200 Series Tire and Wheel Size Database (13 Viewers)

[Markuson]

Or DOWNWARD? A change in the "suspension" may not necessarily be an upgrade vis a vis Load Capacity.




I have always thought the answers to these very good questions should be the responsibility of the aftermarket parts suppliers, but they do not provide the info/data relating to Load Capacity; probably because of the many variables involved.

Our best precaution in this matter is probably awareness. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.

HTH

I'm just me with my own little pea-brain...but I'd put money on the stock suspension being the weak link...and once that is made more stout via proper coil springs in the rear, and properly pre-loaded coil-overs in front go a long way toward upping that limit.

One factor I consider is the instructions that come with ARB installs of both rear coils and front pre-load suggestions.

For example:

For BP-51 adjustment of rear units:

Note in lower left what it suggests for an additional load of 600kg

600kg alone = 1,322.77 pounds

In front, they suggest various preloads for diesel engines + bumper and winch, etc.

But anway... i would think an overloaded suspension setup would pose the greatest danger/damage possibility...and highly doubt the axles or other structures would have trouble handling more.

What do y'all think?

 

[Canyonero]

I'm suddenly feeling the need to weigh my pig.

 

[Willy beamin]

Phatazz piggies

 

[mark71]

I'm running 7200 lbs with just gas, driver and all the crap in my drawers. Never weighed it when fully loaded for camping, to include the RTT, but surely over 8000 lbs.

When the suspension was stock, the springs were certainly not up to the task. Now that I've addressed them, I guess my next concern for a weak link would be the brakes, though they honestly feel fairly strong. Other than that, the LC feels like it could easily support another 1000 lbs.

 

[Willy beamin]

just think about all the extra weight from armor / bulletproofing material that certain companies outfit these trucks with and what that all weighs. Are they addressing the control arms, springs, shocks, shock internals, axles, housings and drivetrain?

 

[mark71]

just think about all the extra weight from armor / bulletproofing material that certain companies outfit these trucks with and what that all weighs. Are they addressing the control arms, springs, shocks, shock internals, axles, housings and drivetrain?

I think xkennex would be the guy to weigh in on that.

 

[TeCKis300]

Not to impose on your guys spirited, and good discussion... but on the topic of tire and wheel database. I've re-jiggered the spreadsheet in a way that was more useful for me. The major addition is two columns: 1) height) 2) width, of the tire itself provided by the actual tire manufacturer. I think others may find this layout more useful as well when considering tires and sizes that don't have entries.

I'll send the OP of this thread my revised version with hopes he may add it as another view in his.

Snippet:

 

[Markuson]

Not to impose on your guys spirited, and good discussion... but on the top of tire and wheel database. I've re-jiggered the spreadsheet in a way that was more useful for me. The major addition is two columns: 1) height) 2) width, of the tire itself provided by the actual tire manufacturer. I think others may find this layout more useful as well when considering tires and sizes that don't have entries.

I'll send the OP of this thread my revised version with hopes he may add it as another view in his.

Snippet:
View attachment 1389683

I like how it's organized in order of size...but I'd remove the word "actual" and just put manufacturer spec.
Because---
Manufacturer specs are usually WAY OFF the "actual" measurement. I'd love to see a space for "actual user measurements" of height...since "actual" and "manufacturer specs" rarely match. Sometimes they are off by nearly two inches!! It's frustrating... So I'd love to see user measurements...and maybe invite people to add this to tires they've reported previously.

 

[TeCKis300]

While I agree with the concern, I don't necessarily agree. Note that the dimensions are indeed measured with industry agreed on practices. Unlike the reference tire size. I'm using the words "reference tire size" to mean 285/70 or 33x12.5 for example. As those are indeed inconsistent from manufacture to manufacture, and perhaps that's what you're getting at? Also note that manufactures measure the dimensions unloaded. Actual dimensions is a good common frame reference in my mind.

Per Tire Rack:
"Overall Diameter
A tire's overall diameter is the outer diameter of the tire measured in the center of the tread. This measurement is made without any load placed upon the tire and after the tire has been properly mounted on its industry assigned measuring rim and has been inflated and reset to its test pressure after 24 hours."

Section Width
A tire's section width (also called 'cross section width') is the measurement of the tire's width from its inner sidewall to its outer sidewall (excluding any protective ribs, decorations or raised letters) at the widest point. This measurement is made without any load placed upon the tire and after the tire has been properly mounted on its industry assigned measuring rim and has been inflated and reset to its test pressure after 24 hours.
Because a tire's section width is influenced by the width of the rim upon which the tire is mounted, the correct industry assigned measuring rim width for the tire size being measured must be used.
The width of a tire mounted on a narrow rim would be 'narrower' than if the same tire was mounted on a wide rim.

 

[Markuson]

While I agree with the concern, I don't necessarily agree. Note that the dimensions are indeed measured with industry agreed on practices. Unlike the reference tire size. I'm using the words "reference tire size" to mean 285/70 or 33x12.5 for example. As those are indeed inconsistent from manufacture to manufacture, and perhaps that's what you're getting at? Also note that manufactures measure the dimensions unloaded. Actual dimensions is a good common frame reference in my mind.

Per Tire Rack:
"Overall Diameter
A tire's overall diameter is the outer diameter of the tire measured in the center of the tread. This measurement is made without any load placed upon the tire and after the tire has been properly mounted on its industry assigned measuring rim and has been inflated and reset to its test pressure after 24 hours."

Section Width
A tire's section width (also called 'cross section width') is the measurement of the tire's width from its inner sidewall to its outer sidewall (excluding any protective ribs, decorations or raised letters) at the widest point. This measurement is made without any load placed upon the tire and aft
er the tire has been properly mounted on its industry assigned measuring rim and has been inflated and reset to its test pressure after 24 hours.
Because a tire's section width is influenced by the width of the rim upon which the tire is mounted, the correct industry assigned measuring rim width for the tire size being measured must be used.
The width of a tire mounted on a narrow rim would be 'narrower' than if the same tire was mounted on a wide rim.

I'm familiar with all of that.
My point is really referring to an additional data-gathering wish: For this to be a more useful tool with regard to close tolerance fitment (which is the main reason the database exists)...I'm simply suggesting that we add a column for USER MEASUREMENTS as mounted...as in, real world, mounted-on-a-200 series height. Example. A 34x10.5 can be as short as barely over 32". Other manufacturers may come closer. So to guys meticulously measuring what will ACTUALLY FIT...listing it's 34x10.5 is of no use at all without knowing it's -ACTUAL size.

We all have access to the unhelpful advertised specs. There's nothing wrong with listing those here. But they aren't nearly as helpful as mounted, installed measurements.

I like what you did there. Just wish for another slot so that I can quit constantly asking people to do real world measurements.

 

[TeCKis300]

I'm familiar with all of that.
My point is really referring to an additional data-gathering wish: For this to be a more useful tool with regard to close tolerance fitment (which is the main reason the database exists)...I'm simply suggesting that we add a column for USER MEASUREMENTS as mounted...as in, real world, mounted-on-a-200 series height. Example. A 34x10.5 can be as short as barely over 32". Other manufacturers may come closer. So to guys meticulously measuring what will ACTUALLY FIT...listing it's 34x10.5 is of no use at all without knowing it's -ACTUAL size.

We all have access to the unhelpful advertised specs. There's nothing wrong with listing those here. But they aren't nearly as helpful as mounted, installed measurements.

I like what you did there. Just wish for another slot so that I can quit constantly asking people to do real world measurements.

Not looking to argue at all, and you certainly have some valid points. More data is always good. So you're just looking for a loaded dimension?

My concern would be measuring in this fashion is that it's subject to load, tire pressure, and lots of variables from the end user.

I do believe the data provided as specs is good data (not just advertising specs). But one has to understand that it is the dimension for an unloaded tire. If all tires are measured this way, at least it's a good reference between tires/brands. Another point, to perhaps your concern, is that most manufacturers don't provide width at the tread (only section width). So depending on whether the design of the tire is more rounded or squared off, will certainly affect fit.

 

[Markuson]

Not looking to argue at all, and you certainly have some valid points. More data is always good. So you're just looking for a loaded dimension?

My concern would be measuring in this fashion is that it's subject to load, tire pressure, and lots of variables from the end user.

I do believe the data provided as specs is good data (not just advertising specs). But one has to understand that it is the dimension for an unloaded tire. If all tires are measured this way, at least it's a good reference between tires/brands. Another point, to perhaps your concern, is that most manufacturers don't provide width at the tread (only section width). So depending on whether the design of the tire is more rounded or squared off, will certainly affect fit.

Ya. I think I sounded argumentative. I'm sorry if it felt that way. You did a nice adjustment...so it's bad timing to request additional stuff.

About load ... I agree. For that reason...when I ask people to measure, I ask for a right to left measurement as you face the installed tire. This avoids pressure & load variation. Also...it is rarely top rubbing that is the issue. Usually it is front, back and sidewall. Do left-to-right is helpful.

 

[Markuson]

anyone on here running wheel spacers, should we have a slot for that also?

Yes. And ya, that would be a good addition.

 

[OPT200]

Hi,
I just bought a 2008 mod LC200 yesterday. I want to replace the stock 20" wheels with 18". I have come over a set of 18" (8x18) OEM rims with 60mm ET.
My car have no lift.
I am not sure what wheels to buy. 285/65 18 or 275/70 18. I see on the chart that witht the 275/70 18 tires that some rub and some dont. I would like to go for the Toyo Open country MT 275/70 18 if someone knows if that would fit whithout any rubbing.

Thanks,

Ole from Norway

 

[kd5kuu]

Hi,
I just bought a 2008 mod LC200 yesterday. I want to replace the stock 20" wheels with 18". I have come over a set of 18" (8x18) OEM rims with 60mm ET.
My car have no lift.
I am not sure what wheels to buy. 285/65 18 or 275/70 18. I see on the chart that witht the 275/70 18 tires that some rub and some dont. I would like to go for the Toyo Open country MT 275/70 18 if someone knows if that would fit whithout any rubbing.

Thanks,

Ole from Norway

Congratulations on the new Cruiser! I also just bought a new (to me) 2014 200 last week. It's being shipped to Colorado right now and should be here early next week. The first thing I'll do is have all terrain tires installed and would like to go as big as the stock wheels/suspension will allow for increased ground clearance. I'm currently thinking BFG AT KO2's in the 275/70r18 size. They are about $200 cheaper for a set of 5 than the 285/65r18's and would net a tiny bit more ground clearance, too.

This combo isn't documented in the tire/wheel database, so if anyone has any knowledge about this specific setup please chime in!

 

[Tremek]

A calculator I found puts the 275/70/18 at 33.2" tall; I know some such as @Romer are running this size but in other brands. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if even if you lift yours you might have some minor rubbing at extreme steering angles or suspension compression, but then again I have no actual experience there. FWIW, I have 285/70/17 KO2s on our truck and haven't been able to get them to rub, but then again calculators peg them at 32.7" and that .5" might make a difference if it's actually there when mounted on these trucks.

Maybe search a bit more here on Mud, but I'd probably do it!

 

[kreiten]

Congratulations on the new Cruiser! I also just bought a new (to me) 2014 200 last week. It's being shipped to Colorado right now and should be here early next week. The first thing I'll do is have all terrain tires installed and would like to go as big as the stock wheels/suspension will allow for increased ground clearance. I'm currently thinking BFG AT KO2's in the 275/70r18 size. They are about $200 cheaper for a set of 5 than the 285/65r18's and would net a tiny bit more ground clearance, too.

This combo isn't documented in the tire/wheel database, so if anyone has any knowledge about this specific setup please chime in!

We ran that size in the Goodyear Duratracs for about a year, only rubbed when ya turned the wheel full lock, and barley rubbed at that! That's my daughter Em chillin after a long hike...

 

[kreiten]

Congratulations on the new Cruiser! I also just bought a new (to me) 2014 200 last week. It's being shipped to Colorado right now and should be here early next week. The first thing I'll do is have all terrain tires installed and would like to go as big as the stock wheels/suspension will allow for increased ground clearance. I'm currently thinking BFG AT KO2's in the 275/70r18 size. They are about $200 cheaper for a set of 5 than the 285/65r18's and would net a tiny bit more ground clearance, too.

This combo isn't documented in the tire/wheel database, so if anyone has any knowledge about this specific setup please chime in!

couple more random pics with the 275/70 R18's for ya!

 

[kd5kuu]

We ran that size in the Goodyear Duratracs for about a year, only rubbed when ya turned the wheel full lock, and barley rubbed at that! That's my daughter Em chillin after a long hike...View attachment 1471422

Kreiten- long time fan of your photography! To be honest, some the pics of your truck on-trail had an impact on my decision to buy a 200 series over the other options I was considering. Keep it up!!!

In regard to the Duratracs - how noticeable was the increased road noise on the highway? I ran Duratracs on a Jeep Wrangler I had years ago and they were quite loud....but that was a Jeep. I'm sure the Land Cruiser will be very different.

 

[kreiten]

Kreiten- long time fan of your photography! To be honest, some the pics of your truck on-trail had an impact on my decision to buy a 200 series over the other options I was considering. Keep it up!!!

In regard to the Duratracs - how noticeable was the increased road noise on the highway? I ran Duratracs on a Jeep Wrangler I had years ago and they were quite loud....but that was a Jeep. I'm sure the Land Cruiser will be very different.

Thanks for the props on the pics and glad I could help steer ya into the best rig on the planet! For me the road noise of the Duratracs over stock was very minimal, but I'm use to running mudders so maybe my opinion on road noise is warped Thanks again for the props man, slap some 275/70's on that rig and hit the trail!