Mileage differences between 235/85 and 265/75r16?
- Thread starter dumprat
- Start date
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
I've heard it's basically none other than weight. Since all 235/85R16 are going to be 'E' load they are heavy. My KO2 are for sure, much heavier than the 265/70R16 'C' KO that came off.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
I doubt you'd see any real world differences, then.
surlydiesel
Adventurer
If you compare a 235/85R16 to a 265/75R16 both E range tires, they are about 6 pounds different weight wise. Depends on the brand of course. From my experience, the 265 tires are much better road wise. Great steering tire and you can corner way faster than you should. The 235's are noticeably better in the sloppy stuff. Slushy snow, mud and dirt in general for me. I never noticed an significant MPG difference. Pricing wise, the 235's are usually cheaper and in general I like them better. They aren't as good in rain in a more mud terrain style but that's not a surprise.
Cheers,
Jorge
Cheers,
Jorge
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
My 235/85R16 KO2 have been pretty good in the rain, but I've never had 265/75R16 KO2 to compare. Perhaps you are thinking of the 255/85R16 KM2? I'd run those but wanted snow rated tires for the winter, so 235/85R16 it was.
p nut
butter
I had both on my Tacoma. 235/85 and 265/75 on the same factory rims, same tires (BFG KO). Zero MPG difference. People incorrectly assume 235 will get better mileage, as it's skinnier. But think about it--We're talking 2" in total width difference between two front tires. Really has no bearing on aero efficiency when the rest of the truck has a shape of a brick.
