255/85-r16

[barrypt5]

Has anyone ever ran this size on their truck? it is taller than a 285/75-R16 but much narrower... They were talking about this size on the 100 series section ( https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=76400 ) so do people think this size will fit under stock suspension since the tire is not as wide?

One downside not many companies make this size BFG MT only one i found so far...thoughts??

barrypt5

 

[NorCalDoug]

It'll fit fine. In fact, it might rub a little less since it's narrow...but then again, I don't recall my 285s rubbing all that much, if at all.

If you like 'em skinny, they're a good tire to get.

 

[Arya Ebrahimi]

It is a decent tire, but it is very narrow. It equates to a 33x10. I had them on my old Jeep at one point. I think it would look a bit goofy on an 80 due to its width, but if you've got mud that you need to get to the bottom of, as opposed to floating on top, then this would be a good choice.

ARy

 

[DirtyHarry]

Interco makes the TrxUs M/T in this size as well. I considered running them but they are actually narrower than the stock tires so I decided to go with 285/75s instead. It is a good size to use as a spare though or run on a fullsize truck with 235/85s. It probably wouldn't look too bad with the flares removed and factory steel wheels either.

 

[ed97fzj80]

If you're a glutton for punishment or just plain anal, get a set of 16x7 Tacoma/4Runner wheels and mount them on those, then put them on for going places without pavement and put the street tires back on when you're back in daily driver mode. Very low on the practicality scale, but you'd get years and years out of them.

 

[Pskhaat]

BigO brand tires come in that size. Dunlop makes the RVXT in that size also. I have also seriously debated running this size but feel the 8" rim is about 1" too wide for the section width. A 16x7 as earlier mentioned would be nice.

 

[Pskhaat]

Do you know what the offset is on the Taco/4Skinner 16x7 wheels?

 

[CDFarmer]

barrypt5,
I ran 2 sets of the BFG M/t 255/85/16, I like the way they looked on on my 95' with low lift OME , but they looked a bit narrow when I went with the 50mm OME. They performed very well , the steering effort was less than the stock 275's, and they never rubbed even with no lift at full compression........ the pic's are them mounted on LX 450 wheels with OME (Low Lift) coils and 10mm trim packer(front)

 

[ed97fzj80]

Do you know what the offset is on the Taco/4Skinner 16x7 wheels?

Good question. Found this:

Model Year Lug Pattern Thread Size Offset

Land Cruiser 1969-1992 6 x 139.7 12 x 1.50 +00
Pick-up 4wd 1986-1994 6 x 139.7 12 x 1.50 +00
Sequoia 2000-2004 6 x 139.7 12 x 1.50 +14
Tacoma 4wd 1995-2004 6 x 139.7 12 x 1.50 +22
Tundra 1999-2004 6 x 139.7 12 x 1.50 +15
T-100 1993-1998 6 x 139.7 12 x 1.50 +08
4 Runner 1986-2004 6 x 139.7 12 x 1.50 +08

But I'm afraid I'm not knowledgable enough to interpret it.

EDIT: Also lacking the html skills to mark that up into a table, and the forum trims multiple spaces down to one, and tab takes you out of the edit field instead of inserting a tab, so sorry about the ugliness of the information but hopefully you can see what it means.

 

[Pskhaat]

Well, 139.7 is 5.5" so that makes sense, 12x1.50 is the lug size & pitch. What the +00 or +14 is I don't think is an offset because there's no way our wheels are 00 offset from 69-92. Anyone else know?

 

[ed97fzj80]

Clarification -- http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=101. Maybe you already know that. I didn't.

 

[re_guderian]

We typically talk in terms of "Backspacing", hub mounting to inside edge of wheel. Offset is from centerline.

 

[ed97fzj80]

Right. Backspacing is derived from offset.

 

[Pskhaat]

Okay, maybe our wheels ARE zero offset? Which means we have 4" BS? Does that seem right?

 

[Vitesse_6]

I ran some 255-85-16's till I got a hole about 6 inches up the sidewall driving down the road.
Here is a link ...
https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=58094
Have fun

 

[ed97fzj80]

cruiserdan says in https://forum.ih8mud.com/showpost.php?p=804203&postcount=4

To put it togther:

The "correct" wheel is 0.0 with a back-space of 4.5 inches. This makes the wheel 8 inches bead-to-bead and 9 inches flange-to-flange.

So it seems that a 16x7, 6 on 5.5, with an offset less than about +12 would be most desirable, and it seems important to keep the flange in mind as well when thinking in terms of backspacing.

 

[e9999]

I don't know why yall seem to think that skinny tires look wimpy. check out the real expedition rigs in the Sahara and all, don't they all run pizzacutters? I think they have a certain je ne sais quoi... guess I read too many books about early explorers (they all had LRs usually)

 

[Pskhaat]

e9999 I agree I love the tall & skinnies: women and tires My problem is the the 8" wheel on me 80 & 100 is a touch too wide and even 255s are a little too small diameter wise for me, but the 9.00R16 XZLs are simply too unobtainable.

When the heck will someone make a 285/85r16 eh? http://tinyurl.com/bj25m

 

[ed97fzj80]

Interco has at least one 35x10.5R16.

 

[shocker]

e9999 I agree I love the tall & skinnies: women and tires My problem is the the 8" wheel on me 80 & 100 is a touch too wide and even 255s are a little too small diameter wise for me, but the 9.00R16 XZLs are simply too unobtainable.

When the heck will someone make a 285/85r16 eh? http://tinyurl.com/bj25m

Scott has run the 255's on 8" wide wheels on his Expedition's West Tacoma with great results.

Heck, the "official" BFG rating for the tires list 8" rims as an acceptable width.