265-75-16 Tires versus OEM Size 270-70-16 (1 Viewer)

[Cris]

i was considering replacing my current tires on my '96 Land Cruiser (stock suspension) with either the OE size (275-70-16) BFG AT KOs or the AT KO2s in the 265-75-16 size. Anything to consider in switching size in terms of acceleration/speedometer impact, etc.? Would the 285-75-16 size tire be too big to consider in terms of rubbing on the body or needing a gearing or speedo change? Thanks for any comments in advance.

 

[Heckraiser]

265/75-16 is nearly identical in size and weight to 275/70-16, just a tad narrower and maybe a hair lighter. Close enough that you wont notice a difference. 265's are WAY more common and you can get pretty much any tire you want in this size. With the 275/70, choices are pretty slim.

Lots of people run 285/75-16 on a stock truck and being that you are at lower altitude, I doubt you'd have any trouble with it, but I'm sure others will chime in. Your post says 285/75-15 --I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant 16.

 

[Cris]

I corrected a couple of typos, but can't edit thread title.

Thanks for the info and your perspective. With regard to the selection being limited in the OE size, I certainly prefer the KO2 tire but it isn't available in the 275-70-16.

 

[Jvoight]

Hi (1992 fj80 142k miles) I have just recently swapped out tires to go to a larger size and thought I would share what my experiences were. Previous size was 285/70r17 on 17x9's no lift... Looks good IMO and I never experienced any rubbing with that size. Current size is now 35x12.50r18 on 18x10's... No lift. I have a 2.5" OME lift from Slee in the garage ready to install. But crazy as it seems the 35's do clear at least enough to drive around town and on pavement with no lift. In any moderate off-road use I'm sure they would rub in multiple places. I only note the mileage because I believe spring sag becomes a factor on high mileage cruisers. Power loss didn't seem to be too noticeable to me. ~ john

 

[greentruck]

In addition to the 285s, you have another choice in a few cases that also works including with BFG, the 255/85 R 16 . Same basis diameter at 33", but less frontal area for incrementally better fuel mileage, easier on the brakes, etc than their chubby 285 cousins. They're often called "skinnies." Being narrower also gives the impression they're taller than they are. A very versatile aspect ration, just adjust the tire pressure to suit your needs, they're the Swiss Army knife of tires.

They will require a slight speedo adjustment and there are solutions for that if you want. I used a gear that swaps out where the speedo cable comes out of the case.

More generally for any 33" tires...Although they are taller than the tires fitted new on the 80 for this market, in many other locales 33" tires are the stockers. The truck really is already set up for 33" so this causes minimal issues. Some people even report a slight MPG gain because the 33s put the motor/tranny combination in a more optimal power curve. In Virginia, you should encounter very little if any sense of power loss, at higher altitudes it might be a little more noticeable. Users rarely report feeling the need to upgrade power, gears, etc with 33s.

33s also require no lift. They generally fit and don't rub. If you have you original coils on, you may want to consider the OME stock height 861/862 combo, which provides greatly improved ride over worn original coils, uses stock height shocks, and improved load carrying capacity

 

[The Jayhawker]

At the risk of getting beaten with a stick, I`ll post a link to something I`m considering looking into..
https://www.treadwright.com/tw/select-tire/size/265/75/R16

 

[greentruck]

At the risk of getting beaten with a stick, I`ll post a link to something I`m considering looking into..
https://www.treadwright.com/tw/select-tire/size/265/75/R16

Yeah, you're going to get different opinions on those. Numerous previous discussions here:
https://forum.ih8mud.com/search/1779056/?q=treadwright+retread&t=post&o=relevance&c[node]=9

Used to be in the trucking biz, so lots of familiarity with retreads. In the right position and service, they work well. In commerical trucking they're legal for any position except a steer tire. But if you think about it, all the other positions are usually duals (excluding Super Singles, etc).

There are no dual tires on a LandCruiser and 50% of them are steer tires. For local and-or trail only work, they should serve well. For long distance, high speed, etc I like my chances better with a new tire.

 

[TahoeLX450]

Yeah, you're going to get different opinions on those. Numerous previous discussions here:
https://forum.ih8mud.com/search/1779056/?q=treadwright retread&t=post&o=relevance&c[node]=9

Used to be in the trucking biz, so lots of familiarity with retreads. In the right position and service, they work well. In commerical trucking they're legal for any position except a steer tire. But if you think about it, all the other positions are usually duals (excluding Super Singles, etc).

There are no dual tires on a LandCruiser and 50% of them are steer tires. For local and-or trail only work, they should serve well. For long distance, high speed, etc I like my chances better with a new tire.

I have 285s DuraTracks and love them BUT they do rob power at altitude (I live at 6300') compared to stock. I have 2.5 lift now but drove them on stock springs for a few weeks and NO rubbing even off road to report.

 

[TahoeLX450]

Hi (1992 fj80 142k miles) I have just recently swapped out tires to go to a larger size and thought I would share what my experiences were. Previous size was 285/70r17 on 17x9's no lift... Looks good IMO and I never experienced any rubbing with that size. Current size is now 35x12.50r18 on 18x10's... No lift. I have a 2.5" OME lift from Slee in the garage ready to install. But crazy as it seems the 35's do clear at least enough to drive around town and on pavement with no lift. In any moderate off-road use I'm sure they would rub in multiple places. I only note the mileage because I believe spring sag becomes a factor on high mileage cruisers. Power loss didn't seem to be too noticeable to me. ~ john View attachment 1011818View attachment 1011819

Very nice rims on the tan LC! Which rims are they?

 

[Jvoight]

Funny... Late afternoon sunset plus silver = tan... The picture does make it look more of a tan color I suppose Fuel "trophy"

 

[Jvoight]

 

[cruisercommando]

Why not run the KO's in the stock size?

 

[Cris]

Stock size not available in the new BFG AT KO2, which seems to be a better tire. Stock size is also $25 more expensive per tire. I am not adverse to getting the KOs, if going to the taller size causes an issue.

 

[tmoore41]

Just curious if you made any tire decision? I need to replace my 275,70,16's. I have run BFG AT KOs for years on three different vehicles with no issues. I really like the look of the K02. I have 285,70,17 Nitto Terra Grappler's on my truck and they have been really good too. Also ran the Wrangler Duratracs on my 93 YJ and loved them (not so good on highway - but neither was the jeep...).

No lift on my 95 LC and considering the 265,75,16 option for the same reasons mentioned above but don't want them looking too small. Basically want a slightly more aggressive look without totally changing the stock appearance and operating. I don't mind the speedo being off a bit with the 285s or 255s but would just assume keep it pretty close. Anyone have pics of 265 75 16 All terrains on stock LC?

 

[terra durus]

the 265/75/16 are a decent choice over the stock size. they do give like maybe 1/4"-1/2" height over the stock tires but doesn't really mess with the speedo too much, and as others have stated the options are far greater than the stock size. only 10mm narrower than stock.
33's are an option that most opt for but there are a few threads on contact surface area for narrow vs wide tires and some argue that the for/aft contact patch on a skinnier tire is a bit more surface area than a wider tire so you are not really "losing" anything but weight and rolling resistance

 

[ChaseTruck]

Can anyone really tell the difference (if there actually is one...) between a 270/70r16 and a 265/75r16?

 

[Heckraiser]

Can anyone really tell the difference (if there actually is one...) between a 270/70r16 and a 265/75r16?

Stock size is 275/70r16 (not 270).

The difference is that a 275 is 10mm wider than a 265. And the 275 has a slightly shorter sidewall and slightly smaller overall diameter.

In reality, tire sizes vary enough from one manufacturer to the next that they might as well be the same size. You're not going to notice the difference from the driver's seat and you're not going to eyeball the difference unless you break out your ruler.

Just FYI, copied from the tire size calculator:
Specification Sidewall Radius Diameter Circumference Revs/Mile Difference
275/70-16..... 7.6in.... 15.6in ...31.2in...... 97.9in........... . 647 0.0%
265/75-16...... 7.8in.... 15.8in... 31.6in ..... 99.4in ........... 637 1.6%

 

[Cris]

I went with the BFG AT KO2s in the 265-75-16 and am very pleased with them.

 

[den]

In addition to the 285s, you have another choice in a few cases that also works including with BFG, the 255/85 R 16 . Same basis diameter at 33", but less frontal area for incrementally better fuel mileage, easier on the brakes, etc than their chubby 285 cousins. They're often called "skinnies." Being narrower also gives the impression they're taller than they are. A very versatile aspect ration, just adjust the tire pressure to suit your needs, they're the Swiss Army knife of tires.

They will require a slight speedo adjustment and there are solutions for that if you want. I used a gear that swaps out where the speedo cable comes out of the case.

More generally for any 33" tires...Although they are taller than the tires fitted new on the 80 for this market, in many other locales 33" tires are the stockers. The truck really is already set up for 33" so this causes minimal issues. Some people even report a slight MPG gain because the 33s put the motor/tranny combination in a more optimal power curve. In Virginia, you should encounter very little if any sense of power loss, at higher altitudes it might be a little more noticeable. Users rarely report feeling the need to upgrade power, gears, etc with 33s.

33s also require no lift. They generally fit and don't rub. If you have you original coils on, you may want to consider the OME stock height 861/862 combo, which provides greatly improved ride over worn original coils, uses stock height shocks, and improved load carrying capacity

Being thinking of using a 255/85 R 16 as spare tyre on a 7inch wide rim,so it dosn't hang down as low underneath..would there be any problem with having the 285s on the rest of the car..for example with the diffs or center diff. I think there is a slight rolling difference..

 

[greentruck]

Being thinking of using a 255/85 R 16 as spare tyre on a 7inch wide rim,so it dosn't hang down as low underneath..would there be any problem with having the 285s on the rest of the car..for example with the diffs or center diff. I think there is a slight rolling difference..

You could gain a little, but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort here.

I suspect for emergency use it would be OK. But a surprisingly small difference can cause issues. OI had an Isuzu Trooper that I failed to rotate tires on often enough. Front tire wore enough it starting popping the transfer case lever out of engagement