17 or 18 rims?

[LXinOBX]

Seeking advice - 200 series LX, getting toward end of current 20" tread. Usage is 95% on road and 5% in sand (so looking for a little more low PSI "spread" also "better" handling of potholes/bad roads). What's the consensus these days (I've searched to no avail) on rim size - 17 or 18 (tires would be "stock" size)?

Thanks so much!

 

[YellowJacket]

Even though sometimes it feels like I only get off-road 5% of the time, I would certainly never plan on that. I plan on getting off-road as often as possible. Hence my 10MPG heavy and moded daily drive.

With that said, if you truly don’t plan to go wheeling, I would just keep to what you’ve got. I just finished switching from 18” to 17” again because my dream is to go wheeling every weekend. In fact, I’ve got the factory LC200 18” with some awesome Nittos for sale right now.

Do you not like the look of the factory and that’s why you’re considering a switch up?

 

[coleAK]

18” tundra/sequoia take off are so readily available and inexpensive it would hard to beat a set of 18’s.

I run 18” tundra take offs in the winter and 17” in the summer on my 2013 LX.

 

[TeCKis300]

I don't believe there is necessarily a consensus, in as much as there's general agreement of what the trades might be.

IMO, between 17s and 18s, there's probably little differentiation in performance except for the most extreme off-roaders. For majority of the cars that spend more time on-road, there may be benefits to a larger rim size in terms of stability and response, but even then, it's a small difference.

Style, personal preference, and availability of wheels and tires in the desired size may be the larger deciding factor.

What may actually contribute more to off-road performance is overall tire diameter, with larger and larger tires creating more clearance and traction. As tires get larger in overall diameter, the distinction 17s, 18s, or even 20s, may get smaller.

 

[coleAK]

I don't believe there is necessarily a consensus, in as much as there's general agreement of what the trades might be.

IMO, between 17s and 18s, there's probably little differentiation in performance except for the most extreme off-roaders. For majority of the cars that spend more time on-road, there may be benefits to a larger rim size in terms of stability and response, but even then, it's a small difference.

Style, personal preference, and availability of wheels and tires in the desired size may be the larger deciding factor.

What may actually contribute more to off-road performance is overall tire diameter, with larger and larger tires creating more clearance and traction. As tires get larger in overall diameter, the distinction 17s, 18s, or even 20s, may get smaller.

I know you like your 20’s but I wouldn’t off road on a 20” with <37” OD tires. General guideline for off road tire/rim is rim should be ~1/2 tire tire OD. I see way to many pinch flats on 20” rims even with 33-35” tires, all it takes is one rock…. Last weekend I saw a f150 and a f250 both on 20’s with pinch flats where we caribou hunt.


The only place larger rims are a performance advantage is video games and the fast and furious franchise.


The old saying for track cars is only reason to run larger rims is to fit larger brakes, basically run the smallest rims that fit over the brakes.

 

[TeCKis300]

I know you like your 20’s but I wouldn’t off road on a 20” with <37” OD tires. General guideline for off road tire/rim is rim should be ~1/2 tire tire OD. I see way to many pinch flats on 20” rims even with 33-35” tires, all it takes is one rock…. Last weekend I saw a f150 and a f250 both on 20’s with pinch flats where we caribou hunt.


The only place larger rims are a performance advantage is video games and the fast and furious franchise.


The old saying for track cars is only reason to run larger rims is to fit larger brakes, basically run the smallest rims that fit over the brakes.

I don't disagree with you. I'm running 20s because I need the stability towing heavier than GCWR at 15k+ lbs. I still drive the rig on road and like the dynamic advantages of larger wheels especially on taller 35s. As much as we're focused on off-roading here, I don't aspire for my 200-series to be a one trick pony. Nor do I build it in the vision of what people think cruisers should be. The 200-series greatest strength IMO, is that it can be everything, so compromising and biasing it to one extreme or another is not a goal.

That said, I'm out there doing trips and trails almost montly. Rock, deep sand, anything. Only thing we don't get here in the southwest is mud. I've never come upon a situation yet where my 20s are the limiting factor. In fact, in the group I run with that has some amazing machines, many on 17s, it's my LX that stands out as being the most capable. Credit as much to the 200-series platform. Just saying I'm not missing out on anything here.

A few trips back, I've had a buddy with a Raptor lose his 35" KO2 on 17s at 20PSI to a pinch flat. In 2021, others in the group have lost 4 tires total. None of that makes me wants 17s because even they are not impervious. And can come with other trades.

 

[coleAK]

I don't disagree with you. I'm running 20s because I need the stability towing heavier than GCWR at 15k+ lbs. I still drive the rig on road and like the dynamic advantages of larger wheels especially on taller 35s. As much as we're focused on off-roading here, I don't aspire for my 200-series to be a one trick pony. Nor do I build it in the vision of what people think cruisers should be. The 200-series greatest strength IMO, is that it can be everything, so compromising and biasing it to one extreme or another is not a goal.

That said, I'm out there doing trips and trails almost montly. Rock, deep sand, anything. Only thing we don't get here in the southwest is mud. I've never come upon a situation yet where my 20s are the limiting factor. In fact, in the group I run with that has some amazing machines, many on 17s, it's my LX that stands out as being the most capable. Credit as much to the 200-series platform. Just saying I'm not missing out on anything here.

A few trips back, I've had a buddy with a Raptor lose his 35" KO2 on 17s at 20PSI to a pinch flat. In 2021, others in the group have lost 4 tires total. None of that makes me wants 17s because even they are not impervious. And can come with other trades.

I’m at ~14k GCVW, and tow it 7-10k miles a summer. This summer did 8k miles In 3 months (June-August). I kept my OEM 20’s (with 33’s) for 8 years and would switch to them in the summer when we did long >500 mile trips. 3 sets of wheels/tires (20’s with KO2’s, tundra 18’s with defenders, tundra 18’s with winter Hakkas) got a little ridiculous so I sold my 20’s and extra summer 18’s this spring and bought a set of summer 17’s. Towing I didn’t notice any difference at all between my 20’s and 17’s both on ~33” K02’s.

 

[TeCKis300]

I’m at ~14k GCVW, and tow it 7-10k miles a summer. This summer did 8k miles In 3 months (June-August). I kept my OEM 20’s (with 33’s) for 8 years and would switch to them in the summer when we did long >500 mile trips. 3 sets of wheels/tires (20’s with KO2’s, tundra 18’s with defenders, tundra 18’s with winter Hakkas) got a little ridiculous so I sold my 20’s and extra summer 18’s this spring and bought a set of summer 17’s. Towing I didn’t notice any difference at all between my 20’s and 17’s both on ~33” K02’s.

We've probably digressed from the OPs intent.

Nothing wrong with either approach, and this is ultimately tuning for details and preference. I've noticed pretty big differences in compliance for every step up in sidewall, where I am using more air pressure to compensate for stability and tire sidewall rollover under cornering. Whether that is overall tire diameter, sidewall, or wheel size, would be harder to say. But at least for me, bigger wheels gives me the balance of qualities I'm looking for both towing and unladen. For my driving style. That may be different for someone else.

The 20s is a distraction. To the OPs question, IMO, there's more performance to be had upsizing tires to at least 33s and larger, than worrying about a meaningful difference between 17s or 18s.

 

[Sandroad]

On Mud, “consensus” for either tires or wheels is a single word oxymoron. But since you mentioned a use case almost exactly like mine, I suggest getting 18” Tundra\Sequoia\LC OEM take-offs and wrapping them with Michelin Defender LTX in either 285/60-18 XL or 275/65-18 SL. In those tires, the 275s have a slightly wider tread contact patch and offer a slight increase in ground clearance, so that’s what I run. Excellent highway manners and great in sand even if not aired down, but 18s will be better aired down than 20s, IMHO.

 

[Tex68w]

I am big fan of 18's, I have run them on HD trucks and the 200's. I like the slightly larger wheel for slightly better handling on road and typically they have a higher load limit as well. I think that the 18's have a better look as well but thats personally subjective. 17's will give you the most sidewall and will ride a little better but they are less stable at speed than a 20 and likely an 18 as well. You will have the largest selection of wheels and tires in a 17 and consequently the best odds of finding a replacement in the field should the need ever arise. It's hard to go wrong here so pick whatever you like best or whatever you find a better deal on.

 

[grinchy]

18s are just fine. Ran 18” tundra takeoffs for four years. I got 17s largely because the tire I wanted was a 17” diameter. And a bit more sidewall never hurts.

 

[CharlieS]

I noticed a significant change in handling between 18" 33s 41 psi rctip and 17" 34s 38 psi rctip. Same tire brand, model and load range. I love the 17" 34s offroad, but miss the 18" 33s on road. It will never be a performance vehicle, but the modest degradation in handling, increased body roll in transitions, and increased mushiness makes it a less attractive choice. I'd vote 18" Tundra takeoffs.

 

[stedhorse]

I went with the 35” tire on 17” method wheels. After making the change, I immediately felt like I will want to re gear and started looking into brake kits. With a 17” wheel your options for brakes are very limited. I would go with 18” wheels in the future if my methods came in that size (which they don’t).

I would say my goals are closer to “do it all” vehicle rather than dedicated off roader.

 

[mep1811]

I went with 18 steel wheels from a Tundra. $52.00 each .

 

[Markuson]

These are 17”s showing what you can do with additional rubber.
If I’m on 20’s here with similar spread/wrap, I’d be cutting a tire. If you could measure from inside, you wouldn’t find 3 inches to spare to let 20’s do this. 18’s would have been very close…and probably at risk for pinch. This was while moving, so who knows how much closer this may be inside…

These walked right up this because of the spread & wrap. Not 35’s either….just 285/75/17s, so sub-34. 17’s here meant still tolerating significant air-downs achieving wrap that would require much larger tires on 20’s to equal it. I ran 35’s for several years (also on 17’s), but moved to 34’s for other performance benefits. 17’s allow significant air-down leeway that you simply can’t get with added metal/reduced rubber.

That’s not to say 20’s couldn’t do this minor obstacle. -They certainly can and did for others. But… those rigs didn’t have the luxury and added float/grip due to less leeway.

 

[bloc]

Consensus? on tires/wheels?

I went with the 35” tire on 17” method wheels. After making the change, I immediately felt like I will want to re gear and started looking into brake kits. With a 17” wheel your options for brakes are very limited. I would go with 18” wheels in the future if my methods came in that size (which they don’t).

I don’t know of any larger brakes that will fit into an 18 but not a 17, and the latter in rock warrior or icon (and others, but not all) will still accept the brakes from a tundra/2016+ 200, for those of us with 08-15 model years.

 

[LXinOBX]

Thanks everyone, really appreciate the comments. A few answers: what's driving this is that 20's (currently what is on the truck) do look "cool" but don't "spread" much at all at 20psi. More over they are "harsh" over pot holes/etc; I just thought 18s would provide a little more cushion? Resulting in less wear and tear (perhaps?) on the front end.

Interestingly, TireRack today has the LTX 20 for less than the 18 LTX...another driver is less expense w 18 tires (there's goes that theory).

The smoothest riding 4WD ever was my 100 with factory 16s. I'm "chasing" that feeling. What I am reading is that the 18 WILL be a smoother ride, at the expense of a slight loss in handling (but, I have found the 20s to be "darty" - if that makes any sense - when on road).

 

[grinchy]

I would say the stock 20s with P rated was smoother than the 18s with E rated (129 load, 35" diameter). I would also say my D rated 'flotation' 17s (121 load, 35" diameter), are as smooth / compliant as the P rated, depending on what air pressure you roll with.
There are variables here - tire load / cold air pressure / hot air pressure / vehicle weight. It's really hard to have absolute answers because these vary by rig and even day.

For example, the 129 load E rated 18" were pretty excellent riding at a single pressure (36 psi cold). At 35 psi they started to wallow, at 38 psi they were too stiff.
The 121 load D rated on 17" seem happier in a wider range, from 34 psi to 37 psi, but start to feel squishy (on the street) any softer than 34, and get a little less compliant (but still fine) at 37 and up to 40.

 

[CharlieS]

These are 17”s showing what you can do with additional rubber.
If I’m on 20’s here with similar spread/wrap, I’d be cutting a tire. If you could measure from inside, you wouldn’t find 3 inches to spare to let 20’s do this. 18’s would have been very close…and probably at risk for pinch. This was while moving, so who knows how much closer this may be inside…
View attachment 3119174
These walked right up this because of the spread & wrap. Not 35’s either….just 285/75/17s, so sub-34. 17’s here meant still tolerating significant air-downs achieving wrap that would require much larger tires on 20’s to equal it. I ran 35’s for several years (also on 17’s), but moved to 34’s for other performance benefits. 17’s allow significant air-down leeway that you simply can’t get with added metal/reduced rubber.

That’s not to say 20’s couldn’t do this minor obstacle. -They certainly can and did for others. But… those rigs didn’t have the luxury and added float/grip due to less leeway.

Agree 100% with your post and why I run 17"/34".

For this PO, 5% sand driving, I'm not sure that would help them as much as it helps you and me on rocky trails.

I've got one week of sand driving experience, so I am a rookie and defer to experts, but 18" with 34" BFG AT KO2 at 18psi worked great for me in the OBX.

 

[LXinOBX]

I would say the stock 20s with P rated was smoother than the 18s with E rated (129 load, 35" diameter). I would also say my D rated 'flotation' 17s (121 load, 35" diameter), are as smooth / compliant as the P rated, depending on what air pressure you roll with.
There are variables here - tire load / cold air pressure / hot air pressure / vehicle weight. It's really hard to have absolute answers because these vary by rig and even day.

For example, the 129 load E rated 18" were pretty excellent riding at a single pressure (36 psi cold). At 35 psi they started to wallow, at 38 psi they were too stiff.
The 121 load D rated on 17" seem happier in a wider range, from 34 psi to 37 psi, but start to feel squishy (on the street) any softer than 34, and get a little less compliant (but still fine) at 37 and up to 40.

Appreciate the comments! Am I reading/comprehending correctly that I may not see any improved ride quality w 18s (vs the 20s now on the truck)?

Currently running Michelin Latitude Tour HP (285 50/20s) but, if changed, would go with Defender LTX M/S (285 60/18s)?

Thanks!