295 75r16 vs. 285 75r16

[Greg B]

All you western boys riding on slick rock all the time can use those AT's with great results (Yeah, I'm a little jealous). The MTR is one of the best for that kind of wheeling. I live where there is lot's of mud and some rock. For this terrain, the BFG MT works much better. For that matter, any MT does better, but I especially like the BFG. The AT's and the MTR's don't clean out easy enough. The MT's just walk up stuff that the AT's just slip and slide on. The last set of tires I had were MTR's. They were great unless it was real muddy, then they were just OK. Plus, I could never keep them balanced. I just gotta make up my mind if I'm going to run the AT's daily and keep a seperate set of MT's for off-roading or if I'm just going to run MT's all the time.

 

[phatairman]

or if I'm just going to run MT's all the time.

BFG MT's all the time!!!!

 

[NMuzj100]

The guy with the best info on this thread can't even spell the word "tire".

I thought 285 or 305 was a measure (in mm) of the width of the tread (Section Width), not height? And 70 or 75 (or whatever) was a measure of the sidewall as a percentage of the tread (Section Width)- i.e. a 285/75 would have a sidewall of approximately 213mm (75% of 285).

This "system" when properly understood still seems backward. It's not even really metric since the rims sizes are all still in inches.

25.4 mm = 1 inch

[(Section Width x Aspect Ratio) x Two Sidewalls]/25.4 + Rim = Tire (Tyre) Height x Tire Width (SectionWidthinMM/25.4)

[(275mm x 70%) x 2] + 16 Inches = 31.1 Inches High x 10.8 Inches Wide
[(285mm x 75%) x 2] + 16 Inches = 32.8 Inches High x 11.2 Inches Wide
[(295mm x 75%) x 2] + 16 Inches = 33.4 Inches High x 11.6 Inches Wide
[(305mm x 70%) x 2] + 16 Inches = 32.8 Inches High x 12.0 Inches Wide
[(315mm x 75%) x 2] + 16 Inches = 34.6 Inches High x 12.4 Inches Wide

 

[calamaridog]

Schotts,

What I'm saying is that the Nitto's are going to do everything the BFG AT's have done for me in the past, for less money! MUCH less money per tire!

And if they don't, I'll sell them and get myself some more BFG's lol.

And I love the pics! Looking forward to flexing my 100 soon, and looking forward to wheeling with you sometime. Nothing like a grip of 100's coming down the trail to turn some eyes.

 

[100 TD]

The guy with the best info on this thread can't even spell the word "tire".

When you guys join the real world and go metric they will teach you how to spell TYRE correctly as well!!

 

[Sangamo]

Where are you guys finding the Nitto's. Tire Rack doesn't carry them as far as I can tell.

 

[98LXand99LC]

Where are you guys finding the Nitto's. Tire Rack doesn't carry them as far as I can tell.

I bought mine locally, I think Discount tire can get them for you.

 

[cruisermaine]

One thing I like about my AT KO's is that they are rated for "severe snow"conditions. That's important here in Maine and Iwould think in Colorado /Rockies too. Are the Nitto rated the same?

 

[calamaridog]

The rating you are talking about is called M&S (mud and snow). The Nittos are also M&S rated. I wouldn't even consider an AT now that wasn't M&S rated.

The reason is this... In CA, the CHP will let you on 90% of highways that are "chains required" when you have 4wd and an M&S tire, without the chains.

 

[hoser]

The rating you are talking about is called M&S (mud and snow). The Nittos are also M&S rated. I wouldn't even consider an AT now that wasn't M&S rated.

Actually, the rating his is referring to is for "severe snow conditions" and the symbol is the "snowflake on the mountain." The M+S rating is given very loosely nowadays. So, they came up with a need for a higher rating.

There are very few LT tires that are "snowflake" rated. But just because a tire doesn't receive the snowflake doesn't mean it won't perform well in the snow. It just means that it doesn't have the rating.

Nitto Terra Grapplers are not "snowflake on the mountain" branded.

For more info:
http://www.roofcarriersystems.com.au/snowtyres/symbol/symbol.html

 

[calamaridog]

(SLAP!)

Thanks for setting me straight LOL.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Back to BFG AT KO's? They've never let me down. Here's a shot from Saturday:
(18PSI)

I've had such awesome luck with them, I don't think I could take a chance on trying another tire??

 

[calamaridog]

That's the point of this forum. Let other people take the plunge, just as you have done on other topics, and reap the rewards.

When (or if) you see the Nittos in person, and if they perform as well as people claim, you will know they are worth trying. I can think of things to do with the $200-$250 dollar savings on 5 tires.

 

[cruisermaine]

Could someone (without flares) post some pics of 285's and/or 295's from a front 3/4 angle? I'm trying to decide if 285 is "wide enough" -Don't want to go any wider than I need to but don't want them to look skinny either and the 295's are a1/4" taller OA.

I'm going to go with the AT KO because they wear like iron and have the severe snow rating. Local discount shop will sell the 295 for $177 + install and tax. He will also give me 40 -50 per tire in trade for my Dunlops.

 

[spressomon]

Wheel/tire sizes

Pardon me if this question has already been asked elsewhere...I searched but couldn' find anything related...

Does everyone run the stock 16" wheel/offset/suspension(lift) with the LC100 (1999):

285 R75 16:

295 R75 16:

305 R70 16:

And does anyone know the stock wheel backspacing?

Thanks in advance,

 

[Jukelemon]

Pardon me if this question has already been asked elsewhere...I searched but couldn' find anything related...

Does everyone run the stock 16" wheel/offset/suspension(lift) with the LC100 (1999):

285 R75 16:

295 R75 16:

305 R70 16:

And does anyone know the stock wheel backspacing?

Thanks in advance,

I do not think anyone is running 16" steelies yet so stock wheels. 295's are fine for street applications (look a little funny without a lift imop...I have them), cannot imagine them without a lift in the woods. 2" +/- lift is available through OME (recommend sleeoffroad..very good service even though not the cheapest), have no clue on stock wheel spacing. This has been covered in greater detail so you might try searching again with different words. I do not mind reiterating but you lose the multiple other posts that have chimed in.

Welcome.

 

[cruisermaine]

Juke, can you post a pic of your rig from the front 3/4 -I want to see how wide those 295's look relative to fender well. Is your height stock? TIA

 

[NMuzj100]

This isn't quite a 3/4 view but you can see the width of the tire.

These are 285/75R16 Revos on a stock suspension w/o flares.

Here is 3/4 view.

 

[Jukelemon]

Muz:

Get some flash man ( :

Maine: I will try to get a shot tomorrow prior to doing the lift.

Juke

 

[cruisermaine]

Those 285/75's definitely look better than the stock tires They fill out the fenders nicely -I'm thinkin the 295's might look a bit too big with stock height. We'll see when Juke posts his pics. How 'bout posting before & after the suspension lift?