35"+ Tire Roll-call... (200's only)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Those were simple theoretical examples, except for the KO2, they do run small according to just about everyone. Over three or four reports it would be enough for people to get the idea, but of course there is always bias and subjectivity involved.

Here's a 35" question. Why do manufacturers upcharge for this size? Are there more QC defects / rejects as the diameter increases? Example - 285/75/18 (34.8 in, 60 lb) is $290. 275/70/18 (33.2 in, 57 lb) is $180. More than a 50% increase in price for 5% increase in raw material. I used the Cooper XLT for this example.
 
Markuson said:
Not sure what you thought I meant. I simply mean...as it sits on your truck...measure the front facing tread...across to the rear facing tread...rather than ground to too as many tend to measure.

Not sure what your drawing is meant to imply. If you mean tires squat in an oval and get wider at 3 and 9...they don’t. That’s just not how tires deform under a truck at all. They squat shorter between the center of the lowest wheel edge and the bottom, but they don’t squish outward at 3 and 9 like a water balloon, and they don’t get shorter on top. They simply squat near the ground. I see an arrow pressing on the top of the circle in your drawing. But there is no force pressing the top of a mounted tire.

Super-impose a clock face as you look at the tire from the side on your vehicle.

Tires do not get bigger at 3 o’clock and 9 and certainly don’t compress at 12.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic. Just pointing out that measuring side to side on a circle, 3-9 o'clock, doesn't quite work because it's still subject to load. If you deform a circle vertically, it tends to elongate horizontally to some degree. The manufacturers methodology is really the only way to be consistent. It's not done that way to mislead the public. It's done that way because done any other way invites too many variables.
 
TeCKis300 said:
Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic. Just pointing out that measuring side to side on a circle, 3-9 o'clock, doesn't quite work because it's still subject to load. If you deform a circle vertically, it tends to elongate horizontally to some degree. The manufacturers methodology is really the only way to be consistent. It's not done that way to mislead the public. It's done that way because done any other way invites too many variables.
Click to expand...

I’m sure it changes a bit 3 to 9... but minimally compared with how most measure...top to bottom, which is super sensitive to load.

My thinking is...most of what we end up trying to avoid is rubbing at the 3-ish and 9-ish positions. Height is almost never the point of contact or main concern for fitment.
 
Markuson said:
I’m sure it changes a bit 3 to 9... but minimally compared with how most measure...top to bottom, which is super sensitive to load.

My thinking is...most of what we end up trying to avoid is rubbing at the 3-ish and 9-ish positions. Height is almost never the point of contact or main concern for fitment.
Click to expand...

Right. What I'm getting at, and what you're also pointing out, is that measuring on vehicle is futile at best. Completely inaccurate and baseless at worse.

Here's the way to compare apples to apples. Refer to the manufacturer provided reference known as tire specs. They are accurate and can be compared between tire sizes and manufacturers. So if you have a tire currently mounted, you know the dimensions of said tire as provided by the manufacturer. Then measure the additional clearance you have. Add that delta to the current tire dimension. You now know the dimensions of the next tire you can fit.

Trust that all the manufacturer spec sizes are measured in the same fashion, and therefore translatable. The measurement methodology is done on sound principle.

I believe where some people get confused is looking at the notional "sizing" column A, and expect a tire to actually measures 35". You can see that every tire from every manufacturer varies relative to that notional sizing of 35x12.5r17. Yet the actual manufacturer spec size provided is accurate based on an agreed upon methodology. Also, no one is judging someone that has a 35x12.5 tires as not having 35s, because they measure short.

upload_2018-8-1_19-35-54.webp
 
Ha... Ya, it’s not a size challenge. :)

But we ALL wish it was easier to predict how far off reality we’ll be from factory spec.

They may all sign on to a methodology...but clearly they are not consistent brand to brand. As Tony noted...Cooper seems almost right on...KO2’s small (mine weren’t even close when hyper-inflated)...and the rest are all over the map. So...Trial and error shall continue...with a little help here and there from fellow mudder.

For most people, this is not a big deal. It’s when you start pushing the limits that a half inch off becomes a real pain.

PS. I must have been grumpy last night.
Sorry about that... :cheers:
 
No apologies at all and I don't take offense to any of this. I know my technical writing style doesn't come across as pleasant sometimes, but that's just me geeking-out. I always invite you to keep me grounded!
 
TonyP said:
I don't know why people are putting off road tires on just a fancy Highlander anyways. :p
Click to expand...
OK...so just for laughs just now...I googled “lifted highlander” and looked under images.

I scroll down ONE SCREEN on my phone and what showed up??

MY OWN 200 SERIES in my driveway when I upgraded suspension!!!
LOL!

Here’s proof!
First screen:
E8E70D2F-83D5-4341-B8E3-B16FB59D3AB5.webp


Second screen:
9626B6FA-9F9E-472E-B4C9-90626A841A96.webp


That’s my truck...under “lifted highlander”!!
Lol!
 
Put on a 1” or 25mm wheel adapter to take some measurements. I currently have 32” 275/65r18 ( Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac) on 18” inch Tundra rims with +60mm offset. Without adapter the tire is below the control arm, but would likely just graze it if taller. With the adapter there is 20 to 25mm of space between tire and control arm.

With the adapter the sidewall is dead even with the top fender and the tire is just peeking out front or back view.

What I infer from this is a 5 mm spacer on tall 275s might clear the control arm. A 285 would rub.

A tall 285 with 10mm spacer would likely clear the control arm. This is the Rock warrior offset.

A 285 with 12.7mm (1/2 inch) adapter will almost certainly work.

The lug nut on the hub are 30mm. The brake disc is 5mm. An M14 conical nut is 15mm tall. The wheel has some thickness, 3mm maybe. That leaves room for a 7mm spacer without longer lugs, probably a 10mm would fit if there was countersinking for the conical nuts.

Bora makes a 3/4” adapter. Lots of 1” and larger adapters available. Some forum members have tried 1/2” spacer (didn’t work required unavailable longer lugs) one has used 1/2” adapter (custom order from Bora) on 20s with success.

For narrow 35s, which I’m dreaming on, there is one 275/80r18 available, there is a good selection of 285/75r18. My ideal is still 265/80r18, but it’s just not made.
 
For 35 fans...
-I’ve got a Near-NEW set of
FIVE 35x12.5x17 Nitto Ridge Grapplers
to sell. Cost $1800...

:hillbilly: -<Make me an offer I can to refuse!

In San Diego...
 
Cruiserhead05 said:
Why the downsize? I thought you were running a true 35"?
Click to expand...

I did/was.
I ran 35’s for two years.
Truck is happier without them.

Ended up with a near-new set fftom Nitto if anyone is interested in saving some $. 35x12.5x17 Nitto Ridge Grapplers with just a single trip on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rtong1234
Mileage Roll Call - 200 Series
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
15K
jmw101
jmw101
T
2021 200 Series
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
gasman4u
gasman4u
TimCFJ40
200 Take Two... Our Second 200 Series - Build Thread
Replies
0
Views
21
TimCFJ40
TimCFJ40
Queglay
200 series model solidworks
Replies
17
Views
1K
Boston Mangler
Boston Mangler

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom