[Greg B]

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

I only work on data, not theory, I report on what we see, not what we think, I collect allot of data from what we sell, service, fit, maintain, and manufacture, and the hundreds of vehicles Ive taken on trips, because I only sell and recommend what I have tried, or we have trialled and tested, and know works, and continually develop products that overcome vehicle shortfalls, while we build total projects for customers, rather than order parts out of catalogues.

So dont make the mistake of thinking I comment on field samples of one, like your post.

This is a bunch of chest thumping. How many 100's have you PERSONALLY run with 255's on them? Of the ones, "you know of" that you didn't personally run but know of issues with poor handling and wear problems, how many of those were run under-inflated or not at the right pressure for the surface they were on? You don't know because you weren't with those people. Lot's of people have tires that wear quicker than others, and a lot of those people don't take care of their tires properly and cause a lot of that pre-mature wear themselves.

You make this blanket statement on 255's:

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

The 255 is a bugger of a size on a big heavy truck, because they are so tall and skinny they drive terrible, especially when aired down, and the tend to wear the outside edges because they move so much on the sidewall.

But then make this statement after that:

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

I dont see the link to the 235 though, given its 20mm narrower, and nearly 2" smaller dia.

And then, follow up with this:

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

BFG MT's always worn edges, and at 85% ratio, they are narrower, and shorter, and having run 235/85's before as well, and they dont have the same wear patterns.

You don't make sense.

[firetruck41]

A 235/85 has a shorter sidewall than a 255/85, they are the same ratio, but still the shorter sidewall could concievably cause different wear patterns/driving experience. No direct experience either way.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by SamoL

Another question: were those 255/85R16 tires on 6.5" or 8" rims? How about fitting 265/75R16 to a 6.5" rim? BFG says at least 7" rim should be used. But 8" rims (the maximum width for this tire) seem too wide for 265/75R16, and there is nothing in between for a LC100 (at least not in Europe).

Regards

Samo

ried them on 7" and 8" rims, and on the RR/LR normally on 7" steel discovery rims, and 7" seems to improve tread wear more evenly, but increase the understeer/tyre flex issue when at wheeling pressures, and on side slopes.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Firetruck, you seem to be able to comprehend the difference between the 2, even if they share the same aspect ratio.

Greg,

If my data came from just 100's, rather than vehicles with similar suspension, weight, and terrain use, the 100 fares worse in the figures for bad wear, mainly because of the IFS wearing the front outer edges, especially lifted, as the a arms make the front tyre move in and out, as the suspension goes up and down, and side slope lean and understeer when deflated, because of the extra weight.

We have developed our own wheel alignment specs for the 100 ifs, and the 120 prado/GX470/new forerunner which prevents this wear from happening also, from our data and research.

Given we do rotate balance and alignment free and as part of the tyre sales ongoing, [which help us track what goes on, and document it on the customers warranty card as well as our system] as well as check pressures, we keep pretty good records of tread wear vs km vs pressures, vs use, so apart from the tyres i continually rotate across my vehicles for testing, and the customers vehicles we take on wheeling trips and desert trips weeks at a time to monitor these things in real time, [240+ cars on trips in last 2 years] we have data, so unlike your conjecture on what "could" happen, and what we "might not" know, and what one person may get, or not get, Im using data for my comments from a bigger core sample than one, making the results more consistant.

Thats the good thing about forums, when a question is asked, you will get opinion, experience, and suggestion, the art is being able to proccess this information correctly, rahter than just question opposing views to your own.

Originally Posted by Greg B

This is a bunch of chest thumping. How many 100's have you PERSONALLY run with 255's on them? Of the ones, "you know of" that you didn't personally run but know of issues with poor handling and wear problems, how many of those were run under-inflated or not at the right pressure for the surface they were on? You don't know because you weren't with those people. Lot's of people have tires that wear quicker than others, and a lot of those people don't take care of their tires properly and cause a lot of that pre-mature wear themselves.

You make this blanket statement on 255's:


But then make this statement after that:


And then, follow up with this:


You don't make sense.

[SamoL]

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

Thats the good thing about forums, when a question is asked, you will get opinion, experience, and suggestion, the art is being able to proccess this information correctly, rahter than just question opposing views to your own.

OK. Then I'll aksk you a question: what is in your opinion the best tire/rim combination for HDJ100 - expedition use (paved roads, stony pists, dunes, mud - but not much). The car is heavy loaded - 4 persons + gear + rooftent (max. weight arround 3300 kg).

Regards

Samo

[brownbear]

I think that 255 is a good choice for tire size.

At work we run Suburbans with 235/85 r16s so even a bit narrower. and an inch shorter.

The 100 should be just fine on this tire. Even better in snow(deep) skinnier tires being good in snow is why we run them at work. Your mileage should increase as well.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by SamoL

OK. Then I'll aksk you a question: what is in your opinion the best tire/rim combination for HDJ100 - expedition use (paved roads, stony pists, dunes, mud - but not much). The car is heavy loaded - 4 persons + gear + rooftent (max. weight arround 3300 kg).

Regards

Samo

You havent added a percentage of use for each in your post, but in Aus, we find the MTR in a 285/75/16 as the most reliable, thickest sidewall [yes we cut them up and measure them, rip them, tear them etc] most puncture resistant tyre for all round use, though they do get noisier as they wear, so we encourage people to trade them in around the 15000km mark, so they are always driving on the best part of the tyre.

They work well here in sand, gravel, drive well for an aggressive tyre on the road, and if the conditions become bad because of rain etc, then you have the one tyre to cope with all of those, though compromised slightly on all, compared to having more than one set of tyres.

Because they are thicker, and can produce more heat, they do need to be balanced more often, we have found, but only as per "normal" balance and rotate schedules, but most dont do this here, in our experience.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

If my data came from just 100's, rather than vehicles with similar suspension, weight, and terrain use, the 100 fares worse in the figures for bad wear, mainly because of the IFS wearing the front outer edges, especially lifted, as the a arms make the front tyre move in and out, as the suspension goes up and down, and side slope lean and understeer when deflated, because of the extra weight.

We have developed our own wheel alignment specs for the 100 ifs, and the 120 prado/GX470/new forerunner which prevents this wear from happening also, from our data and research.

Given we do rotate balance and alignment free and as part of the tyre sales ongoing, [which help us track what goes on, and document it on the customers warranty card as well as our system] as well as check pressures, we keep pretty good records of tread wear vs km vs pressures, vs use, so apart from the tyres i continually rotate across my vehicles for testing, and the customers vehicles we take on wheeling trips and desert trips weeks at a time to monitor these things in real time, [240+ cars on trips in last 2 years] we have data, so unlike your conjecture on what "could" happen, and what we "might not" know, and what one person may get, or not get, Im using data for my comments from a bigger core sample than one, making the results more consistant.

See, this is relevant information. It backs up your original opinions and gives some credibility to your previous comments. More of this and less "they drive terrible and wear badly" would be great. This is real info that we can use to make sound decisions.

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

Thats the good thing about forums, when a question is asked, you will get opinion, experience, and suggestion, the art is being able to proccess this information correctly, rahter than just question opposing views to your own.

I agree with you on this; I feel the same way. I will, however, always question everything I read on the web though. There are a lot of people on the web that are full of it. A lot of people throw opinions around without having anything to back up those opinions. I admit I got defensive after your initial post and I should have backed off on your sub-sequent posts. I do appreciate your experience when you post info like you have above.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Its hard to give every detail in a communication medium designed to be treated flippantly, or as 'chat" and I guess, if people want clarification, thats why we have PM's, email addys and yahoo id's, so everyone doesnt get bored with the details as it plays out online.

[SamoL]

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

You havent added a percentage of use for each in your post, but in Aus, we find the MTR in a 285/75/16 as the most reliable...

15000km? That means that a set of tires would only be for one of my trips (sometimes two). I don't have the trade in option, so I would have to drive them all the way. I wondered will you suggest Coopers?
How usually my trip looks? Most of it is on paved roads, as I have to get there (over half of Europe). I rarely see any rain. Most of the offroad I do is on the pists so puncture resistance is very relevant. Dune crossing represents a very little percentage of total, but driving is fun and digging is not . The tire should last at least 50000 km, be resistant to punctures and good for paved roads. As I can carry only one spare I also hesitate to go to 33" tires, as in Africa it's quite hard to find them (but it's very easy to get a 32" tire).
Another querstion is: are the tires sold in Australia the same as those sold in Europe. REVOs sold in Europe are surely not the same as the ones sold in the US.

Regards

Samo

P.S.: What about Cooper S/T 10 ply rating in 265/75R16? I've heared very different opinions on that tire.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by SamoL

15000km? That means that a set of tires would only be for one of my trips (sometimes two). I don't have the trade in option,

the MTR lasts between 50-65000km here, when rotated correctly, and the w/a is kept up to spec, but you willalways get way more punctures in a tyre with less than 60% tread, so thats why we encorouge trading them in as required, because the sums work out here that by the time you do it 3-4 times, you have paid for a full set in what you lose each time, but have been on new tyres the whole time.

And when you can tax deduct them, you can get new ones once a year, get cash for your trade ins,

ST's tend to chip, and I have seen the rip tread blocks off down down to the belts, and they arent as thick in the sidewall as the MTR, as well as being very noisy on road.

[SamoL]

What about coopers? They seem to be popular in Australia. In US you can buy many tires with load index E in size 265/75R16 (including Revos and BFG AT), but in Europe all I have found was Cooper. The thing I don't like about Cooper S/T is the speed index N. No wonder the guys that set the record in East-West and back East crossing of Australia used STT that have a speed index Q.

Regards

Samo

[expeditionswest]

There are a few myths floating around on this thread, so I thought it might be helpful to examine the characteristics, installation and maintenance of a tall/narrow tire.

1. Tire roll in is a result of sidewall height, rim width and air pressure. It has nothing to do with tire width on a radial tire. A 285/75 on 8" wheel will exhibit the same wear and deflection characteristics as a 255/85 on a 7" wheel. A radial tire by design behaves this way. The assumption that just because a tire is narrower it will understeer more, or exhibit greater roll is incorrect. Tire deflection is managed on a tall tire by maintaining proper air pressure and correct wheel width (typically 65-75% of the section width). An IFS vehicle will exhibit greater tire roll in due to the change in camber through the suspension cycle, but that wear will be exhibited on all tires.

2. As with any tire, pressure is critical to proper wear and handling. Over-inflation will result in crowning, and under-inflation will result in cupping and increased heat and deflection at speed.

3. The 255/85 is designed for a heavy vehicle, they are rated at load D and 3,000 per tire. That can support a 12,000 lb truck. So with proper installation (air pressure and rim width), a 255 is an excellent choice for a heavy vehicle. I have used the size for tens of thousands of miles off-highway. The Turtle Expedition used that tire for hundreds of thousands of miles off-highway on an 11,000+ lb. truck.

So in summary, a 285/75 and 255/85 will deflect the same at pressure and with proper rim width. Tire sidewall deflection and rolling is a characteristic of section height, not width. A wider tire will be a bit more forgiving during high speed handling on tarmac do to the shallower loading angle. That benefit is negligible however between a 255 and 285.

While the tall / narrow tire might not fit the mall crawler look, their performance, efficiency and fitment benefits are significant.

[Pskhaat]

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

And when you can tax deduct them, you can get new ones once a year, get cash for your trade ins,

Here in the States, you certainly can not deduct personal tire $ from taxes unless you are itemizing business expenses and I don't know anyone who itemizes expenses instead of just taking a flat rate per mile deduction.

Another thing I've never until this thread heard-of is trade-ins on tires. We don't have that benefit here. Though you can buy used tires, they're pennies on the dollar on resale, not a store/shop I know will give you trade-in value on any used tire (in fact most shops CHARGE you to take your used tires).

[coulomb]

I think the 255s look pretty cool, and are probably easier on the steering system.

Having said that, I am having 285 75 16s installed on the LX tomorrow.

[Pskhaat]

Still got one day to change your mind! Let's step outside the box and give 'er a try!

[coulomb]

I put the new NTGs on this morning and headed for the mountains. We did a few miles of Georgia Pass, and the entire Guanella Pass.

The tires did really well. Find attached a couple of pictures taken today.

I had an amusing moment when a stock Jeep Cherokee FLEW around a switchback and stopped suddenly when he saw me. When he tried to restart, he only got more sideways. He yelled at my wife (not a good move), so I decided not to stick around to see if he was going to gather himself. I easily passed around him and continued down the trail. About an hour later, he actually passed me on a snowy trail and gave me the one finger salute why barely maiintaining control of his truck. Anyone who has wheeled w/ me in the past can appreciate how I wheel. This character had anger mgt. issues!

Enjoy the pics.

[coulomb]

By the way, the tumor on top of the truck is a hi-lift jack. I am anxiously awaiting the Slee rear bumper.

[Pskhaat]

I lived on the front range for about 17 years and though we loved it, I've to this day yet to meet in general meaner people :( Sounds like that fool was one of the finest.

Anyway, what year 100 do you have? I ALWAYS get stuck in snow trail runs, often unrecoverably, and many times on guanella . I'm either a horrible snow driver, or I've always put myself in bad situations.

[coulomb]

It is a '00.

I won't say that I breezed through Guanella pass - there was a stretch of about 1/4 mile that it was touch and go. It was getting deep enough that I thought I might start dragging my hard parts.

I think I will stick to trails <10k ft until it warms up.

[bendre]

Hi all. This is my first post. I've been "monitoring" you pros here for the past few months. I'm the proud owner of a black '04 100 and I'm lovin' it. I picked it up with 6800 miles a year ago. I immediately switched out the tires to the 285/60/18 TOYO A/T Open Country from Les Schwab out here in Bend, Oregon. Liked them at first, but even after siping them, I wasn't pleased with the performance on hard-packed snow. I made another change to the 285/65/18 BFG AT/KO after researching sites like this. The verdict? I still slide right through intersections on the hard-packed stuff. Did I dop the ball? And which of the two tires do you die-hard 100 guys like the best? With that said, I'm looking forward to being a late night regular on here, and I do plan to build up my 100 over the months and years ahead. And pics are coming soon!!! thanks!

[SamoL]

For snow only winter tires will do. I would recommend Blizzaks, but I'm not sure if they are making them in 18".

Regards

Samo

[Pskhaat]

Actually the stock OEM'd Dunlops are generally very good on snow. My favorite generic snow tire (after specialty tires like Blizzaks) is the Goodyear AT/S; though sizes are severely limited for some reason.

[Kneel]

Originally Posted by SamoL

What about coopers? They seem to be popular in Australia. In US you can buy many tires with load index E in size 265/75R16 (including Revos and BFG AT), but in Europe all I have found was Cooper. The thing I don't like about Cooper S/T is the speed index N. No wonder the guys that set the record in East-West and back East crossing of Australia used STT that have a speed index Q.

Regards

Samo

Not from Australia, however I do have plenty of off and on road miles on the Cooper S/T and most recently the S/T-C. IMO they are the best all arount tire out there. They excel in all terrain 'cept DEEP mud. They clean out much better than the BFG AT, have the same +60k tread life, and in the case of the S/T-C are bullet proof. As far as the N rating, that's good for 90mph. You shouldn't be driving that fast in a 6000lb vehicle. ESPECIALLY if its lifted and loaded.

[Pskhaat]

Too bad the STC's have limited sizes if you've had such good performance.

[Kneel]

Really. It's marketed as a commercial grade tire hence the limited sizes(235/85,245/75, 265/75R16). I contacted someone on the inside at Cooper and they said they were eventually phasing out the existing ST and STT and replacing them with the Armor Tec(sp?) ST-C and new style STT. She wasn't certain about the future of the 255/85 as it is a not a volume seller. I hope they keep it as it's a great size. I've found, at least on the Rovers, that 33's and 32's have gotten me everywhere I've needed to go. I'm a fan of "pizza cutters"

[uHu]

Originally Posted by SamoL

Another question: were those 255/85R16 tires on 6.5" or 8" rims? How about fitting 265/75R16 to a 6.5" rim? BFG says at least 7" rim should be used. But 8" rims (the maximum width for this tire) seem too wide for 265/75R16, and there is nothing in between for a LC100 (at least not in Europe).

Regards

Samo

Would you be worried about damages (from rocks) to the rims (as they are less protected by rubber) or is this a handling issue?
In any case, I suppose it would be even worse with 255/85-16 ?

Using 265/75R16 Cooper winter tires now, on the original 8" rims. Looks and works great.

BTW, used 7.5-16 on 6.5" (i think it was) on my 80 GX, as delivered stock for Africa/ME. Great on/off road (but of course that was not a speed machine, with the 1HZ w/o turbo (126 diesel horses)).

[jhkilmer]

I'm just running 275/70-16 Bridgestone Deuler A/T Revos and they are great. I've taken my 99 LC (differencial locks) through a lot of terrain (my father is a logger in PA and NY, so I have a ton of roads, and access to lots of terrain in PA and Upstate NY)....deep mud, rock ledges, gravel, sand, etc. They are also reasonable quite on the highway, but LC have a liberal amount of sound insulation, so it really doesn't matter anyway. My wife primarily drives it with the kids, and she loves the way the truck handles. I think the tires enhance the aesthetics too. For all around use, these are great!!

[uHu]

Originally Posted by expeditionswest

There are a few myths ...
...The assumption that just because a tire is narrower it will understeer more, or exhibit greater roll is incorrect. Tire deflection is managed on a tall tire by maintaining proper air pressure and correct wheel width (typically 65-75% of the section width). An IFS vehicle will exhibit greater tire roll in due to the change in camber through the suspension cycle, but that wear will be exhibited on all tires.

How will it work with 255/85 R16 on 8" (stock) rims?
What will be the result, handling-wise? on-road (tarmac)?

[Pskhaat]

Scott Brady at expeditionswest.com is perfectly happy with 255s on 8" rims. I'd think they'd do best on 7", but I do believe the 100 will be shod with 255/85s on the next set.