255x85r16

[SamoL]

6.5" rim would be much better then the 8" if you want to run the tire with a low pressure. This rims are not so expensive here (they are 73 EUR and the 8" are 105 EUR - seams like everyone likes wide tires ). I'll check if they have them in stock.
And if all the guys arround here run these tires on their Defenders and don't break anything...
Btw.: I was driving Bfg M/T on my Suzuki Jimny - it was my only set of tyres and they were not bad. As Bfg doesn't make A/T tires in this size, I would rather use M/T even for the sand then go somewhere far from home with the tires I wouldn't trust (I won't repeat the same mistake twice ).

I guess no lift would be required for these tires, right?

Regards

Samo

 

[Pskhaat]

The 255/85r16s are comprable to a 285/75r16 in size and supposedly that is the limit you'd want to run without lift. Don't know how many of us in the US are interested but if you can obtain a few sets of steel 6.5" factory Toyota rims, I'm definetely game for group order; and we'd praise you

I've never had issues with MT tires in sand, and I've done my share of variou sand conditions...

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

The 255 is a bugger of a size on a big heavy truck, because they are so tall and skinny they drive terrible, especially when aired down, and the tend to wear the outside edges because they move so much on the sidewall.

 

[SamoL]

They should perform better on a narrow 6.5" rim. Have you tried these tires on a LC100? There are lots of LC105 on 235/85R16 which should have the same problems. And the winning LC100 on the Dakar also had 235/85R16 tires.

Regards

Samo

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

Ive had them ona nissan patrol [similar to an 80 in size/weight/config] and a 78 series coil sprung front troopy, and I work in a large tyre/suspension/4x4 parts a nd service shop, where we see lots of 255's with worn edges on cruisers, but the rangie/LR seems to be lighter, and have less issues.

I dont see the link to the 235 though, given its 20mm narrower, and nearly 2" smaller dia.

 

[SamoL]

I dont see the link to the 235 though, given its 20mm narrower, and nearly 2" smaller dia.

Well both 235/85 and 255/85 have the same height/width ratio (85%) and they should behave about the same. Which 255/85 tires were you using and which have you seen with worn edges on land crusers?

Regards

Samo

 

[Greg B]

The 255 is a bugger of a size on a big heavy truck, because they are so tall and skinny they drive terrible, especially when aired down, and the tend to wear the outside edges because they move so much on the sidewall.

I dont see the link to the 235 though, given its 20mm narrower, and nearly 2" smaller dia.

You don't see the link huh? If you're "theory/opinion" is correct the 235x85 should be even worse on a 100.

I've driven 255x85's on a loaded up LR Disco 2 for almost three years and had great results. They performed very well, and if you kept them aired up properly on the road, they handled well there too. And I experienced no different wear than any other size tire. Now, if you're running them on smooth tracks or on the road aired down, I can definitely see where the wear on the edges could occur.

I've also run 235x85's on a LR Disco XD and they worked beautifully. By the way, the 235x85 is 1.3 inches shorter than the 255x85.

I'm starting to get a feel for your type of builds. Body lifts, wide tires, etc.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

Well both 235/85 and 255/85 have the same height/width ratio (85%) and they should behave about the same. Which 255/85 tires were you using and which have you seen with worn edges on land crusers?

Regards

Samo

BFG MT's always worn edges, and at 85% ratio, they are narrower, and shorter, and having run 235/85's before as well, and they dont have the same wear patterns.

Like I said, land rover/RR being lighter, dont normally show the same wear issues.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

You don't see the link huh? If you're "theory/opinion" is correct the 235x85 should be even worse on a 100.

I'm starting to get a feel for your type of builds. Body lifts, wide tires, etc.

Wow you must be a mind reader.....

Oh...hang on maybe not, because you mentioned "theory"...

I only work on data, not theory, I report on what we see, not what we think, I collect allot of data from what we sell, service, fit, maintain, and manufacture, and the hundreds of vehicles Ive taken on trips, because I only sell and recommend what I have tried, or we have trialled and tested, and know works, and continually develop products that overcome vehicle shortfalls, while we build total projects for customers, rather than order parts out of catalogues.

So dont make the mistake of thinking I comment on field samples of one, like your post.

 

[SamoL]

Another question: were those 255/85R16 tires on 6.5" or 8" rims? How about fitting 265/75R16 to a 6.5" rim? BFG says at least 7" rim should be used. But 8" rims (the maximum width for this tire) seem too wide for 265/75R16, and there is nothing in between for a LC100 (at least not in Europe).

Regards

Samo

 

[Greg B]

I only work on data, not theory, I report on what we see, not what we think, I collect allot of data from what we sell, service, fit, maintain, and manufacture, and the hundreds of vehicles Ive taken on trips, because I only sell and recommend what I have tried, or we have trialled and tested, and know works, and continually develop products that overcome vehicle shortfalls, while we build total projects for customers, rather than order parts out of catalogues.

So dont make the mistake of thinking I comment on field samples of one, like your post.

This is a bunch of chest thumping. How many 100's have you PERSONALLY run with 255's on them? Of the ones, "you know of" that you didn't personally run but know of issues with poor handling and wear problems, how many of those were run under-inflated or not at the right pressure for the surface they were on? You don't know because you weren't with those people. Lot's of people have tires that wear quicker than others, and a lot of those people don't take care of their tires properly and cause a lot of that pre-mature wear themselves.

You make this blanket statement on 255's:

The 255 is a bugger of a size on a big heavy truck, because they are so tall and skinny they drive terrible, especially when aired down, and the tend to wear the outside edges because they move so much on the sidewall.

But then make this statement after that:

I dont see the link to the 235 though, given its 20mm narrower, and nearly 2" smaller dia.

And then, follow up with this:

BFG MT's always worn edges, and at 85% ratio, they are narrower, and shorter, and having run 235/85's before as well, and they dont have the same wear patterns.

You don't make sense.

 

[firetruck41]

A 235/85 has a shorter sidewall than a 255/85, they are the same ratio, but still the shorter sidewall could concievably cause different wear patterns/driving experience. No direct experience either way.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

Another question: were those 255/85R16 tires on 6.5" or 8" rims? How about fitting 265/75R16 to a 6.5" rim? BFG says at least 7" rim should be used. But 8" rims (the maximum width for this tire) seem too wide for 265/75R16, and there is nothing in between for a LC100 (at least not in Europe).

Regards

Samo

ried them on 7" and 8" rims, and on the RR/LR normally on 7" steel discovery rims, and 7" seems to improve tread wear more evenly, but increase the understeer/tyre flex issue when at wheeling pressures, and on side slopes.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

Firetruck, you seem to be able to comprehend the difference between the 2, even if they share the same aspect ratio.

Greg,

If my data came from just 100's, rather than vehicles with similar suspension, weight, and terrain use, the 100 fares worse in the figures for bad wear, mainly because of the IFS wearing the front outer edges, especially lifted, as the a arms make the front tyre move in and out, as the suspension goes up and down, and side slope lean and understeer when deflated, because of the extra weight.

We have developed our own wheel alignment specs for the 100 ifs, and the 120 prado/GX470/new forerunner which prevents this wear from happening also, from our data and research.

Given we do rotate balance and alignment free and as part of the tyre sales ongoing, [which help us track what goes on, and document it on the customers warranty card as well as our system] as well as check pressures, we keep pretty good records of tread wear vs km vs pressures, vs use, so apart from the tyres i continually rotate across my vehicles for testing, and the customers vehicles we take on wheeling trips and desert trips weeks at a time to monitor these things in real time, [240+ cars on trips in last 2 years] we have data, so unlike your conjecture on what "could" happen, and what we "might not" know, and what one person may get, or not get, Im using data for my comments from a bigger core sample than one, making the results more consistant.

Thats the good thing about forums, when a question is asked, you will get opinion, experience, and suggestion, the art is being able to proccess this information correctly, rahter than just question opposing views to your own.

This is a bunch of chest thumping. How many 100's have you PERSONALLY run with 255's on them? Of the ones, "you know of" that you didn't personally run but know of issues with poor handling and wear problems, how many of those were run under-inflated or not at the right pressure for the surface they were on? You don't know because you weren't with those people. Lot's of people have tires that wear quicker than others, and a lot of those people don't take care of their tires properly and cause a lot of that pre-mature wear themselves.

You make this blanket statement on 255's:


But then make this statement after that:


And then, follow up with this:


You don't make sense.

 

[SamoL]

Thats the good thing about forums, when a question is asked, you will get opinion, experience, and suggestion, the art is being able to proccess this information correctly, rahter than just question opposing views to your own.

OK. Then I'll aksk you a question: what is in your opinion the best tire/rim combination for HDJ100 - expedition use (paved roads, stony pists, dunes, mud - but not much). The car is heavy loaded - 4 persons + gear + rooftent (max. weight arround 3300 kg).

Regards

Samo

 

[brownbear]

I think that 255 is a good choice for tire size.

At work we run Suburbans with 235/85 r16s so even a bit narrower. and an inch shorter.

The 100 should be just fine on this tire. Even better in snow(deep) skinnier tires being good in snow is why we run them at work. Your mileage should increase as well.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

OK. Then I'll aksk you a question: what is in your opinion the best tire/rim combination for HDJ100 - expedition use (paved roads, stony pists, dunes, mud - but not much). The car is heavy loaded - 4 persons + gear + rooftent (max. weight arround 3300 kg).

Regards

Samo

You havent added a percentage of use for each in your post, but in Aus, we find the MTR in a 285/75/16 as the most reliable, thickest sidewall [yes we cut them up and measure them, rip them, tear them etc] most puncture resistant tyre for all round use, though they do get noisier as they wear, so we encourage people to trade them in around the 15000km mark, so they are always driving on the best part of the tyre.

They work well here in sand, gravel, drive well for an aggressive tyre on the road, and if the conditions become bad because of rain etc, then you have the one tyre to cope with all of those, though compromised slightly on all, compared to having more than one set of tyres.

Because they are thicker, and can produce more heat, they do need to be balanced more often, we have found, but only as per "normal" balance and rotate schedules, but most dont do this here, in our experience.

 

[Greg B]

If my data came from just 100's, rather than vehicles with similar suspension, weight, and terrain use, the 100 fares worse in the figures for bad wear, mainly because of the IFS wearing the front outer edges, especially lifted, as the a arms make the front tyre move in and out, as the suspension goes up and down, and side slope lean and understeer when deflated, because of the extra weight.

We have developed our own wheel alignment specs for the 100 ifs, and the 120 prado/GX470/new forerunner which prevents this wear from happening also, from our data and research.

Given we do rotate balance and alignment free and as part of the tyre sales ongoing, [which help us track what goes on, and document it on the customers warranty card as well as our system] as well as check pressures, we keep pretty good records of tread wear vs km vs pressures, vs use, so apart from the tyres i continually rotate across my vehicles for testing, and the customers vehicles we take on wheeling trips and desert trips weeks at a time to monitor these things in real time, [240+ cars on trips in last 2 years] we have data, so unlike your conjecture on what "could" happen, and what we "might not" know, and what one person may get, or not get, Im using data for my comments from a bigger core sample than one, making the results more consistant.

See, this is relevant information. It backs up your original opinions and gives some credibility to your previous comments. More of this and less "they drive terrible and wear badly" would be great. This is real info that we can use to make sound decisions.

Thats the good thing about forums, when a question is asked, you will get opinion, experience, and suggestion, the art is being able to proccess this information correctly, rahter than just question opposing views to your own.

I agree with you on this; I feel the same way. I will, however, always question everything I read on the web though. There are a lot of people on the web that are full of it. A lot of people throw opinions around without having anything to back up those opinions. I admit I got defensive after your initial post and I should have backed off on your sub-sequent posts. I do appreciate your experience when you post info like you have above.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

Its hard to give every detail in a communication medium designed to be treated flippantly, or as 'chat" and I guess, if people want clarification, thats why we have PM's, email addys and yahoo id's, so everyone doesnt get bored with the details as it plays out online.

 

[SamoL]

You havent added a percentage of use for each in your post, but in Aus, we find the MTR in a 285/75/16 as the most reliable...

15000km? That means that a set of tires would only be for one of my trips (sometimes two). I don't have the trade in option, so I would have to drive them all the way. I wondered will you suggest Coopers?
How usually my trip looks? Most of it is on paved roads, as I have to get there (over half of Europe). I rarely see any rain. Most of the offroad I do is on the pists so puncture resistance is very relevant. Dune crossing represents a very little percentage of total, but driving is fun and digging is not . The tire should last at least 50000 km, be resistant to punctures and good for paved roads. As I can carry only one spare I also hesitate to go to 33" tires, as in Africa it's quite hard to find them (but it's very easy to get a 32" tire).
Another querstion is: are the tires sold in Australia the same as those sold in Europe. REVOs sold in Europe are surely not the same as the ones sold in the US.

Regards

Samo

P.S.: What about Cooper S/T 10 ply rating in 265/75R16? I've heared very different opinions on that tire.