35"+ Tire Roll-call... (200's only) (1 Viewer)

[grinchy]

Keep in mind that's D load rated tire, not E. From here: https://automotive.kendatire.com/media/655387/kenda_kr601_spec_sheet_single.pdf

My opinion is D is better. I'll be targeting D or Flotation loads (118 to 121 usually) for my next tires, both to keep weight down and to have more pressure window. I am not a heavy tow user . . . they'll be aggressive mud tires though, so these Kenda R/Ts probably not enough tread gap.

 

[Markuson]

My opinion is D is better. I'll be targeting D or Flotation loads (118 to 121 usually) for my next tires, both to keep weight down and to have more pressure window. I am not a heavy tow user . . . they'll be aggressive mud tires though, so these Kenda R/Ts probably not enough tread gap.

Also depends on what you want to do and what your terrain needs are. If you’re hard on your sidewalls like I am—aired down over jaggy rocks while off camber, etc or at speed over jaggies...E definitely offers more sidewall strength compared to D or lower. OTOH, If you are just in soft sand or mud, needs differ.

 

[grinchy]

For sure it is almost a tire by tire evaluation as C or D or E mean different things even within the letter. They are completely approximate as the legacy tire construction is no longer applicable. How should cooper rate their new mud tire with 2 ply sidewalls that are 180% stronger per ply than the current 3 ply sidewall material? D for two ply? E for 3.6 ply? F for extreme toughness? The Kenda are D but 3 ply sidewall in this size? I agree that a tough sidewall is more relevant for us re: toughness than a low temp heavy duty tread carcass for towing but it is extremely hard to get detailed information from manufacturers on how they are rating the approximate toughness.

Load index though is standardized and is a per corner weight limit. 120 load index is about 3000 lbs. 129 load index is about 4000 lbs. Both are totally suitable for almost any 200, Depends on how you're built, but for me 3k per corner would be more than plenty.

 

[Markuson]

For sure it is almost a tire by tire evaluation as C or D or E mean different things even within the letter. They are completely approximate as the legacy tire construction is no longer applicable. How should cooper rate their new mud tire with 2 ply sidewalls that are 180% stronger per ply than the current 3 ply sidewall material? D for two ply? E for 3.6 ply? F for extreme toughness? The Kenda are D but 3 ply sidewall in this size? I agree that a tough sidewall is more relevant for us re: toughness than a low temp heavy duty tread carcass for towing but it is extremely hard to get detailed information from manufacturers on how they are rating the approximate toughness.

Load index though is standardized and is a per corner weight limit. 120 load index is about 3000 lbs. 129 load index is about 4000 lbs. Both are totally suitable for almost any 200, Depends on how you're built, but for me 3k per corner would be more than plenty.

Ya, the whole legacy rating related to numbers of cotton ply etc... But the letters are still belpful to indicate relative strength. *I’m NO tire expert. -Some on here truly are...so i’ll leave the nitty gritty to them. Obviously design differences between models and brand techniques come in big time for our uses too, so it’s tricky to weed through.

For me personally, I’m most convinced by real world use, and for me, I’m using a tire that really suits my needs well. As always, Y&OMMV and like most things, there really is no “best” conclusion.

 

[grinchy]

Ya, the whole legacy rating related to numbers of cotton ply etc... But the letters are still belpful to indicate relative strength. *I’m NO tire expert. -Some on here truly are...so i’ll leave the nitty gritty to them. Obviously design differences between models and brand techniques come in big time for our uses too, so it’s tricky to weed through.

For me personally, I’m most convinced by real world use, and for me, I’m using a tire that really suits my needs well. As always, Y&OMMV and like most things, there really is no “best” conclusion.

Definitely not a disagreement here; there is really no right answer, just a right answer for each buyer/user. I wanted a tall skinny. I researched the tall skinny. I bought tall skinny. But along with it I got a 129 load index and a tire size which is literally not on any chart. That has made basic things like 'what psi?' an interesting and long researched and discussed topic, not surprisingly, the PSI which works best for these tires also is the one that feels right, and also is the one which controls heat adequately. Since all of us on 35s are far outside the norm for this board it is interesting to discuss the impacts of decisions taken and not taken. And the consequences of them.

For example, I did not consider a 129 load index a showstopper. But then I went to mount my tires (I have a homemade balancer and tire irons, a box of weights, balance beads, tire lube and so forth - all cheaper to acquire for a lifetime than even one paid wheel mounting, but I digress), and I couldn't, at least not without murdering my rims. They are so stiff. Much stiffer than load index 125, and like 10x stiffer than the load 114 stockers. Now, at the right pressure they are compliant and ride great, but just 2 psi more and they are hard, and 4 psi more and they are VERY hard. My LX can deal on the fly, but for a fixed dampened ride, this might actually be a showstopper. The sensitivity this brand/sku/load index has to pressure is high. I paid to mount them up, and they work great overall, but the data point is here now for others to see. I'm living with the fact they aren't really field serviceable (really, who unmounts a tire in the field - it must be very rare). But now when I look at tires, I look at the load index and it is a factor for whether I look very long at that tire. If it is above 125 (275/70R18 carries this load index, for example), that would have to be a very compelling tire to keep my interest, because there is a known tradeoff for me.

 

[Mogwai]

Definitely not a disagreement here; there is really no right answer, just a right answer for each buyer/user. I wanted a tall skinny. I researched the tall skinny. I bought tall skinny. But along with it I got a 129 load index and a tire size which is literally not on any chart. That has made basic things like 'what psi?' an interesting and long researched and discussed topic, not surprisingly, the PSI which works best for these tires also is the one that feels right, and also is the one which controls heat adequately. Since all of us on 35s are far outside the norm for this board it is interesting to discuss the impacts of decisions taken and not taken. And the consequences of them.

For example, I did not consider a 129 load index a showstopper. But then I went to mount my tires (I have a homemade balancer and tire irons, a box of weights, balance beads, tire lube and so forth - all cheaper to acquire for a lifetime than even one paid wheel mounting, but I digress), and I couldn't, at least not without murdering my rims. They are so stiff. Much stiffer than load index 125, and like 10x stiffer than the load 114 stockers. Now, at the right pressure they are compliant and ride great, but just 2 psi more and they are hard, and 4 psi more and they are VERY hard. My LX can deal on the fly, but for a fixed dampened ride, this might actually be a showstopper. The sensitivity this brand/sku/load index has to pressure is high. I paid to mount them up, and they work great overall, but the data point is here now for others to see. I'm living with the fact they aren't really field serviceable (really, who unmounts a tire in the field - it must be very rare). But now when I look at tires, I look at the load index and it is a factor for whether I look very long at that tire. If it is above 125 (275/70R18 carries this load index, for example), that would have to be a very compelling tire to keep my interest, because there is a known tradeoff for me.

These Yokos are 127 and measure 33.9/11.4 but wahhh I want that extra inch!! Haha.... LT285/70R18 127/124Q Feel like we're splitting hairs, but who knows. Mark will say "get the 34s" but the devil on my shoulder screams 35s!!!

 

[Markuson]

These Yokos are 127 and measure 33.9/11.4 but wahhh I want that extra inch!! Haha.... LT285/70R18 127/124Q Feel like we're splitting hairs, but who knows. Mark will say "get the 34s" but the devil on my shoulder screams 35s!!!

Oh, the the little devil guy still whisper 35’s.
But my truck grunts, and thanks me for going back to 34’s.

 

[grinchy]

These Yokos are 127 and measure 33.9/11.4 but wahhh I want that extra inch!! Haha.... LT285/70R18 127/124Q Feel like we're splitting hairs, but who knows. Mark will say "get the 34s" but the devil on my shoulder screams 35s!!!

yeah, you should get what you want. if you have to do gears to run 'em those have other benefits too, so all good stuff.

 

[afgman786]

I just found out today there is a 275/80/17 that measures around 34.5" and don't see anyone running this yet on here... seems fair to post here as its real close to 35"? If not lemme know and I'll delete.

 

[grinchy]

I just found out today there is a 275/80/17 that measures around 34.5" and don't see anyone running this yet on here... seems fair to post here as its real close to 35"? If not lemme know and I'll delete.

More deets? Brand style etc. I'd love to know more. I have 275/80r18....

 

[Markuson]

I just found out today there is a 275/80/17 that measures around 34.5" and don't see anyone running this yet on here... seems fair to post here as its real close to 35"? If not lemme know and I'll delete.

This: (34.6)

 

[radman]

This

"max speed 99mph"

 

[afgman786]

This: (34.6)
View attachment 2343524View attachment 2343525

Yup thats the one! Now what does it take to get other companies to make the same size...

 

[LC200JG]

35x12.50x17 tucked in the rear. Photo credit @kreiten

View attachment 1415517

Who did you have do your triple lock? I have a lot of the same gear on my 2016 200 series. Ironman 4x4 stage 1 skids, budbuilt transfer case/fuel tank skids, ironman 4x4 3" lift foam cell pros, arb summit front bumper, rlc rear bumper, slee rock sliders, ironman 4x4 12,000 lb winch

 

[LC200JG]

View attachment 2128322View attachment 2128323View attachment 2128326

perty

 

[ga12r1]

Toyo Open Country MT 285/75/18 on Method +25

I finally got a chance to really try these out at Windrock for GSMTR last week. I was able to fully stuff with no issues. Sorry I didn't get any flex/stuff phots but I was driving
Side note: I beat the heck out of my skids. Thank goodness for Budbuilt. I bent another rear control arm too. Thats twice in a row at Windrock. I gotta get something figured out about that.

 

[grinchy]

I bent another rear control arm too.

Weld on a piece of 3/16" or 1/4" by 1/2" angle iron on the underside? Skid surface and stiffening all in one. . . .

 

[Angelo1]

Toyo Open Country MT 285/75/18 on Method +25

I finally got a chance to really try these out at Windrock for GSMTR last week. I was able to fully stuff with no issues. Sorry I didn't get any flex/stuff phots but I was driving
Side note: I beat the heck out of my skids. Thank goodness for Budbuilt. I bent another rear control arm too. Thats twice in a row at Windrock. I gotta get something figured out about that.

View attachment 2485218

View attachment 2485219

View attachment 2485220

View attachment 2485223

View attachment 2485228

What level trail are you on?

 

[ga12r1]

Weld on a piece of 3/16" or 1/4" by 1/2" angle iron on the underside? Skid surface and stiffening all in one. . . .

Yeah, I Just worry about breaking mounts then. Factory arms are relatively inexpensive, but twice in a row sucks. I think @Taco2Cruiser has spoke on this before.
At least I didn't banana my panhard this time though.

What level trail are you on?

Hard Blue/Easy Black

 

[LC200JG]

I have 285/75/18 34.8 in Falken Wildpeaks coming today or tomorrow