Tire size: 235 85/16E vs. 265 75/16C or D?

[Stereo]

I'm shopping for new tires to support the pop-up camper I'm loading onto my Tacoma 4WD. Contributor Tanglewood suggested going with a 235 85R16 tire. They ARE cheaper but only come E rated. My stock is 265 70R16 but the next closest size that's available in the tires I'm considering is 265 75R16 in a C or D. I could also get a 245 75/R16E.

I've asked previously about my load rating needs and got the opinion that C would be adequate though D might be preferable but I'm open to more discussion.

Can anybody tell me the pros and cons of these sizes and load ratings in regards to acceleration, ride comfort without a load, traction, gas mileage, etc. (I do understand the difference in plys and thus stiffness.)

I've got my choice of brand down to Kumho KL78 or the Yokohama Geolander. Please don't confuse me further by mentioning any others, 'cause I've spent a ton of time reading people's opinions of all the available brands:sombrero: but I'm open to hearing your opinion between these two brands.

I'll be mostly running on pavement but will also be driving rough, steep forest roads, with sharp rocks but no serious 4-wheeling. No sand. I need to deal with snow where I live.

Thanks in advance for your help. (p.s. I checked on Tacoma World but they focus on looks. You all need FUNCTION!)

 

[CA-RJ]

I believe 7wt has run both sizes and likes the 265/75R16 tires better. Hopefully he will chime in.

 

[Mattm94]

Well, to confuse you more you can step up to a 17" rim and a 245/75R17E, which will give you about a 10" section width as opposed to the 9.5" 235 or 10.5" 265, with a basically identical rolling diameter. With a 17 you can get 235, 245, and 265, all the same diameter if things like that matter to you.

I'll never buy another 265/75R16 anything.

If you are serious about the snow, the skinny 235/85R16 is the ONLY way to go....

I've got an 85 on it's third set of 33x9.50s, and when they wear out it will be getting 16x6 OEM LC silver spokes and 235/85s as well just to keep life simple.

The 9.5" section width is an ANIMAL in the snow, and has taken me out of where I live when everyone else could not get out of the driveway when it dumped several feet... my 85 was also used to pull our 30' trailer out in over a foot of snow when the Taco w/ 265s couldn't quite do it (same tread pattern on both).

 

[fifthcircle]

I have run 245/75, 265/70, 265/75, and now 235/85.

I didn't really notice a difference on the first 3 other than looks, size wise.

The 235's however, I noticed are better in snow. The tread is more aggressive, and that may have a little to do with it.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the difference in load range on a Taco. I noticed that 265 c's at 35 psi rode similar to my 235 e's at almost 50. It's either because they are retreads, or the added sidewall.

My $.02
-5th

 

[Stereo]

I'll never buy another 265/75R16 anything. .

Why is that?

I appreciate the feedback from everyone. At this time, I don't have the money for new wheels so it sounds like the 235's will work well for me and save me money. Thank you.

 

[Gerdo]

I know we are talking different vehicles (mine is a 2rd gen 4runner). A wider tire will float on soft stuff like sand and trail snow. The narrower tire will cut thru the snow on the road to grab the road. I am running 265/75-16 LR-C Yokohama AT/S (I also had them siped). I have had them for about 1.5 years and they are holding up great. They do great in the snow on the road and trail. I rock crawl and they do pretty good there too. They don't have the big shoulder lugs that grab rock edges like a MT does. The ride great and are quiet. I highly recommend them.

FYI, As far as going to a larger wheel. This will reduce the sidewall height. This will reduce tire squirm but also (if you were going to rock crawl) reduces the tires ability to compress on the rocks. You also increase the chances of loosing a bead when aired down to the same psi.

 

[Mattm94]

Why is that?

Cause a 265/75 is on average 5lbs heavier than a 235/85, about the same as a 255/85, and performance wise PALES in comparison to the narrower section widths for just about anything. I picked up 1-2 MPG highway on the 235 also...

Rockcrawling is another subject all together.

 

[upcruiser]

I am taking particular interest in this thread as I am looking into Tacomas and was considering a 235/85 BFG AT as the tire of choice. I have been running this size on my Discovery and its been great, smooth and quiet on the road and competent in 90% of the conditions I see. I also want to maximise fuel economy and haul a camper so i am thinking the E range is a plus for the extra load. I would imagine the sidewalls have less deflection when highway driving which would improve handling with the narrower tire.

 

[Stereo]

Is 245/75R16 the best compromise?

I picked up 1-2 MPG highway on the 235... Rockcrawling is another subject all together.

I don't intend to do any rock crawling so no worries there. Thank you for the mileage estimate. I figured there would be less rolling resistance with the narrower tire so had hoped there would be an improvement in MPG.

I'm just now checking out a tire calculator and wonder if a 245/75R16 E-rated might be a better compromise for my Tacoma. With a 245, I get a narrower tire than the 265/75, a lighter tire than either the 235/85 or 265/75 (at least in the Geolander; it's heavier in the KL78. Go figure.), and a tire that's only .46% different than the radius of the stock 265/70R16. The 235/85R16 and 265/75R16's are both more than the maximum recommended difference of 3%.

I do read that Fifthcircle only saw a jump in traction in snow with the 235's...

215/85R16's are also closer to stock diameter. Only -0.71% difference. Any reason not to go this skinny? Another bonus is that the KL78 comes in a D rating in that size which should be plenty enough for my loaded Tacoma. They're cheaper, lighter, and have a better mileage warranty than the E-rated.

 

[dare2go]

The 235 and 265 are referring to width of the tire surface on the road, so the right tire will very much depend upon your needs and driving.
Eg. a lot of cornering on dry to semi-wet surfaces: wider (265) are better. Driving in sand you'll need wide tires (and deflate them to be even wider).
Snow and ice: often easier to do with narrow tires, same goes for driving in deep mud (the wider the tire the harder the vehicle has to work, in soft snow a narrower tire cuts deeper into the soft surface, giving more sideways grip.).
E over D - I usually like to have spare load rating. Only disadvantage is a slightly harder ride = less comfort. With a fully loaded truck camper I found that the D rated tires, which are softer in the side walls, made the back of my truck "wobble" a bit more...

 

[Mattm94]

(and deflate them to be even wider).

BS.

Deflate a tire and the contact patch gets longer, but as far as contact width, a 9.50 is a 9.50, until you get to the point that a sidewall is touching... at that point you've tossed a bead or have a flat, unless you have bead locks.

Many a fool has crossed the Sahara with 9.00R16s....

 

[Martinjmpr]

I had 235/85/16s on my 04 Taco and they did great in both snow/ice and desert dirt/rock of Moab. Tires were Yokohama Geolander AT-S's.

On my current 4runner I have BFG AT KOs which were on the truck when I bought it in '09. They're showing a lot of wear especially on the front and will be replaced this year. Most likely candidate for replacement is to stay with the AT KO's but go to a 235/85/16 for the narrower footprint. It doesn't hurt that going to the 235/85 chops about $25/tire off the price.

 

[Stereo]

How about 215/85R/16?

Given the responses thus far, I'm convinced that a thinner tire is the way to go for my needs. Are there any concerns with me going with 215/85R16? It's a closer match to my stock and just fits on my 7" rim (according to Yokohama). It's about 3/4" skinnier than the 235.

 

[Mattm94]

Have them mount up a 215 and a 245, then compare the two... pay attention to how vulnerable your sidewalls are going to be.

Being at the max recommended rim width for a given tread width isn't a great place to be.

 

[tanglefoot]

That'd be an interesting size to run as well. I think 215/85s are also found on dually pickups--a little narrower than the 235 and not quite as tall.

All you 16" wheel folks sure are lucky with the tall/skinny sizes that aren't quite as tall as the 33x9.50!