I'm building out my 4th gen 4runner for DD and overland. Typical trips are Seattle to Redmond twice a week, Stevens Pass in Feb (snowy), and Washington Backcountry Discovery Route in July (forest roads, babies heads, rutty). I just installed an OME 2.5" lift, so I've been looking at upgrading from 265/60R18 (30.5) to 265/65R18 (31.6). Any thoughts on moving to 255s? Not quite pizza cutters, but a little slimmer should help in snow and rain. I'm specifically looking at 255/70R18s (32.1). Thanks for your input.
Tire size- overland 4runner in PNW
- Thread starter smiper
- Start date
Pikeman
Adventurer
Do you already have the 18" rims or are you on 17's still? The 255's are fine and a lot of people have run them with good results. Seems the majority of people I have seen run a 33" equiv. tire like the 285. I have a 3rd gen with the smaller V6 and run the 285/75/16(33") as my daily and it works fine. With your larger more powerful engine the 33 should be no problem and give that little extra ground clearance.
CMiller
Adventurer
I've been happy with my 255/75 BFG MT's on 17"
Mine is an 06 Limited with the V8, so plenty of power and stock 18" rims. I'm looking to get a little height and traction in snow and on wet fire roads. Thanks for the input so far- keep it coming!
coastal616
Adventurer
Go for the 285/75's
summerprophet
Adventurer
The 255s are perfect for what you described, FSR roads, BDR routes, baby heads, the soggy wet trails the cover the PNW.
If you find yourself among the crowd that airs down their tires.... (Snow wheelers or Moab Rock type stuff) or want additiional stablity on (dry) off-camber stuff then the additional surface area of 285s would be of a benefit to you.
Honestly, if it were me (and obviously it is not), but if this rig is your daily driver and exploration vehicle, 32" height is kind of the best of both worlds, with a massive amount of tires to choose from. Of course, I am on 16" wheels, so again, if airing down happens at all in your travels, the additional height of the sidewalls may be a determining issue.
If you find yourself among the crowd that airs down their tires.... (Snow wheelers or Moab Rock type stuff) or want additiional stablity on (dry) off-camber stuff then the additional surface area of 285s would be of a benefit to you.
Honestly, if it were me (and obviously it is not), but if this rig is your daily driver and exploration vehicle, 32" height is kind of the best of both worlds, with a massive amount of tires to choose from. Of course, I am on 16" wheels, so again, if airing down happens at all in your travels, the additional height of the sidewalls may be a determining issue.
Great post, and great to have info from someone in my neck of the woods. A lot of our backpacking trips have left out of Ellensburg, and I've done some great shooting out by Lt. Murray.
Talk to me a little more about airing down. More or less unnecessary in Washington? I wont be rock crawling, and I don't think I'll be on the beach much. No deep, snowy trails. Just slushy highway passes. Umtanum is about as gnarly as I want to get.
Should I be considering something even skinnier?
JCMatthews
Tour Guide
I live in Utah, and drove my Cherokee in both snow and on Moab slick rock, and never ran anything wider than 10.5. My favorites were 33 x 10.5 15's. With the light weight Jeep, I ran them as low as 8 psi on the rocks and never had any trouble and still got 45 - 50k out of the tire. So IMO even in snow, mud, and slick rock you'd be great with the 255's. I wish they had a 255 x 75 or even a 255 x 80 in an AT. I'd run them all day on my 1st Gen. tundra.
I wish I had a snow picture to show you, but it is stuck in an album. I went miles beyond where the Chevy trucks had to turn around.
I wish I had a snow picture to show you, but it is stuck in an album. I went miles beyond where the Chevy trucks had to turn around.
Attachments
Last edited:
p nut
butter
Having run slim tires down to 235's in snow, I can attest that they do not help much, if at all, in snowy/slushy conditions. 265's and now my 285's perform perfectly fine in those conditions. For everyday driving, I think 31-32" 265's would be the best. If my rig were an everyday driver, I'd go 265's. In fact, when these 285, 33" tires wear out, I'm going back to 265's.
A challenger appears- this may be the first dissenting opinion on 255 vs. 265 I've read. What was your experience? Sliding around on snowy roads? Heavy vehicle?
Containerized
Adventurer
Why not the 255/85R16? Any reason to run 18's?
summerprophet
Adventurer
If Umptanum is as difficult as you are expecting to find, 255 or 265 will be fine. Great for Expo type travels and exploring. If you want to play at funny rocks or moon rocks, or get into the Naches snow wheeling stuff, 285s would be a minimum width....
A little bit about airing down. Airing down gives you massively more traction, and far better suspension on the smaller bumps (baby heads would be the perfect example).
Using my 3rd gen 4runner as an example...
I believe stock I should be running 35 psi
Using it primarilly in Umptanum/Colockum/Manashtash (say 70-80 percent off highway), I run my 285/75/16 at 20 psi. Tire wear seems to still be ok, highway manners still seem ok, Off highway traction, and sucking up the small bumps are noticeably improved. I have been at this air pressure all summer long. If I was going to run to Seattle, I would air up to 30 or 35.
Now hitting mission ridge in spring or early summer, and encountering the 4 foot deep snow drifts, I would drop the air pressure to 10 or 12 psi to avoid getting stuck. I am cautious about not getting too aggressive on the gas in this scenario, both to avoid chewing into the soft snow, as well as a (possibly unfounded) fear of unseating the tire. Obviously, at minimum, you will be needing a valve core removal tool, a few extra valve cores, and a cheap (prefereably fast) pump.
It seems like the acceptable minimum for PSI is the width of the rim, or slightly above. 6 inch wide rims would have the lowest of 6 to 8 PSI. I work with a jeeper who claims he runs his tires at 4 or 5 with caution. The Naches snow wheeling guys are running 2 PSI, but of course they are also running 38 inch tires with beadlock rims.
One issue I have encountered which MAY be related to me running lower pressures is I keep losing tire weights. Something to consider.
A little bit about airing down. Airing down gives you massively more traction, and far better suspension on the smaller bumps (baby heads would be the perfect example).
Using my 3rd gen 4runner as an example...
I believe stock I should be running 35 psi
Using it primarilly in Umptanum/Colockum/Manashtash (say 70-80 percent off highway), I run my 285/75/16 at 20 psi. Tire wear seems to still be ok, highway manners still seem ok, Off highway traction, and sucking up the small bumps are noticeably improved. I have been at this air pressure all summer long. If I was going to run to Seattle, I would air up to 30 or 35.
Now hitting mission ridge in spring or early summer, and encountering the 4 foot deep snow drifts, I would drop the air pressure to 10 or 12 psi to avoid getting stuck. I am cautious about not getting too aggressive on the gas in this scenario, both to avoid chewing into the soft snow, as well as a (possibly unfounded) fear of unseating the tire. Obviously, at minimum, you will be needing a valve core removal tool, a few extra valve cores, and a cheap (prefereably fast) pump.
It seems like the acceptable minimum for PSI is the width of the rim, or slightly above. 6 inch wide rims would have the lowest of 6 to 8 PSI. I work with a jeeper who claims he runs his tires at 4 or 5 with caution. The Naches snow wheeling guys are running 2 PSI, but of course they are also running 38 inch tires with beadlock rims.
One issue I have encountered which MAY be related to me running lower pressures is I keep losing tire weights. Something to consider.
Last edited:
I have run 265, 255, and 245 widths on my '04. The 265's performed the worst in snow/slush. The 245's were the best and the 255/75 r17's that I am currently running are a nice combination providing both ground clearance and good handling characteristics in the snow. Of course tread pattern plays a role as well (ie MT's aren't going to do well on ice).
I already own the 18s, and I'm not into buying new wheels.
p nut
butter
Really, you're looking at a 10mm difference in tread width. That's not going to make any drastic or in my opinion, any real world difference in snow performance. Both tires performed well in the wet/cold. Difference was on dry pavement, 265's had better on-road manners. Meaning less squirmy feel around corners. Not that I drove it like a sports car, but just talking every day driving speeds. They were both on my double cab Tacoma. One other plus for me was that the 265's also looked better.
My area sees about 500" of snow on the average, so I'm in the stuff a lot.
Last edited: