Tire sizes for a Tacoma

[Gregster]

Love my 245/75 R16 E Michelin LTX A/T 2 tires. They're tough, get great traction, last a long time, and provide great fuel economy while having the best acceleration and power. That's the size this truck was designed to perform the best with.

 

[Owyhee H]

Love my 245/75 R16 E Michelin LTX A/T 2 tires. They're tough, get great traction, last a long time, and provide great fuel economy while having the best acceleration and power. That's the size this truck was designed to perform the best with.

I have the same tires and agree. I have 65k and they still have lots of life. I have beat the snot out of theses tires and they are still strong and true. I may get more agressive next time but these tires have been amazing.

 

[ExploreNorthernBC]

Love my 245/75 R16 E Michelin LTX A/T 2 tires. They're tough, get great traction, last a long time, and provide great fuel economy while having the best acceleration and power. That's the size this truck was designed to perform the best with.

Well, I'm not so sure that they were designed to perform best exactly - the sales pitch from Toyota is that you should want the wider tires that come with the TRD. I confess that the 245/75R16s on my 2913 DCSB do perform well. All the same, I'm going to go to a 235/85R16 when they finally wear out. Same weight, slight increase in diameter (better clearance) and a narrower tire bites better.

 

[Toyofast]

255/85-16 = 33.07" 2.46" larger than stock.
-Uncommon size, not many options for emergency replacement. Provides the largest increase in ground clearance. Will rub. Won't fit factory spare tire location without modification. Most expensive.

A couple years ago I'd agree that it was an uncommon size, but it's becoming a more popular tire. I think that's thanks to the current trend of folks building expedition type rigs.

I love my 255's. I have the KM2's and Cooper ST Discover. Both awesome. The weight of the 255 KM2's is the same as the 265/75 BFG AT's they replaced. I notice little to no difference between the 265/75 and 255/85 when it comes to vehicle performance.

I've found a decent selection of the 255's...

Interco TrXus MT's
Cooper ST Discover
Cooper ST MAXX
BFG KM2
Toyo MT's
Maxxis Bighorn MT's


I will continue to run the 255 size. They are perfect.

 

[Greenbean]

I want to resurrect this thread as I have a Tacoma, I need a more aggressive tire.
Mine is a 4cyl with manual transmission,
Should I just look for a 245/75/R16 which is the stock size? Or try and look for the 265/70/R16
I know the "popular" thing is the 265/75/R16 but I am concerned with the added weight.

In other words if I stay stock size, which I may have to pay a bit more, I am confident the gearing and little powerhouse
under dog 2.7L will be just fine.

Is the 2.7L 4cyl that overwhelmed with a jump to 265/75/R16,
I know a re-gear isn't recommended for it not if you go the 235/85/R16 route.

One day I want 255/85/R16 and a 3" lift and 4.88 gears...
But that's years down the road.

I guess I am wanting to put a lot of confidence in my stock trucks gearing but give her some better shoes for traction,
Is this wrong?

 

[aardvarcus]

I also have a 2.7L 4 banger, mine is an access cab 4x4 manual. I run Michelin LTX M/S2 LT 235/85R16's for daily driving, and I have a set of Cooper Discoverers A/S in LT 255/85R16's mounted on spare wheels for the trail. When I first got the truck it had P rated 245/75R16s on steel wheels. I put both sets of wheels on factory 16” alloys. I didn't notice much difference due to weight, because the LT tires were partially offset by the lighter wheels. Also with a larger diameter, your wheel RPMs will be less for the same road speed, so the required inertia to spin up the heavier tires is partially offset by the lower rotational speed of the larger outside diameter. I analyzed all of this to death in an excel worksheet prior to deciding on a tire size, and I finally decided the 235/85R16 was a good compromise for my use.

I have personally never felt the need for lower gearing than the 4.10 in my truck. Remember, from a drivability standpoint, your final drive gear really only effects your initial takeoff in first and your cruising RPMs in fifth. For any gear or speed in between, you can just adjust your shift points or downshift. For drivability, gearing is gearing, regardless of whether it is in the rear end, transmission, or transfer case. In fact, I would prefer 3.73 gearing to get my RPMs down on the highway for MPG reasons.

I stand by my previous comments in this thread about having dual sets of tires. The Michelins have way better on road traction (as they are a street tire) for daily use and can handle standing water, snow, ice, and light off-roading without issue. Plus I am not wearing out the off-road tires pounding the pavement. The obvious downside is the effort to swap wheels when I want to go do serious off-roading, and then my truck doesn't look nearly as cool in the parking lot.

 

[Greenbean]

and I have a set of Cooper Discoverers A/S in LT 255/85R16's mounted on spare wheels for the trail.

Thanks a ton for this feedback, Exactly what I was needing.

One further question for you,

Can you fit a 255/85/R16 under a stock Tacoma 4x4?

I also was wondering about the weight difference when going to a 10 ply "E" 235 and having it on an aluminum factory wheel
versus the stock tire on steel, but I'll probably keep the steel for a while anyways, Pesky TPMS.

 

[shabba]

I also have a 2.7L 4 banger, mine is an access cab 4x4 manual. I run Michelin LTX M/S2 LT 235/85R16's for daily driving, and I have a set of Cooper Discoverers A/S in LT 255/85R16's mounted on spare wheels for the trail. When I first got the truck it had P rated 245/75R16s on steel wheels. I put both sets of wheels on factory 16” alloys. I didn't notice much difference due to weight, because the LT tires were partially offset by the lighter wheels. Also with a larger diameter, your wheel RPMs will be less for the same road speed, so the required inertia to spin up the heavier tires is partially offset by the lower rotational speed of the larger outside diameter. I analyzed all of this to death in an excel worksheet prior to deciding on a tire size, and I finally decided the 235/85R16 was a good compromise for my use.

I have personally never felt the need for lower gearing than the 4.10 in my truck. Remember, from a drivability standpoint, your final drive gear really only effects your initial takeoff in first and your cruising RPMs in fifth. For any gear or speed in between, you can just adjust your shift points or downshift. For drivability, gearing is gearing, regardless of whether it is in the rear end, transmission, or transfer case. In fact, I would prefer 3.73 gearing to get my RPMs down on the highway for MPG reasons.

I stand by my previous comments in this thread about having dual sets of tires. The Michelins have way better on road traction (as they are a street tire) for daily use and can handle standing water, snow, ice, and light off-roading without issue. Plus I am not wearing out the off-road tires pounding the pavement. The obvious downside is the effort to swap wheels when I want to go do serious off-roading, and then my truck doesn't look nearly as cool in the parking lot.

do you have any pictures of your truck setup with both the 235 and 255? im running a 285 now on my 2.7l and am wanting to go with a narrower tire! really like the 255 but may end up the 235 route

 

[yonah]

A couple years ago I'd agree that it was an uncommon size, but it's becoming a more popular tire. I think that's thanks to the current trend of folks building expedition type rigs.

I love my 255's. I have the KM2's and Cooper ST Discover. Both awesome. The weight of the 255 KM2's is the same as the 265/75 BFG AT's they replaced. I notice little to no difference between the 265/75 and 255/85 when it comes to vehicle performance.

I've found a decent selection of the 255's...

Interco TrXus MT's
Cooper ST Discover
Cooper ST MAXX
BFG KM2
Toyo MT's
Maxxis Bighorn MT's


I will continue to run the 255 size. They are perfect.

I know it's been awhile since this post, but what is your rig setup? Year/transmission/any added armor?

 

[aardvarcus]

Yes, on my stock 2005 4x4 Tacoma the Cooper Discoverer A/S 255/85R16 Tires mounted on Toyota factory alloy TRD off-road 16” wheels fit without issue or rubbing with no lift. Note my base model does not have mudflaps, I did not have any lift or any aftermarket parts on the vehicle whatsoever, I am not using spacers, and I used factory alloy wheels. I don't know if the steel wheels have the same offset/backspacing so I am not positive they would work. I have since lifted the front of the truck 1.75” using Bilstein 5100s and they still fit without issue or rubbing. If you have any other non-factory parts they may not work, I don't know.

The factory alloy wheel weighs 22 lbs and the Michelin LT 235/85R16 tire weights 43 lbs. I am guessing the steel wheel is about 30 and the P245/75R16 is about 34 but I have not weighted them.

I found some old photos on my flash drive, they don't exactly show my current setup but you can see the various tires I have run on the Tacoma. The pictures show the junky mismatched P245/75R16s on steel wheels that were on it when I got it, my daily driver Michelin LTX M/S2 235/85R16s on alloys and the Cooper Discover A/S 255/85R16s on alloys.

 

[mrothwell]

I also have a 2.7L 4 banger, mine is an access cab 4x4 manual. I run Michelin LTX M/S2 LT 235/85R16’s for daily driving, and I have a set of Cooper Discoverers A/S in LT 255/85R16’s mounted on spare wheels for the trail. When I first got the truck it had P rated 245/75R16s on steel wheels. I put both sets of wheels on factory 16” alloys. I didn’t notice much difference due to weight, because the LT tires were partially offset by the lighter wheels. Also with a larger diameter, your wheel RPMs will be less for the same road speed, so the required inertia to spin up the heavier tires is partially offset by the lower rotational speed of the larger outside diameter. I analyzed all of this to death in an excel worksheet prior to deciding on a tire size, and I finally decided the 235/85R16 was a good compromise for my use.

So how did the 235/85s change your fuel economy? Better? Worse? About the same?

How does it ride compared to the p-rates tires? What kind of tire pressure do you run on the street?

I've got a v6/6speed, and I'd love a few more mpgs since the range on this truck is incredibly disappointing. I was eyeing the same tires you've got on your truck, but the LT rating and the associated weight is turning me off a little bit.

 

[aardvarcus]

When adjusted for the differences in diameter, fuel economy is about the same. I attached a sampling of my fuel log I keep for my truck below, I had 5 tanks recorded with the 245/75R16 tires and attached the first 10 tanks with the 235/85R16 tires. All of this was from early last year, with basically a bone stock truck.

Obviously differences in trips and conditions swing the MPGs either way, but there isn’t any clear pattern that one is better than the other. I figure the weight and aerodynamic penalty of the 235s basically offset the 4% gearing advantage due to diameter. I was also probably driving 4% slower with the 245s since the 235s corrected my speedometer within 1MPH of correct at 55 when checked with a GPS, and I had not put a GPS on the 245s and was driving by the gauges. For what it’s worth I have been averaging 27.1 mpg over the last 90 days, but I have made many other changes and adjustments.

Honestly I couldn’t tell a real difference between the ride between the P rated tires and the LT rated tires, partially due I think to the switch to lighter wheels at the same time, which helped to minimize the increase in sprung weight. I noticed a slight change for the worse when I lifted the front of the truck up 1.75” with the 5100s, the same as any A-arm suspension design which rides best with the A arms closest to flat. I run about 45 to 50 PSI on the street mainly for MPG reasons; they don’t wear terribly unevenly at this pressure.

I wouldn’t worry too much about the LT rating for 235/85R16s, at least for Michelins a LT235/85R16 weighs 43 lbs but a P265/75R16 which is the same diameter weighs 40 lbs. The LT penalty gets much worse with the larger tires.

Miles Gallons MPG Tire
389.0 14.000 27.8 P245/75R16
391.5 14.615 26.8 P245/75R16
301.6 11.313 26.7 P245/75R16
359.3 13.601 26.4 P245/75R16
375.3 14.078 26.7 P245/75R16

Miles Gallons MPG Tire
404.1 15.518 26.0 LT235/85R16
291.9 11.131 26.2 LT235/85R16
381.3 14.550 26.2 LT235/85R16
252.6 09.477 26.7 LT235/85R16
355.7 14.053 25.3 LT235/85R16
366.9 14.604 25.1 LT235/85R16
351.5 12.998 27.0 LT235/85R16
311.9 11.400 27.4 LT235/85R16
422.1 15.157 27.9 LT235/85R16
365.0 13.811 26.4 LT235/85R16

 

[Dances with Wolves]

I have a v6 and replaced my stocker P265/70/16 stock garbage with LT265/75/16 Hankook Dynapro Atm's and saw about same results mileage wise. Acceleration was slower and it doesn't drift as easily not that big of a deal though. The peace of mind off the pavement is totally worth the trade.

 

[mrothwell]

When adjusted for the differences in diameter, fuel economy is about the same. I attached a sampling of my fuel log I keep for my truck below, I had 5 tanks recorded with the 245/75R16 tires and attached the first 10 tanks with the 235/85R16 tires. All of this was from early last year, with basically a bone stock truck.

Obviously differences in trips and conditions swing the MPGs either way, but there isn't any clear pattern that one is better than the other. I figure the weight and aerodynamic penalty of the 235s basically offset the 4% gearing advantage due to diameter. I was also probably driving 4% slower with the 245s since the 235s corrected my speedometer within 1MPH of correct at 55 when checked with a GPS, and I had not put a GPS on the 245s and was driving by the gauges. For what it's worth I have been averaging 27.1 mpg over the last 90 days, but I have made many other changes and adjustments.

Honestly I couldn't tell a real difference between the ride between the P rated tires and the LT rated tires, partially due I think to the switch to lighter wheels at the same time, which helped to minimize the increase in sprung weight. I noticed a slight change for the worse when I lifted the front of the truck up 1.75” with the 5100s, the same as any A-arm suspension design which rides best with the A arms closest to flat. I run about 45 to 50 PSI on the street mainly for MPG reasons; they don't wear terribly unevenly at this pressure.

I wouldn't worry too much about the LT rating for 235/85R16s, at least for Michelins a LT235/85R16 weighs 43 lbs but a P265/75R16 which is the same diameter weighs 40 lbs. The LT penalty gets much worse with the larger tires.

Miles Gallons MPG Tire
389.0 14.000 27.8 P245/75R16
391.5 14.615 26.8 P245/75R16
301.6 11.313 26.7 P245/75R16
359.3 13.601 26.4 P245/75R16
375.3 14.078 26.7 P245/75R16

Miles Gallons MPG Tire
404.1 15.518 26.0 LT235/85R16
291.9 11.131 26.2 LT235/85R16
381.3 14.550 26.2 LT235/85R16
252.6 09.477 26.7 LT235/85R16
355.7 14.053 25.3 LT235/85R16
366.9 14.604 25.1 LT235/85R16
351.5 12.998 27.0 LT235/85R16
311.9 11.400 27.4 LT235/85R16
422.1 15.157 27.9 LT235/85R16
365.0 13.811 26.4 LT235/85R16

Wow, that's pretty detailed, thanks for the info.

 

[yonah]

I'm interested to see if anyone has made the jump from 265/75 to 255/85 and what their MPG experiences have been from the tire change alone. V6 Automatic second gen Tacoma results would be ideal, as that is what I drive.