Larger Tires vs Lower Gearing for an Expedition Vehicle (2.7 Tacoma)

[GodwinAustin]

Hi everyone,

I have a brand spankin new 3rd gen Tacoma with the 2TR 2.7L. The tires on this truck are basically highway tires, and will be the first upgrade.

Re-gearing is out of the question at the moment, so I am working with the factory 3.9 gearing (someday I will be putting 4.88s in hopefully). The truck came stock with 245/75/16s on factory steelies which are basically a 31x9.5. My choice for new tires is either a 31 or 32 in a 265/70/16 (31x10.5) or a 265/75/16 (32x10.5) Both will fit on the stock suspension, but I lose gearing with the 32s.

Which is more important in this case the gearing, or the extra .5" of clearance from the larger tires? I think the gearing drops from 3.9 to 3.7 with the larger tires...

 

[bkg]

Which is more important in this case the gearing, or the extra .5" of clearance from the larger tires? I think the gearing drops from 3.9 to 3.7 with the larger tires...

That depends on your goals and needs. Personally, I wouldn't re-gear for a 32" tire....

 

[GodwinAustin]

That depends on your goals and needs. Personally, I wouldn't re-gear for a 32" tire....

Ah right, that would help wouldn't it :sombrero:

I want a vehicle that can take me across the Western US, and travel on a variety of off-road/overland routes. Wyoming to Alaska, climbing some off road passes and backroad shortcuts along the way. Rock crawling and mudding and "sport" wheeling are not at all a consideration. Re gearing that would be down the line, and would probably have some 33"s in the cards. (future upgrades will be a front locker, diff breather, and suspension upgrades)


The basic question at this point is, is the extra .5" clearance from the 32s worth the loss in gearing. That road trip to Alaska won't be too fun if I need to downshift every-time the wind picks up.

For those with the 32"s on the 2.7L 2TR with 4.10 gearing - how drivable is it?
I also want to consider loss of low range gearing while off-roading.

 

[tanglefoot]

I'm firmly of the belief that trucks drive best when original overall gearing is maintained, and that no, the modest ground clearance gain is not worth the extra mass, wind resistance and fulcrum distance (radius) of a larger tire.

Although I agree that re-gearing probably isn't justified with 32s, I just love the way trucks drive on smaller tires. Everything works better--steering, brakes, gearing... I find that line selection and technique in difficult spots makes much more of a difference than tire size.

Coming from the earlier Toyota camp, I've been around those who ran 33s with no gearing changes with 22R and 22RE engines (much less output than yours) and were happy with the combination. I find 31s to be too clumsy myself. I'm much happier with 30x9.50 and if I replace them, I'll probably look for the touch-smaller 235/75R15s.

I find that the gearing difference is most noticeable on the highway. In low-range, I've never really picked up on the difference but I can definitely tell on the road--bigger tires move each transmission gear further apart and it can mean having to use a gear lower to keep climbing.

Don't forget that large tires on trail rigs is a fairly recent trend. In the 70s and 80s, many 4wds on the trails were on 28s and the modified ones went to 31s.

 

[bkg]

Ah right, that would help wouldn't it :sombrero:

I want a vehicle that can take me across the Western US, and travel on a variety of off-road/overland routes. Wyoming to Alaska, climbing some off road passes and backroad shortcuts along the way. Rock crawling and mudding and "sport" wheeling are not at all a consideration. Re gearing that would be down the line, and would probably have some 33"s in the cards. (future upgrades will be a front locker, diff breather, and suspension upgrades)


The basic question at this point is, is the extra .5" clearance from the 32s worth the loss in gearing. That road trip to Alaska won't be too fun if I need to downshift every-time the wind picks up.

For those with the 32"s on the 2.7L 2TR with 4.10 gearing - how drivable is it?
I also want to consider loss of low range gearing while off-roading.

Here's what I'd say - you're looking at a couple of minor percentage points in tire size: Click here: http://www.1010tires.com/Tools/Tire-Size-Calculator/245-70R16/265-70R16

If you went from 3.9 to 4.88 on stock tires... that's a ~25% (4.88-3.9)/3.9 decrease in gearing on stock tires... that's 25% increase in RPM's at all speeds in all gears.

As far as how it will run with the 1" larger tires on stock gears - in low range, you won't know the difference. On the street? probably... but I can't say how much as it's different for everyone - it's perception.

 

[boxcar1]

The difference in tire size your talking about will net a negligible difference in drivability or pulling power. You will barely feel the difference.
I wouldn't consider a re-gear for the uses you describe. Nor would I recommend larger than a 32" tire. You just won't need them. ( There is something to be sed for keeping a low CG....)
Lockers are always a good idea ( for your use ) as is armor ( both body and suspension. ) Upgrade the shocks and add a power steering cooler if the truck is not equipped.
Back to the tire question. Id be interested in size availability. If you lock yourself into a tire size that is difficult to find on the road , you may want to rethink your decision.

 

[GodwinAustin]

The difference in tire size your talking about will net a negligible difference in drivability or pulling power. You will barely feel the difference.
I wouldn't consider a re-gear for the uses you describe. Nor would I recommend larger than a 32" tire. You just won't need them. ( There is something to be sed for keeping a low CG....)
Lockers are always a good idea ( for your use ) as is armor ( both body and suspension. ) Upgrade the shocks and add a power steering cooler if the truck is not equipped.
Back to the tire question. Id be interested in size availability. If you lock yourself into a tire size that is difficult to find on the road , you may want to rethink your decision.

both tire sizes I mentioned are pretty common sizes... yeah it seems a lot of you were mentioning what I was thinking, the 31" is the more functional size.

Gearing > .5" extra clearance seems to be what most people are saying.

 

[open country]

I agree with most that either size you listed is pretty negligible in both gearing and ground clearance effect. The ~8% increased width of a 265/75 would be more of a worry for steering parts stress than the ~3% increased diameter is on the drivetrain, and really wouldn't be a game changer in overland ability. I'd use the money for other accessories or fuel to make the trips you want to do possible.


If you're set on it I'd go with the 265/75/16 on looks alone, I think it looks great, at least on a 2nd gen. It's also very common and relatively cheap for replacement across the country, as it is standard issue size for basically all Mid 90's-Mid-00's GM full size Trucks and SUV's.

 

[GodwinAustin]

I agree with most that either size you listed is pretty negligible in both gearing and ground clearance effect. The ~8% increased width of a 265/75 would be more of a worry for steering parts stress than the ~3% increased diameter is on the drivetrain, and really wouldn't be a game changer in overland ability. I'd use the money for other accessories or fuel to make the trips you want to do possible.


If you're set on it I'd go with the 265/75/16 on looks alone, I think it looks great, at least on a 2nd gen. It's also very common and relatively cheap for replacement across the country, as it is standard issue size for basically all Mid 90's-Mid-00's GM full size Trucks and SUV's.

Well the stock tires need to go as they would be terrible for any sort of trail work.

Youre right that the 265/75/16s look really good based on what Ive seen, but it doesnt seem wise to make a decision on cosmetics, at least from my perspective. Capability needs to be paramount. Ha, well capability on a budget that is.

 

[NVLOC]

I don't post much but had to voice my opinion as I strongly disagree with a few of the comments here.
I've owned a 2.7 Tacoma access cab (as well as two 3.4 v6 Toyota trucks and a 4.7 v8 LC)and would strongly suggest not going up in tire size for the type of terrain you will be driving. The difference in clearance is negligible, if at all noticeable. The difference in gearing and pull in the mountains is, in my mind, barely drivable. The clutch work becomes a chore and the vehicle becomes notably tiring to drive over long distances with constant down shifting and having to rev the engine higher than what is pleasant. Looks are the only pro, but that quickly gets dismissed the more you drive the vehicle.

My favourite size for that truck was 245/75/16. Or 31 x 10 on a 16" rim. It's a great overall size that is easy to find. I found the c rated dura tracs to be light in that size and well suited to the lightweight of the vehicle and low hp numbers. A heavier tire on that truck affected mileage and driving habits noticeably.

I live in bc, Canada and have driven that truck extensively through the mountains up here. Don't be convinced by those who tell you the difference is imperceptible. It is very noticeable. i share Ttanglefoot' opinion: stock works so well all around. Besides 32's aren't going to get tu somewhere 31's couldn't or allow you to not get stuck where 31's did.

 

[GodwinAustin]

I don't post much but had to voice my opinion as I strongly disagree with a few of the comments here.
I've owned a 2.7 Tacoma access cab (as well as two 3.4 v6 Toyota trucks and a 4.7 v8 LC)and would strongly suggest not going up in tire size for the type of terrain you will be driving. The difference in clearance is negligible, if at all noticeable. The difference in gearing and pull in the mountains is, in my mind, barely drivable. The clutch work becomes a chore and the vehicle becomes notably tiring to drive over long distances with constant down shifting and having to rev the engine higher than what is pleasant. Looks are the only pro, but that quickly gets dismissed the more you drive the vehicle.

My favourite size for that truck was 245/75/16. Or 31 x 10 on a 16" rim. It's a great overall size that is easy to find. I found the c rated dura tracs to be light in that size and well suited to the lightweight of the vehicle and low hp numbers. A heavier tire on that truck affected mileage and driving habits noticeably.

I live in bc, Canada and have driven that truck extensively through the mountains up here. Don't be convinced by those who tell you the difference is imperceptible. It is very noticeable. i share Ttanglefoot' opinion: stock works so well all around. Besides 32's aren't going to get tu somewhere 31's couldn't or allow you to not get stuck where 31's did.

Well said, and appreciated.

 

[deadbeat son]

I don't post much but had to voice my opinion as I strongly disagree with a few of the comments here.
I've owned a 2.7 Tacoma access cab (as well as two 3.4 v6 Toyota trucks and a 4.7 v8 LC)and would strongly suggest not going up in tire size for the type of terrain you will be driving. The difference in clearance is negligible, if at all noticeable. The difference in gearing and pull in the mountains is, in my mind, barely drivable. The clutch work becomes a chore and the vehicle becomes notably tiring to drive over long distances with constant down shifting and having to rev the engine higher than what is pleasant. Looks are the only pro, but that quickly gets dismissed the more you drive the vehicle.

My favourite size for that truck was 245/75/16. Or 31 x 10 on a 16" rim. It's a great overall size that is easy to find. I found the c rated dura tracs to be light in that size and well suited to the lightweight of the vehicle and low hp numbers. A heavier tire on that truck affected mileage and driving habits noticeably.

I live in bc, Canada and have driven that truck extensively through the mountains up here. Don't be convinced by those who tell you the difference is imperceptible. It is very noticeable. i share Ttanglefoot' opinion: stock works so well all around. Besides 32's aren't going to get tu somewhere 31's couldn't or allow you to not get stuck where 31's did.

I think this is good advice.

I don't have experience with a 4cyl Tacoma, but I live in Colorado and stepping up from a 31" tire to a 32" on my DCSB 4.0 Tacoma made a noticeable difference. It doesn't make much of a difference in the flats, but once the road points upward, the larger tires make themselves known. I may switch back when this set wears out. My truck is a bit more sluggish than I wish it was.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

My brother has the 2.7 in his 2014 Tacoma, with 32" bfg's. He downshifts a lot on the turnpike hills between Tulsa and OKC, unless he can keep it about 80mph depending in traffic. It does lose speed on hills, and this is Oklahoma not Colorado so are hills aren't that big.

 

[tinbasher]

tire weight will be as much of a factor as size, "P" rated 32"s might be better than 10ply 31"s as far as drivability on the highway.

 

[Badin]

Small differences in gearing become magnified at high altitude. If any of your expected travels will be mountain roads at 8000' plus, effects of bigger heavier tires will be more noticeable than on the low flats.