Toyo Open Country Tires
- Thread starter Scott Brady
- Start date
Regcabguy
Oil eater.
285-75-17 Toyo MT's
I just installed 285-75-17 Toyo Mt's on the Beast. Noise level is tolerable. Zero balance issues as usual with a Toyo product. I lost about 3/4 mpg over the AT's of the same size. Definitely more rolling friction. Initially a bit of tire squirm which has diminished quite a bit @ 800k. I do wish Toyo'd listen and offer larger 17" M-55 sizes though. I had those on my '98.5 and loved them. These were made here in the USA plant too. Finally putting some guys to work here Toyo.
I just installed 285-75-17 Toyo Mt's on the Beast. Noise level is tolerable. Zero balance issues as usual with a Toyo product. I lost about 3/4 mpg over the AT's of the same size. Definitely more rolling friction. Initially a bit of tire squirm which has diminished quite a bit @ 800k. I do wish Toyo'd listen and offer larger 17" M-55 sizes though. I had those on my '98.5 and loved them. These were made here in the USA plant too. Finally putting some guys to work here Toyo.
I also recently put the 285/75R17 MT's on my truck and have been very happy. I went on only one hunting/4wd adventure with them and they handled a, high pucker factor, very slick off camber steep hill with ease. I only put on about 1500km's before switching to a dedicated studded winter tires (Firestone Winterforce 235/85/R16). I would not recommend the OC MT's for actual winter driving due to the lack of sipping and stiffer rubber compound. We were blessed with an early winter and I had a couple somewhat hairy situations that reminded me it was time to put on the winter tires!
Back on track - Zero balancing issues - shop was at first amazed how heavy they were then amazed how true and how little weigh was needed to balance!
I obviously have no signs of wear as they are barely broken in (1500km).
I have no pulling or wandering with tires and my front end is fairly tight - for a dodge.
Regcabguy - What are you running for PSI front and rear? What were you running in your OC AT's? I was a tad worried with the lower weight rating on the MT vs the AT in this size, but when comparing the two tires in person side by side it appeared the MT was just as stiff, if not stiffer, then the AT. I would assume the AT and the MT share the same casing so in the aforementioned size the variation in load capacities may be a function of the tread flex/deflection vs actual sidewall strength. This has more to do with the potential horizontal deflection vs the actual ability of the tire to take a vertical load - thoughts?
Back on track - Zero balancing issues - shop was at first amazed how heavy they were then amazed how true and how little weigh was needed to balance!
I obviously have no signs of wear as they are barely broken in (1500km).
I have no pulling or wandering with tires and my front end is fairly tight - for a dodge.
Regcabguy - What are you running for PSI front and rear? What were you running in your OC AT's? I was a tad worried with the lower weight rating on the MT vs the AT in this size, but when comparing the two tires in person side by side it appeared the MT was just as stiff, if not stiffer, then the AT. I would assume the AT and the MT share the same casing so in the aforementioned size the variation in load capacities may be a function of the tread flex/deflection vs actual sidewall strength. This has more to do with the potential horizontal deflection vs the actual ability of the tire to take a vertical load - thoughts?
backcountrycruiser
Observer
Mine arent that tall
I have a set on our suburban 1/2 ton. They are a great tire. Great slick
traction esp. when newer. Great side wall flex. Great load capacity, they
seem to handle wheight above the side wall rating, other tires weved used
start to get wobbley when you get anywhere near their sidewall rating, let
alone go over it. I have about 65k on my set and still alot of tread, enough
were Im comfortable taking it out in the woods and on long road trips. They
have a harder compound lower on the tread blocks, so they have gotten a
little louder as they age. And I damn near through out my back the first time I rotated them...:Wow1:
Mike
I have a set on our suburban 1/2 ton. They are a great tire. Great slick
traction esp. when newer. Great side wall flex. Great load capacity, they
seem to handle wheight above the side wall rating, other tires weved used
start to get wobbley when you get anywhere near their sidewall rating, let
alone go over it. I have about 65k on my set and still alot of tread, enough
were Im comfortable taking it out in the woods and on long road trips. They
have a harder compound lower on the tread blocks, so they have gotten a
little louder as they age. And I damn near through out my back the first time I rotated them...:Wow1:
Mike
Regcabguy
Oil eater.
The AT's actually have a much higher load capacity(3900# vs 3195#)than the Mt's but you wouldn't know it from the ride. I ran 55# in the AT's all around w/camper. I'm running 60# in the MT's. Some MT's I've seen out there don't have any siping so I'm grateful for the amount we've got on these. Balancing wasn't an issue at all. My friend did the balancing at his shop. Unfortunately,the eco-weights that Ca requires here make it look like blocks of wood are hammered onto the rim. Steel wts. can't be sold here anymore apparently so hang onto what you've got. A guy in my neighborhood drove to Honduras and back towing an 8000# Toyhauler with his '03 Dodge 3500 CTD. Tires were the Toyo MT's. Zero flats,cuts or manufacturing defects. The guy hasn't even rotated the suckers yet. 23,000 on them to date and they look good for another 15,000K
ersatzknarf
lost, but making time
Reference Data Request
Can anyone please supply a reference measurement ?
If anyone has the Toyo M/T in size 255/85R16 (also 315/75R16, if possible) on a narrow rim (6.5" would be perfect), would you give me a real world outside diameter (OD) ?
I have been going around and around trying to use gear ratio calculators to get to a certain target, but the one thing I need is a real OD for a tire on a wheel on a vehicle.
The 255/85R16 Toyo M/T states 33.5" OD in the specs, but a real diameter on a car would be really helpful.
Thanks ! ! ! :sombrero:
Can anyone please supply a reference measurement ?
If anyone has the Toyo M/T in size 255/85R16 (also 315/75R16, if possible) on a narrow rim (6.5" would be perfect), would you give me a real world outside diameter (OD) ?
I have been going around and around trying to use gear ratio calculators to get to a certain target, but the one thing I need is a real OD for a tire on a wheel on a vehicle.
The 255/85R16 Toyo M/T states 33.5" OD in the specs, but a real diameter on a car would be really helpful.
Thanks ! ! ! :sombrero:
AFAIK, the tire's diameter does not change enough to be measured at different wheel widths. Also, even though a tire is "shorter" when stopped and loaded (static loaded radius), it will be very close to the measured unloaded diameter when traveling at freeway speeds. I would just use that 33.5" OD in your calculations.
This is my understanding of it all, anybody feel free to correct me if I'm off.
This is my understanding of it all, anybody feel free to correct me if I'm off.
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
You are very close and that's what I have been suggesting. If he uses 33.0" instead of 33.5 it will be plenty conservative.
ersatzknarf
lost, but making time
Thank you both for the input !
As an example, the 35x10.50R16 SSRs I have been running are spec'd at 35.3" OD, but when on the car, the ground up OD was around 34", although that was with some wear...
Just hoping someone had some dimensional references.
As an example, the 35x10.50R16 SSRs I have been running are spec'd at 35.3" OD, but when on the car, the ground up OD was around 34", although that was with some wear...
Just hoping someone had some dimensional references.
ashooter
Adventurer
ersatzknarf,
What you're talking about is the height, but I don't know how that translates into actual revolutions per mile.
On my FJ80, the 255/85 MT mounted on 16x6 rims were something like 32.5" tall, but about 33.5" inches across when measured side-to-side. Also, my calcs for mph correction from the OEM tire diameter said that I was actually driving 14% faster than my speedometer said I was... but when I got my Garmin Nuvi, it said I was going just a hair over 10% faster than my speedometer said I was going.
What you're talking about is the height, but I don't know how that translates into actual revolutions per mile.
On my FJ80, the 255/85 MT mounted on 16x6 rims were something like 32.5" tall, but about 33.5" inches across when measured side-to-side. Also, my calcs for mph correction from the OEM tire diameter said that I was actually driving 14% faster than my speedometer said I was... but when I got my Garmin Nuvi, it said I was going just a hair over 10% faster than my speedometer said I was going.
ersatzknarf
lost, but making time
Hi ashooter,
Thank you. That is exactly the measurement sought ! Yes, it is the height while on the car that we needed to check. I will try the 32.5" height.
The formula used is from here : http://www.4lo.com/calc/gearratio.htm
Basically, put the formula into Excel and have been tinkering with it, looking for the best solution, ever since.
Thank you. That is exactly the measurement sought ! Yes, it is the height while on the car that we needed to check. I will try the 32.5" height.
The formula used is from here : http://www.4lo.com/calc/gearratio.htm
Basically, put the formula into Excel and have been tinkering with it, looking for the best solution, ever since.