came stock with 235/85r16's, must have been a fashion statement.

 

[Kaisen]

My 7,000 pound truck came stock with 235/85r16's, must have been a fashion statement.

Your 7,000 pound truck was also engineered for it. It didn't come standard with 265/70-16s and you're wanting to fit taller, 2" skinnier tires instead. Spring rates, swaybar rates, bushing durometer, suspension geometry, etc are all set up for 265/70s. Going to a skinnier tire with significantly higher sidewall aspect may spell trouble in a high-speed emergency maneuver.....especially in a tall skinny high-center-of-gravity Montero. You must consider each application individually. There may be a place for a 235/85, or 255/85 but it's not every truck on the market like ExPo'ers appear to embrace.

And, your NEWEST truck is twenty years old......no manufacturer has specified 235/85-16s on a single-rear-wheel pickup truck for over 15 years. Times (and tire technologies) have changed.

 

[2scars]

I understand...

...where you are going Kaisen. Everyone's truck however will act different once ANYTHING is changed for aftermarket components. I recently went to a "P-metric" (2-ply sidewall instead of 3) AT tire because I wanted a comfortable ride when I am on the way to my weekend "expedition" in the "mountains" of the East Coast. The other reason was that the place I was ordering them from had either Non-Load tires (what I got) or Load E tires and I thought Load C Revos were kinda stiff. To each his own, and own responsibility for operating his or her vehicle in a responsible manner on the way to their "expedition".

Given that, I wouldn't choose tires for a vehicle, that my wife will be driving often, based on a website dedicated to limited improved road usage. People should be more concerned with how they will actually be using the vehicle primarily, and not how they hope or wish they were using it. Why I stopped using MTs.

Off my soap box.

Brandon

 

[magoh76]

Ok, so good discussion on tire size...

How about the AT3? Is there anyone who has firsthand experience with this tire in mud? I don't expect to be in it too much, but when wheeling in Eastern OK it does happen.