Anyone running 235/85r16s on their 100? (12 Viewers)

[rothgyr]

There are some other pizza cutter threads, but it seems people are only going down to 255s. I run the 255/75r17 KO2 C1 on my v8 4runner and I love them.

Thinking of doing similar with a 100 that has 16" wheels. Short of buying some FN 17" wheels and just putting on another set of KO2 C1s in 255/75r17, I've been eyeing the 235/85r16 BFGs and Nokians especially since they're so darn light.

I don't think people consider weight on their tires as much as they ought. The switch on my 4runner from 55lb E1 tires to 46lb C1 was incredible. I know the 100 isn't a sports car, but that doesn't mean it needs to be tractor either, especially given the smallish gas tank + low fuel economy. Not stressing about gas stations out in the middle of nowhere on camping trips is kind of a big priority of mine.

The 235s make a ton of sense on paper, but...

Has anyone actually run them? Got any pics? Got any stories/concerns with the skinnies? I've seen them used on 70 series, but I've yet to see any pics of them on a 100.

 

[Coin]

That’s really skinny on a nearly 3 ton truck.

Remember you need rubber on the road to stop all that weight.

 

[Nardulli]

There are some other pizza cutter threads, but it seems people are only going down to 255s. I run the 255/75r17 KO2 C1 on my v8 4runner and I love them.

Thinking of doing similar with a 100 that has 16" wheels. Short of buying some FN 17" wheels and just putting on another set of KO2 C1s in 255/75r17, I've been eyeing the 235/85r16 BFGs and Nokians especially since they're so darn light.

I don't think people consider weight on their tires as much as they ought. The switch on my 4runner from 55lb E1 tires to 46lb C1 was incredible. I know the 100 isn't a sports car, but that doesn't mean it needs to be tractor either, especially given the smallish gas tank + low fuel economy. Not stressing about gas stations out in the middle of nowhere on camping trips is kind of a big priority of mine.

View attachment 3986750

The 235s make a ton of sense on paper, but...

Has anyone actually run them? Got any pics? Got any stories/concerns with the skinnies? I've seen them used on 70 series, but I've yet to see any pics of them on a 100.

I’m running 275/70R16 new geolanders. Were new when I bought the 100 last month. What is the best setup for these rigs?
And to your comment about weight - any reduction in unsprung weight is desirable.

 

[rothgyr]

That’s really skinny on a nearly 3 ton truck.

Remember you need rubber on the road to stop all that weight.

This gets shared to death, but given the fact that the guy went to so much trouble to factor out any biases and then measure contact patches, the argument is pretty significant. Tire width doesn't factor strongly in "rubber on the road".

 

[jaewastooshort]

I just watched another video yesterday going into this, and a big consideration for wide vs narrow tires regarding sidewall flex is also mounting them on an appropriate width rim. Too wide on either relative to the other (rim width / tread width) and the sidewall deflection will become sub-optimal. A quick search is telling me that a 235/85r16 isn't recommended to be mounted on a rim wider than 7"

 

[rothgyr]

That's a fair point, actually. I'd have to get aftermarket wheels more than likely, which isn't really something I'm looking to do on a Landcruiser. I'd prefer keeping as much stock as possible.

 

[David*BJ70]

I have a Toyota document with several different specifications for the LC 100 model (FZ, HZ, HD, UZ). This document lists the size 235/85. This tire size was probably offered in certain countries where the base trim was available.


The OD is similar to the diameter of the 275/70 offered in America. My opinion is that the 235/85 is really too thin. I also saw somewhere on this forum a 100 with 235/85s. Maybe there are some advantages, but in terms of looks, it's not very attractive.

 

[hoser]

235/85R16 did come as standard on some overseas 100/105's but they also had 6" or 5.5" width wheels.... which are very hard to come by in the US. If I was going that route, I'd get these wheels. JAOS Victron.

@mdcoa

 

[mdcoa]

Maybe there are some advantages, but in terms of looks, it's not very attractive.

I'd have to counter that beauty is in the eye of the beholder--I really love the look of 235/85 R16s on our 100, which we've been running on it for something like 6 years now. Although it's totally possible I suffer lasting brain damage from being into old Land Rovers for years--235 was my go-to size, and I ran 215/85s on our Tdi Discovery I)
I only wish our rims (70-series take-off 16x6s) had a bit of positive offset so the wheels were tucked in maybe 1/2 to 1 inch.
We've put probably 60k miles on the tall skinnies, lots of on-road, but also offroad in all kinds of conditions--Italian Alps, Spanish Pyrenees, Portugese mountains and coast, Atlas Mountains, Sahara Desert, etc, and they've performed phenomenally.
Our '99 JDM has regular old 275/70, which just look kind of fat to me. I might put 255s on it when it's time . . .
All that to say, while these aren’t for everyone, I love them. If these crazy rims hadn’t been available I’d probably be running 255/85s on stock 16@ rims, which, yes, probably are a bit too fat to work well or look good with 235s.

Some photos to further offend/intrigue:

 

[Coin]

This gets shared to death, but given the fact that the guy went to so much trouble to factor out any biases and then measure contact patches, the argument is pretty significant. Tire width doesn't factor strongly in "rubber on the road".

That video is focused on aired down offroading. I’m talking general driving purposes. I want more grip when braking and turning on the road, but I’m a 90% pavement guy.

Btw, I think 255’s look good on FJ’s and few other trucks. I just don’t think they match the aesthetics of the 100’s. On the other hand, anything over a 285 is a bit much as well.

 

[rothgyr]

He measured along a pressure curve all the way up to 40, and contact patch area was pretty consistently the same, although the patch was differently shaped.

Regardless, I think I'll steer clear of the 235s. Wheel width isn't going to play well with them. Being used to pizza cutters, I personally don't have an issue with 255s, but at this point, I'm leaning closer to a lot of the 265/75r16s. There's a fair number of options without getting ridiculously heavy.

 

[Coin]

I admittedly did not watch the entire video, but that graph is very interesting.
The shape of that contact patch and tire deformation due to different aspect ratios are also important aspects to consider in off-road vs on-road driving.

 

[jaewastooshort]

yeah, it's pretty basic (and is implied in the units)... for a vehicle of consistent weight (pounds), regardless of tire width, at a set inflation pressure (psi = pounds / square inch), the tire will tend to deform to roughly equivalent contact area (square inch). The big difference is going to be in how the sidewall deflects.

When I go to 17's (~22 lb vs factory 16's ~25 lb) I'm leaning toward going with a lighter tire as well (currently on 285/75-16s, think they're ~58lb vs ~47 for the 255's I was looking at). Need to weigh the truck loaded now that I've got steel bumpers, winch, and RTT to make sure the load rating will work, but if I can drop nearly 15 lb per wheel by going to a 255 I'm hoping it will help me get a tiny bit of fuel economy back.

 

[rothgyr]

I'd have to counter that beauty is in the eye of the beholder--I really love the look of 235/85 R16s on our 100, which we've been running on it for something like 6 years now. Although it's totally possible I suffer lasting brain damage from being into old Land Rovers for years--235 was my go-to size, and I ran 215/85s on our Tdi Discovery I)
I only wish our rims (70-series take-off 16x6s) had a bit of positive offset so the wheels were tucked in maybe 1/2 to 1 inch.
We've put probably 60k miles on the tall skinnies, lots of on-road, but also offroad in all kinds of conditions--Italian Alps, Spanish Pyrenees, Portugese mountains and coast, Atlas Mountains, Sahara Desert, etc, and they've performed phenomenally.
Our '99 JDM has regular old 275/70, which just look kind of fat to me. I might put 255s on it when it's time . . .
All that to say, while these aren’t for everyone, I love them. If these crazy rims hadn’t been available I’d probably be running 255/85s on stock 16@ rims, which, yes, probably are a bit too fat to work well or look good with 235s.

Some photos to further offend/intrigue:

View attachment 3988083

View attachment 3988084

View attachment 3988085

View attachment 3988086

View attachment 3988087

View attachment 3988088

View attachment 3988089

That's actually kind of a timeless look. Like you said, not for everyone, but I've been running 255s for a while and the skinny look doesn't bother me at all.

Are you lifted, or is that stock height?

 

[mdcoa]

That's actually kind of a timeless look. Like you said, not for everyone, but I've been running 255s for a while and the skinny look doesn't bother me at all.

Are you lifted, or is that stock height?

Slightly lifted. We have Dobinson C59 223V springs (which I believe are listed as 80-series springs) in the back, which theoretically provide a 10mm lift--I think it's closer to 1.5" IRL. And cranked the fronts for 1.5' raise there, too. We also run airbags in the rear springs to keep us from getting saggy-butt when fully loaded with our family of 5 and 9 billion pounds of camping gear for said family of 5.