285/70-16 vs. 33??

[RavenTai]

I am set-up with 850/863 and a one inch packer on the front. I regularly switch between my OEM 275/70/16 Michelins and my 305/70/16 GY M/T's. The rig looks a bit odd to me when I first put the 275's on but after a day or so it seems "normal". When I switch back to the GY's it's like "Ok, thats better "

From an apperance standpoint the 305's win, hands down. From a hiway driveability, comfort and fuel usage angle the Michelins can not be beat, period.

Dan, going from the 31'a to 33's do you notice any decrease in off the line power or increase it top end? my cruiser has decent off the line with the 265/70/16 the PO put on (for a 5k# brick shaped SUV with a 6 banger) I am wondering what I will see when I go to 33's

 

[Beowulf]

RavenTai,
I'll chime in. Dan's truck has a S/C so "power" in his truck and mine are significantly different. Your sig line doesn't mention a S/C and I'm not sure where you live.

Living at 6,000' and going from 31's to 33's with stock gearing was a noticeable decrease in off the line power. I don't do much top end, high speed driving so I can't give an opinion there. I can easily cruise at 90MPH so that's all I'll say about top end. Some will say they can't tell any difference and that may be true that *they* can't tell a difference but simple physics tells you there will be a difference and, if you're astute, you will notice the difference.

The reason that I mention the altitude where you live is that we lose (I think Tyler posted this stat) approx 2% of the power per 1,000' elevation gain. That means I'm down 12% from you if you're at sea level. Take off another 6 to 10% for larger and heavier tyres and you can see that there will be a noticeable difference.

When you have the S/C the difference isn't noticed as much due to the forced induction and extra HP to start.

HTH.
-B-

 

[RavenTai]

.HTH.
-B-

Yes it very much does, I forgot about the SC in Dan's rig,

When I was a teenager I drove my 280z from sea level in FL (the house I grew up in was @ 8’) to the highest mountain in NC with IIRC was around 6k, there was a noticeable power loss, we walked to the up many steps to lookout tower and I lost a lot of power also had to stop for breathers along the way, here I am at about 800' at the house and 1026' at work, not high enough to make much of a difference from sea level

I think I will have to live the minor loss in off the line cause those 265's got to go.

 

[NorCalDoug]

RavenTai,
There is a noticeable difference when upsizing tires. That said, you couldn't pay me to go back from the 285/75 MTRs to the stock Michelins. To be honest, now that I've had the MTRs for about a year, I don't really notice the loss of power. I got used to it fairly quickly. The only time I notice a difference now is if I drive the wife's 80 (which is completely stock). A lot of the difference has to do with the extra weight that I carry on my rig now (ARB front, sliders, slee rear bumper, etc.).

I'm planning on going up to 315s soon, but will keep the 285s for daily and non-hardcore trail use.

 

[NorCalDoug]

Stresspuppy,
Beowulf (as usual) is right on the money. Follow his suggestions. Do it once, get it over with. Stop stressing over it.

 

[Tom Doniphon]

You may want to consider the BFG 295 AT. They are almost as tall as a 315 but not as wide. I am using these on stock wheels and they are a good compromise. I am using the "3" front Emu springs with the "2" rear springs. This helps to get rid of some of the stink bug look associated with 80's. Also this small amount of lift difference really helps when your a big guy {6'5" and 265}. It makes the vehicle more comfortable in many ways. I am using the "2" Emu shocks and this will allow you to use the heavy duty Aussie anti sway bars. I use the vehicle for 80% road use and 20% off road use. Much of the driving off road is fairly fast rough dirt roads. This setup makes you think you driving some kind of off road race vehicle. Maybe part of that is the turbo. This setup actually is more comfortable both on and off road than the stock setup. I really like this setup. My freinds get mad when I tell them we have to take my 2004 F-350 instead of the 80.They claim the cruiser rides so much better that it takes about 1/4 as long to drive the same distance in the 80. I think they are probably right. Hope this helps.

 

[ParadiseCruiser]

S-Pup -

Just to muddy the water a little more...

Sometimes when you think just in terms of lift - as in 2" or 2 1/2" - you may be surprised when you actually get the suspension on the truck.

When I put on my OME 850/863s (w/N73 & N74E), I ended up with 3 1/2" lift in the rear & 2 1/2" in the front. And this with a Kaymar (+ dual swing gates & tire), aux fuel tank (fuel of petrol) + ARB (wWarn 12K + dual batt) in the front. All measurements made from center hub to flare to remove tire size from the equation. Since this truck was once a mall cruiser (never carried any weight, never towed...) I do not think old, sagging springs added much - if anything - to the unexpected lift (over stock height).

To aggravate the situation, leveling it out with 20mm packers up front ended up creating a caster correction issue that is greater than the OME bushings can compensate for. Just something more to think about...

Cheers, R -

 

[Heffenoche]

StressPuppy I also agree with Beowolf on the setup. Now I'd be happy to come pickup those those Michelins and I won't even charge you to dispose of them.

 

[MoJ]

RavenTai,
The reason that I mention the altitude where you live is that we lose (I think Tyler posted this stat) approx 2% of the power per 1,000' elevation gain. That means I'm down 12% from you if you're at sea level. Take off another 6 to 10% for larger and heavier tyres and you can see that there will be a noticeable difference.

HTH.
-B-

Turn on the A/C as well and that's getting close to the power of a 3FE at sea level with stock tires.

 

[MoJ]

This helps to get rid of some of the stink bug look associated with 80's.

Stink bug? (No understando.)

 

[ParadiseCruiser]

Stink bug? (No understando.)

A$$ pointing at the moon...

 

[StressPuppy]

StressPuppy I also agree with Beowolf on the setup. Now I'd be happy to come pickup those those Michelins and I won't even charge you to dispose of them.

Does sound like a good setup. Are you really interested in the tires, or just harrassing me as much as I deserve?!?!? BTW - any place around here to do some light to moderate off-roading? 5 hours north is too much to try to get the family interested.



I think the 851/860 setup with caster correction is what I want to do. I was thinking I might leave the tires for now, but if I found someone that wanted these tires.........

Then there are the brakes (rotors and pads...), and.......... Gee, it never ends.

 

[Beowulf]

You'll also want the xfer case gear (~30) to correct for the larger tyres and the CDL switch.
-B-

 

[StressPuppy]

Yeah, thought about those. I'll add them to the order.

I am leaning towards the Bridgestone Dueler A/T Revos. Since the majority of my driving is on road, they won't be as noisy as the BFG MTs.

But, so I don't break the bank and get kicked out of the house, I am thinking I will do the suspension and just leave the Michelins on there for now (unless I find a taker at a fair price for both parties). Change the tires later. Not what I want to do, but ......

 

[cruiserdan]

Stink bug? (No understando.)

= Butt in the air and nose on the ground...............Hooking up the boat helps too

 

[Tom Doniphon]

The BFG 295 is an all terrain and is very quiet.

 

[SteveLCetc]

I wouldn't get all excited about the MT/R's. I've had the BFG MT's, and in fact have them on my 40. I bought the MT/R's (305/70R16 and no rubbing yet) and so far am not impressed with them over the BFG's. I don't think the traction is as good. Does anybody have a link to a side by side test? The only potential advantage is that the sidewalls are supposed to be better.

 

[robbie]

The mt/r do not fare as good as the BFG MT's in mud according to one test a 4x mag did on them. But where the MT/r fares better is that it is quiter on road, better wet manners on road, better dry manners. As for the ride of the tire on the same psi rating the MT/R was smoother. I like my MT/R quite a bit an will use them for light wheeling and camping as well as daily driving. As for wheeling hard or evening thinking of mud I will get the Swamper out and go for it. later robbie

 

[SteveLCetc]

Actually I think the MT's do better on rock too, at least the competitions. Might be more MT's skewing the resultes, or just more MT's because they're better, I don't know. I'd like to see a punch through test on the sidewalls though. I know I was pretty embarrassed a couple of months ago when a Cherokee with AT's was the only rig to make the Puerco cut crossing...

Hopefully will see you in Ouray. Hard to say though, the better half just got a new job so we may not make it until Friday night.

Steve H

 

[robbie]

I would disagree here. I have seen many trucks strugle in Moab with BFG mt up stuff and MT/r walk right up. As for side walls I would have given that to MT/R a year and a half ago. but after getting two side wall tears and two punctures last year here in CO I did look else where (all hard stuff). I also have seen BFG loose side walls way too easy (on others trucks). That is why I have gone to swampers for the real tough stuff. and will leave the MT/R to the other stuff. BFG are way too noisy for me to run daily.
Thinking about ouray(hd's trip in july) with the wife and kid and maybe a good friend and his family.
later robbie