33X10.50 vs 33X12.50

Discussion in '60-Series Wagons' started by lovetoski, Aug 7, 2005.

  1. lovetoski

    lovetoski SILVER Star

    Messages:
    4,590
    Likes Received:
    262
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    OK, I've got some new (to me) wheels (15X8) and will put rubber on them soon. Lots of tire threads of course, and I think I've read all of them...but I wanted to see if I understand all the differences between a 10.50 and 12.50...

    10.50
    Better gas milage
    Better in rain, snow, ice
    Tracks straighter

    12.50
    Better in deep snow & sand
    Better in deep mud
    Better in rocks

    Did I miss anything? (Besides aesthetics - just looking for functional diffs)

    I do have one question - given the same rim, will there be a stability difference between the two? I assume the mounted 12.50s will make the truck ~2" wider. Will this make a difference, on the road, or aired down off road?

    Thanks for the help.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2005
  2. Fearnofish!

    Fearnofish!

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Location:
    Hamilton, MT
    I am not sure that the width will make you more stable. Your overall speed in combination with your inclination will have more to do with that. I like the 10.5s but I really think it's going to be preference. For me 10.5s are cheaper and are a bit better on regular trails and snow. Gas milage? I'd ahve to see the numbers but I'm guessing .5mpg difference? Oh yeah and about the biggest reason of all is the price difference. 10.5s are about 40$ a tire cheaper on average!
    Good luck.
     
  3. VTCruiser

    VTCruiser

    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    35
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    i have 12.5 on my 15x8 and don't have any complaints. Aside from gearing, there have been no major differences in handling from the 31x10.5 i had before. I think my mpgs when down by less than .5 from the 31's.
     
  4. peepers

    peepers

    Messages:
    2,082
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    not always the case. if they are set up correctly you will not experience too much tracking on the highway or on worn road. the tire tread on a/t's is aggressive enough that it wont follow the road too much. the difference here between 10.5 and 12.5 is negligable.

    you have this opposite. the 10.5s will be better in the snow and mud. the sand will go to the 12.5s but the thing about mud and snow is you want the tire to dig and dig and dig until it bites. oh, i just looked up and saw "deep". how deep are you talking here?

    by the way... if you are thinking A/T tires it won't matter how deep the mud is once this happens: http://fj62.net/images/mud.jpg
     
  5. CTiger

    CTiger

    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    mmmmmm donuts
     
  6. swagdan

    swagdan

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    San Rafael, CA
    So what's the general consensus here? Who's on 10.5's that wish they had 12.5's and vice-versa...?
    I'm about to purchase rims and tires (currently on 31 x 10.5's) and can't decide between the two widths.....Just when you think and extra inch won't matter. I guess I won't be asking any of my female friends : )

    Ah hell, maybe I should just get the 32 x 11.5's....
     
  7. Fearnofish!

    Fearnofish!

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Location:
    Hamilton, MT
    I started out stock then 30's, 32's, and now 33's. Every time I have gone bigger I think why didn't I do that the first time? Go big or go home!

    10.50's get me vote for the reasons above. Should note that i never drive on sand and have experienced some drift on finer gravel roads on frineds 12.50's (Dodge truck though). It was unsettling enough for me to think twoce about increaded surface area under the rig. I guess I want more lbs/cubic inch.
     
  8. TOY350

    TOY350 #1 Super Guy SILVER Star

    Messages:
    3,482
    Media:
    13
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    115
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Location:
    Grants Pass, OR
    My preference is 33X10.5 which I ran then switched to 35X12.5. I think the 33X12.5s look too wide for the height, but that's just my opinion on "looks". The 33X10.5s were much too small for my SOA rig but look good on a SUA one.
     
  9. Timoss

    Timoss

    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    I've had both and I think in terms of mud vs. snow vs. sand, etc., tread patterns will have more of an impact than the difference between 10.50 and 12.50. For instance, my siped 12.50 MTRs are as good or better than my 10.50 BFT ATs were on road in snow, mud, and rain--that goes for on and off road (have not tried either on sand so I can't comment there). So I'd say when considering performance on surface type, the treads, not the width, will be by far the most important, defining factor.

    However, there are a few differences that will be apparent regardless of tread: You will in theory be able to air down the narrower tire a bit further without bopping a bead. The wider tire will catch grooves a bit more on the road (not that much, but noticeable). And the wider tires may be more comfortable on road (more cushion). This is all based on a BFG 10.50 VS. MTR 12.50 comparison. YMMV.

    Tim
    88 fj62 TLCA
     
  10. Doc

    Doc

    Messages:
    5,925
    Media:
    33
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    425
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    Not my experience. A Wider tire on the same size rim will air down further and hold a bead longer than a narrow tire. The wider casing on the bigger tire will exert an outward lateral pressure on the tire bead allowing you to air down farther and maintain the pressure needed to keep the rubber in the bead.

    "Poor man's bead locks".
     
  11. hks3sgte

    hks3sgte

    Messages:
    2,513
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    15
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Location:
    Los √Āngeles, CA.
  12. VTCruiser

    VTCruiser

    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    35
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    here is a pic of my 33x12.50's on 15x8 wheels. because of the narrower wheel, I don't think they look too wide, but 12.5 is as wide as i would go for any size tire.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. lovetoski

    lovetoski SILVER Star

    Messages:
    4,590
    Likes Received:
    262
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    That's a cool link - lots of good info in there. Thanks! I think I'm leaning towards 10.50's...dogboy and pimp both run 'em...both NW boys too...hmmm...
     
  14. 3puttcop

    3puttcop

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    North Florida
    Why not run a 32 x 11.50?
     
  15. lovetoski

    lovetoski SILVER Star

    Messages:
    4,590
    Likes Received:
    262
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Good question...hope this makes sense...I like the rubber overdrive I get w/33's on the highway (which I have to do a lot). I was trying to get a practical sense of the difference between extremes...most agree that 9.50's are too narrow (what I have now) and 12.50's are pretty much the widest most run...so I thought it would be good to get some advice about a "reasonable" choice, 10.50 vs 12.50. That said, I'm not opposed to 32X11.50 per se (doc and others seem to like them alot).

    Tire decisions are a funny thing. In the greater scheme of things it's not that expensive...but there is some ego involved in having made the wrong choice. I absolutly hate being wrong...and having to admit it publicly (by buying different tires) just makes it that much more irritating.

    What gears do you run with your 32's?
     
  16. Tinker

    Tinker

    Messages:
    2,865
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Location:
    Larkspur, CO
    Wider tires are better for sand, not snow. I got stuck in my driveway (7% grade) last fall in my '84 with 10.50x33 MTRs in a deep, heavy snow. The PO had 12.50s on 10" aluminum rims which I chucked for 8-inch steelies, so I thought I was going narrow enough to bite through the snow. Guess the tread pattern doesn't provide enough edges for good snow traction. My '83 with stock Wrangler 30s went right up.

    MTRs are useless in wet, heavy snow unless they're siped (thank you Discount Tire for the freebie after I got stuck).

    If you truly love to ski, you love to get there & back. Look into tires with better snow traction.
     
  17. Doc

    Doc

    Messages:
    5,925
    Media:
    33
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    425
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    FWIW- mine are 33x11.5's. Not 32's. On a 16" rim though too...
     
  18. lovetoski

    lovetoski SILVER Star

    Messages:
    4,590
    Likes Received:
    262
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    How do you like your MTR's siped? I've done this on both my cruisers (and like it alot) but neither of them have mud tires.

    ...and you're right that getting to and from the mtn is a key part of skiing!
     
  19. 3puttcop

    3puttcop

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    North Florida


    I am running stock gearing, which I think is 4.11. They seen like the perfect rubber O/D to me. Much of my off-road is in very soft sand and the slightly smaller diameter but relatively wide tire seems to just float well.
     
  20. Timoss

    Timoss

    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    My MTRs are siped also. They are as good as BFG A/Ts on the road in rain and snow (this is in the Northeast). I was pleased with that performance. Never had MTRs not siped, so I don't know how they perform "stock"...

    Tim
    88 fj62 TLCA
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.