33" Toyo MT's on 18 inch rim (1 Viewer)

[EsioTrot]

I have been following the thread on Toyo AT's, and still don't have an answer. I want to run 33" Toyo MT's on my stock 18 inch rims. The two options are:

275/70/18 33.6" tall, 11.0" wide (note the AT's are 33.1" tall)
33x12.5/18 33.0" tall, 12.7" wide

for reference, the 285/75/16 BFG AT's are 33.0" tall, 11" wide, and the 295/75/16 BFG AT's are 33.2" tall and 11.5 inches wide.

The question is, I want to run the size equivalent to the 285/75/16 BFGs, but the 275/70/18's are too tall (in the Toyo MT only, other brands or the ATs are closer to 33"), and the 33x12.5's are quite wide. I don't mind a wider tire... does anybody know if I can fit the 33x12.5's on stock rims? Does anyone have any other thoughts? I have 2 sets of 18inch rims (the second being the new Tundra rims) so as to run my winter Blizzaks on a seperate set. With the cost of these tires, I could just about get a set of 16" rims and the 285/75/16 Toyo MTs and come out about the same, but would rather stay with the 18's if possible...

thoughts?

-E

 

[hoser]

I suspect the 275/70-18 Toyo MT will look wider than most 285's as the tread is squared off. Remember, the width dimension is the section width and not tread width. I think the 33x12.5-18 would fit also as it is only outside of the recommended width by 1/2". Toyo recommends 8.5-11".

If between those two sizes, going with the 275/70-18 will give you the benefit of lighter weight (9lb difference per tire) and added height.

Go to the Toyo dealer and ask what sizes are available. There's a chance you won't even be able to get some of those sizes.

 

[jatman]

FWIW, I really like the dimensions of 275/70R18 for the Toyo MTs and at this point I am planning on putting those on my truck in the near future. So if you go with them(or the others for that matter), please post some pics as I don't recall seeing these on a hundy yet...

That said, I really really like the 285/75R18 (at least the thought of running those). It seems like it is a perfect size for 35s for the 100. Though that is something I can't really justify right now and something that I am not ready for in the build process (i still need suspension, body lift and to regear to 4.88s first).

As for the the 16s vs 18s, I have gone back and forth on that already and for now have decided to stick with the 18s for a few reasons. 1) I didn't want to manage multiple sets of wheels, since I would keep the 18s for more street use(sounds like you are there already anyways) 2) There seems to be enough tire selection available (and growing) although more expensive (hoping that will start to come down as more become available) 3) the upgrade path to the 35s on 18s. I think that 35s on 18s are a perfect combination and that is something I could go to if I ever out grow the 33s.

 

[EsioTrot]

Thanks for the replies.
I really am torn. I just worry that the height of the 275's at 33.6" is just a little too tall, taking it from the 33.0 range that most on Mud say does not cause any significant power loss, and putting it into a height that may cause a more noticeable power loss. I do like the fact that they are lighter than the 33x12.5's, but wish they were wider than they are...
-E

 

[83bj60]

What kind of use do you plan for the tires under consideration? Some prefer tall and skniny, some prefer wide and high, some others prefer tall and falt... And it all depends on what most of your driving will be and the importance you attach to any driving type you will do.

In terms of clearance height: a tall and skinny tire will fit better than the same tire in wide and you may even be able to go even taller without mods. Since you are already set on 18" size rims (much better choice IMO than 16" for daily driving), then you can settle on narrower tires while still having excellent road response due to the lower profile and have no worse clearance issues than with a heavier and taller profile 16" tire and wheel.

Worrying from 33" to 33.6" especially when those tires are actually lighter is IMO unfounded, because acceleration is closely tied in to wheel inertia.

 

[hoser]

Be aware, there is a good chance you'll need wheel adapters (spacers) to run the Toyo MT 33x12.5-18's because of the treaded sidewalls and squared off shoulders.

I think you'll be fine running 33.6" tires as you have the 5 speed. And you also have the option of running wheel adapters with those too.

 

[CrusrDug]

Deiselbigot runs the 305x70x16 without spacers. This is the tire I want to get.

 

[EsioTrot]

I plan on OME front and rear (minimizing lift though), ARB and winch, and was planning on spacers either way. I plan on expedition type of use, and do understand the pros and cons of skinny/wide...

Question: Which of these two choices would hurt my mpg more? 33.6" but skinnier and lighter, or 33.0" but wider and heavier??

It is good to hear that you don't feel that power loss between 33.0" and 33.6" is likely noticeable.

It sounds like there is some lean towards the 275/70/18's, but I must say, I saw the 33x12.5x18's on an F150 the other day, and they looked mighty nice!

 

[hoser]

I would bet the slightly taller, yet significantly skinnier and much lighter tire would yield better mileage. And quieter too.

 

[83bj60]

I plan on expedition type of use, and do understand the pros and cons of skinny/wide...

For expedition use, i.e. on hard dry gravel, skinny truck type tires would be the most durable and still be small enough for decent fuel economy. The low profile tires (70/75 in 18 inch rim) you plan to use may not be tough enough to survive rocks, gravel and the general road hazards found on expedition trails. For that you'll want more air (as height) and a tougher carcass to contain it.

OTOH if you plan to go play in mud and snow especially in the bush then wide and tall (AKA 'BIG') with a softer rubber compound that allows floatation would be preferable.

The 18 inch in 70/75 is a general purpose profile well suited to highway use and conducive to good control and good fuel economy. I seriously doubt its survivability on the trail.

 

[e9999]

Thanks for the replies.
I really am torn. I just worry that the height of the 275's at 33.6" is just a little too tall, taking it from the 33.0 range that most on Mud say does not cause any significant power loss, and putting it into a height that may cause a more noticeable power loss.
snip
-E

33.6/33= 1.8% difference in rpm. Not exactly a huge change.

 

[CrusrDug]

Question: Which of these two choices would hurt my mpg more? 33.6" but skinnier and lighter, or 33.0" but wider and heavier??

It is good to hear that you don't feel that power loss between 33.0" and 33.6" is likely noticeable.

I really hope you aren't that worried about mileage because these rigs don't score high in that area from the start. Now, if you are worried about loss of power, you have the option of a turbo. I wish I had the turbo option on my engine. Give you truck a wider stance with the 33's and go for the turbo. Their was a trd recently on Ebay for half price- brand new.

 

[EsioTrot]

I really hope you aren't that worried about mileage because these rigs don't score high in that area from the start. Now, if you are worried about loss of power, you have the option of a turbo. I wish I had the turbo option on my engine. Give you truck a wider stance with the 33's and go for the turbo. Their was a trd recently on Ebay for half price- brand new.

I am a realist, and accept the cruisers mpg. It is just part of the decision process, and if one would do better in that department than the other, it might sway me...

 

[EsioTrot]

33.6/33= 1.8% difference in rpm. Not exactly a huge change.

I realize this... but at the same time, after reading multiple posts over the years, it seams that there are more complaints about power loss over 33"... I believe some have even preferred 285/75/16's over 295/75/16's for this reason (even less of a difference).

I don't plan on regearing or a turbo, so right now these ruminations matter... sounds like I shouldn't worry though.

thanks for all the replies!

-E

 

[83bj60]

The power loss, as I said earlier, is not only a matter of diameter as it is a matter of tire weight, width and consequent construction, ergo, its corresponding rolling resistance.

In other words, wide, tough and 'cool' looking mud tires = more rolling resitance, more power consumed, less fuel economy and acceleration...

Been there, done that...

 

[b56tc]

look at the fingernail on your thumb.

that is roughly the huge difference in 33" and 33.6". Total. divide it in half (your little finger) to see how much bigger it is on both sides from center.

Do it - and report back - exactly what I'm looking at - but I don't want to screw my power by a thumbnail



just hosin' ya bro

 

[Dparo]

Bumping because this thread was really on the path that I was looking for, just curious if I can get some feedback or am I overthinking it.

So I am buying tires soon. I have a set of 18x9 wheels I am going to use. Most of my use will be overlanding and specifically will be in the search of ghost towns so much will be dirt two track. I don’t have a desire for rock crawling or highly technical trails. Since this is not a daily driver I am leaning towards the General X3 in 275/70-18 size, but they also have a true 33x12.5 available. Any thoughts on pros or cons between the two? Slee suggested a size of 285/65-18 iirc but the General is not available in that size.

My backup choices would be the Cooper STT Pro, then followed by their ST MAXX if I decided to go AT. I really am leaning strong towards the X3 though.

Is it just a personal preference between the taller, skinnier 275/70 and the slightly shorter but wider 33x12.5? Where does that 285/65-18 fit in for performance between the other two? I suppose I am looking more for input on sizing rather than actual tire. My 2007 is driven only for this purpose. Thanks!

Suspension is being swapped to accommodate the previously mentioned sizes.

 

[joseywales]

For what your planned usage is, I would stick with the metric sizes. You won’t need the width of the 12.50s, and the wider tires will just suck more fuel, accelerate suspension and steering component wear and fling rocks and crap all over your rig.

I really like the General, but the ST Maxx is the perfect tire for what you want to use your truck for. (And in my opinion outperforms the STT Pro in almost every way). I know you didn’t want to go here... If you end up running the Generals, let us know your thoughts on them. I haven’t seen a ton of info on them yet.