[Greg B]

I know a few people have asked/wondered what a 255x85r16 would look like on a 100. The answer is: not very good. It is very skinny, but if you like the NATO look, you may like it more than I do.

I had a 255x85 mounted to my spare wheel a couple months ago. I did this to add some additional clearance to the rear area where the spare hangs as the 255x85 is ¾ inch narrower than the stock tire and 1 ½ inches narrower than the 295x75 BFG AT’s I am currently running. The 255x85 spare is exactly the same size diameter as the 297x75.

Here are some pics of the 100 with the 255x85 fitted to one of the front wheels. The difference in width is very noticeable between the 255 and the 295. Also, because the 255 is an MT tire, the tread pattern makes it look even narrower.

I drove it around yesterday for a bit with one 255 and one 295. The handling was surprisingly not that bad. I wouldn’t drive it like this across the country or anything, but overall it didn’t feel that much different. It was louder, but that was just the MT humming along.

[Greg B]

more pics:

[Greg B]

and more:

[CTapia]

Greg,

Thanks for sharing/reminding me about it. This is one thing that has been bothering me, but I haven't done nothing about it. Stock size as the spare and running 35s" (31575R16 BF All Terrain) on all four corners.
What kind (brand) of MT is that? From what I recall BF does not make that tire size.

[daner]

The 255's do look a little skinny, but are probably a little easier on the truck..

[hoser]

Originally Posted by CTapia

Greg,

Thanks for sharing/reminding me about it. This is one thing that has been bothering me, but I haven't done nothing about it. Stock size as the spare and running 35s" (31575R16 BF All Terrain) on all four corners.
What kind (brand) of MT is that? From what I recall BF does not make that tire size.

CTapia, those are BFG MT's. 255/85-16 is equivalent to a 33.4" tire.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by CTapia

Greg,

Thanks for sharing/reminding me about it. This is one thing that has been bothering me, but I haven't done nothing about it. Stock size as the spare and running 35s" (31575R16 BF All Terrain) on all four corners.
What kind (brand) of MT is that? From what I recall BF does not make that tire size.

Yes, as Hoser said, it is a BFG MT.

You will have a tough time fitting a 315 in there. With the tow hitch removed it may fit. Currently, my 255 is touching the center of the tow hitch and 1/8" off from the panhard bar on the back of the axle. With the hitch removed, I think you would still have to figure out a way to reposition the tire winch further back towards the rear of the 100 or it would let the tire hang down into the Panhard bar.

[Pskhaat]

Is my maths incorrect?

255 * .85 / 25.4 = sidewall height ~= 8.5335"

Which makes theoretically a ~= 33.0669" tire height. I know this varies by manufacturer, but I keep hearing people say 33.4, where does that # come from?

[Pskhaat]

Actually, I don't think it looks bad at all! Plus it's (see other post) theoretically about a 1/4 inch taller than a 285 tire.

The only thing I'd wish is that I could find a factory 7" wide rim to fit a 255/85. Are the factory steelies that we've been talking about 7" wide, right?

[Pskhaat]

What kind of lift are you running?

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by 3fj40

Is my maths incorrect?

255 * .85 / 25.4 = sidewall height ~= 8.5335"

Which makes theoretically a ~= 33.0669" tire height. I know this varies by manufacturer, but I keep hearing people say 33.4, where does that # come from?

I don't do math! BFG's website says its 33.3 and the 295x75 is 33.2

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by 3fj40

What kind of lift are you running?

OME: t-bars cranked to 2 1/2 inches and 866's on the rear.

[EL_3grab]

OMG its ugly .. nothing bets 35 ..

[Pskhaat]

I know, I'm of the rare few who think tall & skinnies are good stuff. It's not the height that bothers me, but the ridiculous width. Perfect tire size for the 100? 285/85r16. It ain't manufactured, but sure would be cool.

Pefect tire size for an 80? 305/85r16 Again, not made but would be nice if some trends moved AWAY from wide tires into 85+ series...

Scott over at Expeditions West sums it up pretty well here: http://www.expeditionswest.com/resea...tion_rev1.html

[100 TD]

I don't think the 255/85 looks too bad at all, I think if you had a vehicle with the same looking rims and original OEM supplied tyres next to one with the 255/85's you would say the 255's look better, due to their size. Interesting info from expedition west, I new the details of the longer tyre contact previously but the write up was interesting to read.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by 100 TD

I don't think the 255/85 looks too bad at all, I think if you had a vehicle with the same looking rims and original OEM supplied tyres next to one with the 255/85's you would say the 255's look better, due to their size. Interesting info from expedition west, I new the details of the longer tyre contact previously but the write up was interesting to read.

Sorry I should of have been more clear on my initial post about why I don't like the look of the 255 on my 100. I don't think it is necessarily that they are skinnier that I don't like them. I think what I really don't like is how far in from the edge of the fender they sit. With a different wheel that moved the tire farther out (wider track width) I think I would like it better.

I ran this exact tire size on my LR Disco 2 and loved it. But, the wheel wells on the 100 are so much bigger, they can handle a wider tire like the 295 without rubbing and consequently look better, in my opinion.

I'm not a big fan of big wide tires either. I don't want anything sticking out past the fenders or anything. I just like the wheel well to look full. Here's a pic that illustrates what I'm talking about:

[SamoL]

I also like this tire size, but BFG only makes a M/T. It has a 33.3" diameter and can be mounted to a rim from 6.5" to 8" (and Toyota steel rims for LC100 come as 6.5" and 8"; there are also 6.5" for LC105, that stick too fare out on the LC100).
The downside is ofcourse that this tire is so much taller than stock, that it surely affects the gearing, but I would give it a try if they would be making an A/T. This is also probbaby the tallest tire that will fit the factory spare storage area.
I don't mind the NATO look as long as it works . All 105's I've seen in Africa come with 235/85R16.
As I will have only one spare on my car (no space for the other), I intend to use 256/75R16 BFG A/T tires for expedition purposes. For local wheeling I don't intend to use a LC100 - it's just too big . Really - most cars arround here are small and trails are made for them.

Regards

Samo

[Pskhaat]

It's too bad that we done have a 6.5" wheel here in the States. 255/85r16 would fit well on that, and I bet the wheel offset is less to push out the wheel further.

[Coastal]

i am seriously considering the 255/85 in the dunlop radial rover rvxt . any feedback + or - on this tire for mostly hwy driving? at $134ea the price is definitely right.

never had a use for spacers & know nothing about them....would they help widen the stance and fill up the wheel well a little more. can you put spacers on the rear wheels?

[Pskhaat]

I've also considered this. Tirerack has mixed reviews on the RVXTs, but it's worth a try, I've always loved what Dunlop has put out in the past.

You can run spacers in the rear. I think I'm going to try the 255's without though.

[SamoL]

6.5" rim would be much better then the 8" if you want to run the tire with a low pressure. This rims are not so expensive here (they are 73 EUR and the 8" are 105 EUR - seams like everyone likes wide tires ). I'll check if they have them in stock.
And if all the guys arround here run these tires on their Defenders and don't break anything...
Btw.: I was driving Bfg M/T on my Suzuki Jimny - it was my only set of tyres and they were not bad. As Bfg doesn't make A/T tires in this size, I would rather use M/T even for the sand then go somewhere far from home with the tires I wouldn't trust (I won't repeat the same mistake twice ).

I guess no lift would be required for these tires, right?

Regards

Samo

[Pskhaat]

The 255/85r16s are comprable to a 285/75r16 in size and supposedly that is the limit you'd want to run without lift. Don't know how many of us in the US are interested but if you can obtain a few sets of steel 6.5" factory Toyota rims, I'm definetely game for group order; and we'd praise you

I've never had issues with MT tires in sand, and I've done my share of variou sand conditions...

[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.

[SamoL]

They should perform better on a narrow 6.5" rim. Have you tried these tires on a LC100? There are lots of LC105 on 235/85R16 which should have the same problems. And the winning LC100 on the Dakar also had 235/85R16 tires.

Regards

Samo

[ats4x4dotcom]

Ive had them ona nissan patrol [similar to an 80 in size/weight/config] and a 78 series coil sprung front troopy, and I work in a large tyre/suspension/4x4 parts a nd service shop, where we see lots of 255's with worn edges on cruisers, but the rangie/LR seems to be lighter, and have less issues.

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

[SamoL]

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

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

Well both 235/85 and 255/85 have the same height/width ratio (85%) and they should behave about the same. Which 255/85 tires were you using and which have you seen with worn edges on land crusers?

Regards

Samo

[Greg B]

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.

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

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

You don't see the link huh? If you're "theory/opinion" is correct the 235x85 should be even worse on a 100.

I've driven 255x85's on a loaded up LR Disco 2 for almost three years and had great results. They performed very well, and if you kept them aired up properly on the road, they handled well there too. And I experienced no different wear than any other size tire. Now, if you're running them on smooth tracks or on the road aired down, I can definitely see where the wear on the edges could occur.

I've also run 235x85's on a LR Disco XD and they worked beautifully. By the way, the 235x85 is 1.3 inches shorter than the 255x85.

I'm starting to get a feel for your type of builds. Body lifts, wide tires, etc.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by SamoL

Well both 235/85 and 255/85 have the same height/width ratio (85%) and they should behave about the same. Which 255/85 tires were you using and which have you seen with worn edges on land crusers?

Regards

Samo

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.

Like I said, land rover/RR being lighter, dont normally show the same wear issues.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by Greg B

You don't see the link huh? If you're "theory/opinion" is correct the 235x85 should be even worse on a 100.

I'm starting to get a feel for your type of builds. Body lifts, wide tires, etc.

Wow you must be a mind reader.....

Oh...hang on maybe not, because you mentioned "theory"...

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.

[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