(Concluded) Tire Research (went KO2 265/70/18) (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Joined
Apr 20, 2019
Threads
11
Messages
191
Location
California
Here's my tire research...

1. I started (3/2020) here: 17s with Michelin LTX 285/70/17. 8 years old. (32.8" diameter, 53 lbs)

9FAD143E-D39B-4613-A175-838437C0D283_1_105_c.jpeg
10991CCF-786E-4444-BAC0-E6093A93C9B1_1_105_c.jpeg



2. Here's where I am (11/2020). Traded the 17s for 18s and they came with new (little) tires! 275/60/18 (30.9", 37 lbs). Fine for family fire roads. Not so fine when the snow got deep (no pics almost stuck).

E8DBA0DF-7618-48E9-BB00-C1116DE3C263_1_105_c.jpeg
E2FC8DDF-B547-45BB-9B37-8AE6CBCF682C_1_105_c.jpeg



3. Here's where I'm headed: TBD. Am targeting BFG KO2 265/70/18. Other nearby sizes remain in play (see spreadsheet) but I'm not totally sure what tangible different a half inch in diameter or 10mm in tread width will have. Also, haven't determined for sure if the full size spare would fit under.

Having put pizza cutters on a previous GX470, they were good in the snow. Sold that truck for its scary twisty highway performance. Bought an X5, but promptly gave that to my wife. Anyway, with that experience in mind, I don't want to go overboard with sidewall but do enjoy the narrow philosophy in ref a--within reason. "A tall, narrow tire is a superior choice for all off-highway surface conditions with the exception of deep, soft sand or mud".

1606498887671.png

My Research (Google Sheet)

Source data:
Tirerack Specs All KO2 Sizes (pdf, dropbox)

References (work in progress):
a. https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/good-read-on-the-narrow-vs-wide-argument.242025/
b. https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/305-65-18-bfg-ko2-pics.892448/page-1
c. https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/275-70-18-or-285-75-16.622767/
d. Tall skinny research 255-85-16
e. What skinny tires look like

Other Folks' Photos:
- 285/65/18 KO2
- 275/70/18 KO2
- 275/70/18 KO2 (and supposed 265 thread)
- 265/70/18 KO2 (one, on steel rim)
- 265/70/18 Hankook
- Tall skinny research 255-85-16
- 275/70/18
- 275/70/18 (good spare photo & lots of good 275 KO2 photos)
- 275/65/18
- 275/65/18 (32", 55 lbs)
- 265/70/18
- 265/70/18
- 265/70/18 (32.6", 56 lbs)
- 275/65/18 (31.1", 52 lbs)
- 265/65/16(?)
- 255/85/16
- 285/65/18
- 275/65/18
- 275/65/18
- 275/70/18
- 275/65/18
- 275/70/18


Spare Underneath:
- Spare Tire Modifications
- 275/70R18 in spare tire location (33.2", 58 lbs)
- 275/70/18
- 285/75/17 --No (33.9")
- 285/65/18 --Yes (32.5")

Primary reason for bigger tires (besides clearance)?
Possible Negative affects due to larger tires?
 
Last edited:
I ran the Continentals in 275/65R18 (P metric) for over three years and 55k miles until I had a blowout. Great tires, I did a long-term review here on mud. Not sure yet what I’m getting next, possibly Toyo open country AT IIIs, staying with the same (perfect) size.
 
I ran the Continentals in 275/65R18 (P metric) for over three years and 55k miles until I had a blowout. Great tires, I did a long-term review here on mud. Not sure yet what I’m getting next, possibly Toyo open country AT IIIs, staying with the same (perfect) size.

I have been looking at the ATiiis as well. I really wish that there was a rebate or sale on them for BF. The KO2s in the size I am looking at are less expensive and also have a $120 mail in rebate. The ATiiis look like they would be really good in the snow and that is something that I was seeking. I got really excited that they had a 35x10.5R17, but then they only offered it in a C load rating for that size. I really tried to find a good tall skinny size, but it proved to be quite hard. Prob just going with a 315/75R16.
 
I'm really leaning toward 255/85r16 for my next set of tires. Only downside is the cost and lack of options. I'm not sure I want to go with a MT tire and the lack of AT tires in that size is a problem.
 
I am partial to 255/70/18...however it does limit options. @RKRUGER you have a very good looking 100. Those Continentals look sharp.
 
I went with 265 70/18 BFG (P-rated) rugged terrain - after blowing out 2 in 4000 miles, I was given warranty/replacement credit on Michelin LT 265 70/18. I have about 115k on these and need replacement soon. One thing I noticed is that moving from the P rated to LT(E) rated tires, the truck became a little more sluggish - must be the weight difference the diameter is the same. Ride is harsher on rough pavement too.
Looking for replacements now, might go back to P rated 265’s or 275’s (not many offered). Do not want to decrease mileage so have to stay away from heavier, wider, tires. Nitto TG’s come in P rated 265/70/18 at 42.3 lbs (Ridge Grapplers/LT are 55.4 lbs). Falken Wildpeaks P-rated - 46.7 lbs LT rated (same size) are 59 lbs.
Other option is to go with 17” rims replacing my Tundra 18”’s.
Update: Nitto Terra Grapplers in LT 265’s are only 44 lbs. LT275’s are 52.2 lbs and half inch taller. Leaning towards the LT 265’s, worried about popping P tires!
Just about finished here (115k). Worst tire, needs alignment after replacing steering rack (but feels fine).
878611DA-1056-458B-93E8-2FBB32BD3E84.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I'm really leaning toward 255/85r16 for my next set of tires. Only downside is the cost and lack of options. I'm not sure I want to go with a MT tire and the lack of AT tires in that size is a problem.
I have been saying this for years. I would love to see even a few AT options from the major players, in 255/85r16.
 
I went with 265 70/18 BFG (P-rated) rugged terrain - after blowing out 2 in 4000 miles, I was given warranty/replacement credit on Michelin LT 265 70/18. I have about 115k on these and need replacement soon. One thing I noticed is that moving from the P rated to LT(E) rated tires, the truck became a little more sluggish - must be the weight difference the diameter is the same. Ride is harsher on rough pavement too.
Looking for replacements now, might go back to P rated 265’s or 275’s (not many offered). Do not want to decrease mileage so have to stay away from heavier, wider, tires. Nitto TG’s come in P rated 265/70/18 at 42.3 lbs (Ridge Grapplers/LT are 55.4 lbs). Falken Wildpeaks P-rated - 46.7 lbs LT rated (same size) are 59 lbs.
Other option is to go with 17” rims replacing my Tundra 18”’s.
Update: Nitto Terra Grapplers in LT 265’s are only 44 lbs. LT275’s are 52.2 lbs and half inch taller. Leaning towards the LT 265’s, worried about popping P tires!
Just about finished here (115k). Worst tire, needs alignment after replacing steering rack (but feels fine).
View attachment 2507837
Appreciate the info. Thanks for writing it up. I had a similar experience on the GX. I think LTs will still be my choice given the surfaces around. I also don't even see non LTs on Tirerack anyway.
 
Last edited:
I am running 265/70-18 Continental TerrainContact and prefer the near 33 height with the slightly less width to protect from stone issues and such. The Continentals do get very good reviews from the OJ folks on their G-wagon and I’d have to agree.

View attachment 2506689

View attachment 2506690
That is a good looking setup. Did the spare fit underneath (assuming full size spare and stock hitch)? They're the same diameter as the KO2 for the size which is super helpful to see. Much obliged.

1606496630556.png
 
Last edited:
I've got 275/65/18 BFG KO2s, and the tire shop would have sold me a 5th tire if they could get it in the spare spot, but they said it couldn't, and they are 31.5" tall brand new. The real issue is the in-bumper hitch receiver found in the LX. It has to stick forward to get a pin lock through it, so it's in the way even with a stock street tire up there. PITA to get the pin in and out especially with a keyed lock. You get a lot more ground clearance for your hitch basket out back, but then can't lower the tailgate without hitting the backup lights.
 
Last edited:
That is a good looking setup. Did the spare fit underneath (assuming full size spare and stock hitch)? They're the same diameter as the KO2 for the size which is super helpful to see. Much obliged.

View attachment 2507958
I got the LTX LT265/70/18 to fit in the spare carrier. I have a 98’ with REESE hitch, not sure if that is factory or dealer installed. It is a tight fit and contacts the frame.
I think I am going with TOYO Open Country AT3’s - the LT is lighter than the Michelin LTX LT, and P rated is 7-9 lbs lighter (different specs on different pages.
 
Bought an X5, but promptly gave that to my wife.


Ohhh. Nice.... throw your wife under the bus giving her the BMW. Uhh....you may other issues more important than tires. :rofl:
 
If you are deciding between the 265 70 18 and something in that area....why would you NOT go with the 275 70 18 ? It is a bit larger but not too big to rub, basically zero difference in mpg or price of the tire and will ride better being a bit larger and heavier. Comparing the two sizes, no way I would got with the smaller of the two.

I would actually rather have something a bit narrower and a bit taller like a 270 75 18. That would be about 33.9" diameter. It would fill up the wheel well nicely, still not be too wide outside the fenders and not really pizza cutters. The exact opposite of the hideous wheel spacer look.
 
Last edited:
If you are deciding between the 265 70 18 and something in that area....why would you NOT go with the 275 70 18 ? It is a bit larger but not too big to rub, basically zero difference in mpg or price of the tire and will ride better being a bit larger and heavier. Comparing the two sizes, no way I would got with the smaller of the two.

I would actually rather have something a bit narrower and a bit taller like a 270 75 18. That would be about 33.9" diameter. It would fill up the wheel well nicely, still not be too wide outside the fenders and not really pizza cutters. The exact opposite of the hideous wheel spacer look.
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what I don't know. This is the opinion I need. Thanks.

I guess you're starting to answer the only real question I still have...as in, is there any discernable tradeoff going +/-0.6" taller, +/-10mm wider, and +/-1 lb heavier. Would those ~half inches make any real world difference off or on road? Besides barely perceptible looks which I don't care about (in this context anyway)? That and for now the spare will have to go underneath. I have an 06 with the trailer hitch that came on it and no AHC. Looks like there's the potential to rub on that bar that's not the sway bar--before doing the spare lift/mod?
 
Ohhh. Nice.... throw your wife under the bus giving her the BMW. Uhh....you may other issues more important than tires.
It's the 4.8 so TBH I keep it around when for when I need to make a local fun run. Cost of a tow is always a consideration.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what I don't know. This is the opinion I need. Thanks.

I guess you're starting to answer the only real question I still have...as in, is there any discernable tradeoff going +/-0.6" taller, +/-10mm wider, and +/-1 lb heavier. Would those ~half inches make any real world difference off or on road? Besides barely perceptible looks which I don't care about (in this context anyway)? That and for now the spare will have to go underneath. I have an 06 with the trailer hitch that came on it and no AHC. Looks like there's the potential to rub on that bar that's not the sway bar--before doing the spare lift/mod?

IMO, when looking at it on line of progression.....the larger of the two you ask about is the best option for several reasons including looks. The 275 does not rub with AHC or not. Although possibly not significant, the larger tires also should wear slower due to longer rotations allowing tire surface area of tread to touch ground less. Also, the name of the game when it comes to vehicle control traversing land successfully is NOT spinning tires. Your chances are greater to NOT spin when using the larger tire.

The several small benefits of the larger tire are reasons to not choose the other and no benefits to the smaller of the two.
 
Last edited:
Also consider availability. My test is to go to discount (Americas) tire and ask how many of a size are stocked in ca. I ran into a size with only 90 in ca. Same tire but different size had 900.
 
I went from 265/75/16 to 285/75/16s on my 2001 diesel Excursion and it's handling suffered greatly, heavy less responsive, etc. I went from 265/75/16s KOs on my LX470 to BFG KM3s in 255/85/16s and I love them (my KOs were worne out). If they made KO2s in that size I would've gotten them but the KM3s are just a tad noiser (from no tire noise to a little) and look so awesome :)
 
Just a couple of thoughts:

My only point of reference with the 100 is my stock 2001 LC with 285/75r16 KO2's. (previous owner installed) I find the truck has adequate power (and more than my previous rig, a '00 LR Disco II) handles well and rides very good, IMO. No complaints with a off road performance. The 33's fill the wheel wells and suit the truck nicely. If I had to throw a negative out, I'd say the steering feels a bit heavy, but it's not bothersome and I have no other point of reference with the 100 so it could be normal.

As mentioned above, my previous rig was a '00 LR Disco II. My dad bought it new in late 99. It eventually became mine and I ran it for the next 18+ years. We ran the factory 255's, went skinny with 235's (Bridgestone Dueler Revo) and eventually went to 265/75r16 after I put a 2" lift on it. Looking back, the truck really performed well on the 235's. Ride, handling and power really went to crap after the lift. (Truck was underpowered to start with)

Excuse my ramblings, but I say all of that to say that having had 33's I'm not willing to go smaller on my 100 as the size suits the truck so well. I'm very intrigued by the 255/85r16 and the alleged performance gains, but I'm not sure the "juice is worth the squeeze" considering I'm satisfied with my 100's current performance and the additional cost and lack of AT options when it comes to the 255.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom