245/75-16 or 265/75-16 on 3rd Gen 4Runner?

[MountainBiker]

I have a completely stock 2000 4Runner, and need some decent AT tires. I'm looking at the Dura Trac ( load range C), and these two tire sizes are on my mind. the 245/75 should be identical in diameter to the original tires (265/70). If they end up too narrow within the LTD fender flares, I would add some spacers to push them out. Sure, I'd like to get the 235/85-16 tires, but AFAIK they are only available in load range E, and that seems too stiff to me for such a light vehicle.

The 265/75 would add a little ground clearance, so that is nice, but the 245/75 Dura Tracs are 5 lbs lighter each, which is a huge plus to me. If I add a lift in the future, it will be very mild, +2" max, and heavy bumpers with a winch are not part of the plan.

Keep in mind that I'm coming from a very cushy Subaru Forester and motorcycles. So I pack very light, and I appreciate a decent ride. I'm not into rock crawling, and I never damaged the wimpy AT tires on the Forester, so the strength of the load range C tires doesn't worry me.

So what are the thoughts on those two tire sizes for my needs?

 

[Afdfiremedic]

I have 235/85r/16's in load range E on my first gen 4runner and don't find them to be harsh at all, and I believe my runner is lighter than yours.

 

[Caduceus]

Not a 4 runner, but on my Taco I've got the 245's. Honestly I like them more than the stock 265 - don't look so fat. They don't look anywhere near skinny ... and the difference in width of the tire is something like 1 inch. Also a good amount cheaper in that size. I also gained about 3mpg switching from stock to these tires. Not sure if it's weight of tire, balance, or what, but that's the only thing I did different.

 

[98roamer]

I have the 245 in Winter snow tires and just moved to 265/75 Toyo At last year. Stock height the 245 looked normal and worked great. I installed an OME 2" lift and went with the Toyo to fill out the wheel wells better. I love the look of the larger tires but I took a 1-2 MPG hit with just the tires.

It sounds like you don't need the extra height, I would encourage you to go with the 245/75. I too have the limited flares and I switched to some Tacoma rims which seemed to have a wide stance and fits the flares just fine.


Not the best comparison pics:
245 Bridgestones

265 Toyo with Tacoma rims

 

[duckhunter71]

I've got a set of 265/75-16 Cooper Discoverer A/T3s on my 99 4Runner. I still get 20+ mpg highway and it drives/rides really well. I have the skinny SR5 flares, but my friend has the same size on his 02 SR5 with the wide flares and they look great on both rigs. I think the ride improved considerably compared to the stock size Hankooks that were previously on it.

 

[Martinjmpr]

I had 265/75/16's on my 3rd gen "tall coil" '99 SR5. I think they looked a little nicer than skinnier tires would have. The fatness of the 265 fills out the fender wells nicely for a good look. The tallness of the 265/75 also helps off road.

 

[p nut]

Actually, the 245's are slightly smaller than the stock 265/70's. I've had 245's on my old Tacoma and didn't notice a single MPG gain. Main reason why others may be experiencing more MPG is simply due to the fact that the 245's are smaller, which means odo will read further than the distance actually travelled.

Plus, aesthetically, the 245's just looked puny. On-road performance was also mediocre, as the 265's just provided more lateral grip, especially in slippery/off-camber surfaces. The only reason to go with 245's is cost, as I'm sure they're less than 265/75's or 265/70's.

 

[98roamer]

From 30.5" to 30.6" difference in tire diameter's. The difference in mpg is more the less rolling resistance vs the speedometer being off, (that comes to 3 more revolutions of the tire over a mile).

I used them in my snow tires, so narrow is better.

 

[wonderfulremark]

I couldn't tell the difference between Load Range C vs E on my XJ..
I say go for 235/85/16 or 255/85/16

 

[Caduceus]

Actually, the 245's are slightly smaller than the stock 265/70's. I've had 245's on my old Tacoma and didn't notice a single MPG gain. Main reason why others may be experiencing more MPG is simply due to the fact that the 245's are smaller, which means odo will read further than the distance actually travelled.

Plus, aesthetically, the 245's just looked puny. On-road performance was also mediocre, as the 265's just provided more lateral grip, especially in slippery/off-camber surfaces. The only reason to go with 245's is cost, as I'm sure they're less than 265/75's or 265/70's.

MPG not affected as much as you think.
http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/tirecalc.php?tires=245-75r16-265-75r16

At 65mph (on the speedometer) you're really doing 67mph. Over a tank of, say 300 miles, that comes out to what, 10 miles difference?

As for my post (on the Taco), Stock was 265/65/17, so my difference in diameter is .09 inches!

 

[MountainBiker]

Thanks for all the great input! I'm still not decided, but I need to get some tires by the end of the month.

 

[iMTB]

I vote 235/85. I had load range e tires on my Jeep and it rides fine.

 

[Gregster]

I love the ride, quietness, handling, and fuel mileage that I am getting with my 245/75/16 Michelin Latitude Tour tires on my 05 Tacoma SR5. They are a fantastic size for real world highway driving, which is 99.99% of what I do with my truck. If I did more offroad I would go with the 265/75/16.
My winter tires are 265/75/16 Yokohama Geolander IT and they are awesome! Very good traction in snow and on ice, but I lost about 2 mpg.
I think your logical choice will be the 245/75/16, but you will always be thinking that you should have gone with something different, that's just human.

 

[Gregster]

Repeat post.

 

[p nut]

MPG not affected as much as you think.
http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/tirecalc.php?tires=245-75r16-265-75r16

At 65mph (on the speedometer) you're really doing 67mph. Over a tank of, say 300 miles, that comes out to what, 10 miles difference?

As for my post (on the Taco), Stock was 265/65/17, so my difference in diameter is .09 inches!

I guess I don't understand your post. I never said there was a big difference in mpg. Merely said people may notice a difference. In my case, that wasn't so.