200 Series Tire and Wheel Size Database
- Thread starter MScruiser
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
If your primary concern is ride quality, enough that you're giving up practically new KO2s - the sane answer IMO is AT4W because of C load sidewalls. That will singularly make the biggest difference to what you're looking for. IMO, there is no meaningful durability difference with the amount of BFGs I've seen destroyed.
Falken AT4W in LT285/75R17 LT-C is a 117 load index rated to 2,835lbs
BFG KO3 in LT285/75R17 LT-E is a 128 load index rated to 3,970lbs.
I also don't get the weight factor as for 5lbs more on the AT4Ws, it's more tire at 34.1" x 11.6" versus KO3s that measure 33.8" x 11.3". BFGs should get more shade for running small.
I agree with @Polecat and our resident "expert" has done a disservice recommending unnecessarily high pressures. Costs nothing and fully reversible to try different pressures.
Thank you. To clarify, I am not switching out from KO2s solely due to their stiffness, though this is part of it. I've wanted to switch out wheels from 18s to 17s and already have a set waiting to be put on (Method 703s with +35 offset). The opportunity to get a more comfortable tire is a plus.
I will add that, I followed the recommended here 42lbs tire pressure the past 5,000-7,000 miles... but dropped it to 37-38lbs over the past week which definitely improved the ride quality. Still, I will be switching to 17s/34s combo.
The concern in weight might be a little unwarranted and that is what I wanted to confirm. With regards to tires/wheels my expertise is in spec Miatas and forged wheels on my sportscars, so 5lbs per corner seemed like a good amount heavier. Though maybe not on a 5700 lbs land boat...
Edit: Also slightly concerned with that .3" of additional width on Falkens over BFGs to ensure no KDSS rub on these wheels/offset.
Last edited:
I have also narrowed my shopping to those two off-road all-terrain tires and in that same size or perhaps 295/70R17. However, my decision leaves snow traction out of the equation because I run dedicated winter tires (Blizzak DM-V2). Wet weather is high on my priority list. Similarly, my truck is mostly stock except thick steel skid plates and all=terrain tires. Rock sliders are certainly in the future. I plan to keep AHC. Fitting the 34" tires will require a bit more massaging of the front wheel well plastics. I don't see going to 35" without beefing up the drivetrain to reduce the risk of breaking a CV joint or something. I look forward to more mid-level off roading to add to my Imogene Pass, Grand Canyon north rim, etc. adventures. More southern Utah and Moab, Colorado (Black Bear Pass), etc. roadtrips are in my future.
For me, it seems to come down to these factors:
1) additional unsprung weight of the tire negatively affecting on-road ride & handling.
2) likely stiffer sidewall and ride of the E-load rated KO3.
3) KO3: has BFG resolved the sketchy wet weather traction that affects the KO2?
Considering my rig is the family truckster and my wife's daily driver, the likely better on-road ride quality of the C-load Falkens would likely push me that way. Both tires look good with their aggressive tread and sidewalls. I assume road noise is comparable between the two - would like more consumer confirmation. Furthermore, the many stories of the KO2 questionable wet weather traction leave me wondering if the KO3 addressed them.
On the other hand, if I could really have my cake and eat it too, I would have three sets of tires, but convincing my wife would challenging:
255/70R18 Bridgestone Blizzak take care of winter.
275/60R20 or 275/65R20 Michelin Defender LTX MS2 on original 20" wheels for on-road other three seasons.
285/75R17 or 295/70R17 all terrain on Rock Warriors for the off roading. If I could have three sets of tires, I think BFG KM3 would be fill the off-road tire category.
That I've managed to acquire four sets of wheels is bonkers. However, only paying $125 for the Tundra wheels, $350 for the Land Cruiser wheels, and $400 for the Rock Warriors certainly softens the blow.
Phew... that's a lot. Happy shopping.
@Supra Turbo I'd go with the C loads. For your described usage (no heavy towing or hauling), and preference for a more compliant ride, you do not need E-rated tires. I do all the wheeling Colorado and Utah has to offer on D-load Mickey Thompsons, and have run C-loads in my 80 which did even more extreme wheeling and never had a concern about tires (yes I have sustained tire damage, but it's never ruined my day). You're still carrying a spare *And should carry a plug kit and air compressor as well* You'll get more offroad tire damage from a cheapo E tire than a quality C rated tire. E.g. I've seen disproportional number of failures of the old duratrac's across many different rigs, regardless of load rating.
Plus the Falkens are more likely to actually be true to size than the BFG's. I know a few guys who run Falkens year round and think they're pretty good in the snow as well.
:edit: Also, in regards to the miata mindset. Every ounce of unsprung (or rotating) weight matters on a road course when you're asking the car to accellerate, brake and turn at near 100% traction limit for sustained intervals. When you're accelerating at 40% and spending a lot of time just cruising at speed, the weight of your tire isn't going to make a noticeable performance impact and a pretty minor mpg impact. Tire construction will definitely make more difference to ride quality than weight.
Plus the Falkens are more likely to actually be true to size than the BFG's. I know a few guys who run Falkens year round and think they're pretty good in the snow as well.
:edit: Also, in regards to the miata mindset. Every ounce of unsprung (or rotating) weight matters on a road course when you're asking the car to accellerate, brake and turn at near 100% traction limit for sustained intervals. When you're accelerating at 40% and spending a lot of time just cruising at speed, the weight of your tire isn't going to make a noticeable performance impact and a pretty minor mpg impact. Tire construction will definitely make more difference to ride quality than weight.
Last edited:
Greetings. I want to thank every contributor here for the assistance in helping to navigate the task of choosing the correct wheel and tire combo. I’m getting them mounted as we speak and wanted to get ahead and get the RCTIP for my setup. @gaijin would you please provide me with the RCTIP for my setup. Thanks ahead in advance!!!
2017 Lexus LX570
Nitto Terra Grappler G3
LT285/70R17 C 116/113S
Pictures to come!
2017 Lexus LX570
Nitto Terra Grappler G3
LT285/70R17 C 116/113S
Pictures to come!
Quick update. Spoke with a friend who manages a Discount Tire location and we settled on trying the 285/75/17 KO3s in E load at 37psi first then swapping out to AT4Ws in C load if I still want to try something a bit more compliant. Which works well for me as I want to see how much comfort additional 1"+ of sidewall rubber and lower tire pressure will net me (coming from 285/65/18 KO2s in E load and 42psi) before going to a different load rating entirely. This might seem counter to the recommendations provided by @TeCKis300 and @Heckraiser but so long as I have the option to swap to different tires if so desired, I am ok with making this a starting point. Big thank you to both of you for the feedback and recommendations!
Stop ignoring the AARP mailers and just get the Michelins
Greetings all. Here’s a few pics of the new setup. I’ve been digging through this thread for months and finally made the decision to go with the following based on my needs:
Method 703
Gloss titanium
17x8.5
+35 offset
Nitto Terra Grappler G3
285/70/R17
C Rated
I just got them installed and am pretty stoked with how they turned out. Just a hair noisier than the stock 21” wheels and tires. No apparent drop in MPG based on the 20 mile ride home. Cheers!
Method 703
Gloss titanium
17x8.5
+35 offset
Nitto Terra Grappler G3
285/70/R17
C Rated
I just got them installed and am pretty stoked with how they turned out. Just a hair noisier than the stock 21” wheels and tires. No apparent drop in MPG based on the 20 mile ride home. Cheers!
Too late... the BFGs are on. Jokes aside, should have them sometime later next week.Stop ignoring the AARP mailers and just get the Michelins
Looks great! Now even more so looking forward to mine on.
Can anyone verify the Nomad Saharas fit the 200 series? The fitment guide seems to say they don't but I thought I've seen them on 200's previously.
I was just looking at Nomad wheels today and saw they do have two Sahara wheels that are correct bolt pattern (5x150) but the offsets are not ideal. They offer 0 mm and -10 mm, not the best offset for clearing larger tires.
Nomad does offer their 17” Convoy wheel in a +25 offset that looks good. Would love to see what those look like on a 200!
I've been asking Nomad to make the Sahara version of the wheel with positive +25-35 offsets for a few years now.. unfortunately they still dont have one. Which is a bummer, I think it would be pretty popular on 100 and 200 series, LXs and maybe even some 2nd gen Tundras that dont want 0 offset.
For Science...
Previous tires were Toyo Trail R/T 285/75/17. Went up to Kenda Klevar 35x10.50x17
Wheels: RWs with 1.25(I believe) spacer
Fitment: Toyos I had to remove front mud flap and trim that up some, no kdss work etc.
The kendas surprisingly (so far) dont interfere with kdss either and only need to trim/remove to make more space behind the front tires. MPGs do seem better although no serious hills etc, have not done gears yet and you could tell with both 34s and the 35s but not terrible.
Previous tires were Toyo Trail R/T 285/75/17. Went up to Kenda Klevar 35x10.50x17
Wheels: RWs with 1.25(I believe) spacer
Fitment: Toyos I had to remove front mud flap and trim that up some, no kdss work etc.
The kendas surprisingly (so far) dont interfere with kdss either and only need to trim/remove to make more space behind the front tires. MPGs do seem better although no serious hills etc, have not done gears yet and you could tell with both 34s and the 35s but not terrible.
Kendas for the win!
Hi everyone - I have a new-to-me 2016 LX570 with the 21 inch wheels. Live in Austin and mostly drive on the highway, but we do have a family ranch outside of La Grange Texas with lots of dirt roads and grass fields that I need to access in all weather conditions. I wont be rock crawling or other hard core off roading. I'd like to keep the 21 inch wheels and am considering the newish Yokohama AT/4 GO18 275/55/21. Anyone have any experience with this tire and size? Should I be concerned about the 55 aspect ratio over the factory 50?
If you prefer to keep the 21's, then that is a logical tire size. Step up in sidewall height is no problem, there's plenty of extra space in the wheel well. Not many options available for the 21" rims, although you can get a Michelin Defender LTX ms2 in the same 275/55/21 size, which are great all around tires.
Last edited:
Test fitted the new new setup BFG KO3s 285/75/17. Overall very happy with how it turned out with basically no rubbing which is very surprising.
But since I'll be screwing around and installing new UCAs, the alignment is likely to change so we'll see if any plastic trimming is needed.
Ended up putting roughly 7k miles on the 285/65/18 KO2s in the past year and half, but they'll be up for sale shortly, likely with the Method 305NVs.
But since I'll be screwing around and installing new UCAs, the alignment is likely to change so we'll see if any plastic trimming is needed.
Ended up putting roughly 7k miles on the 285/65/18 KO2s in the past year and half, but they'll be up for sale shortly, likely with the Method 305NVs.
