Anyone running 255/85's?

[Coastal]

Hello All- new to the board, great info - I have a '74 FJ40 and just picked up a '00 100 series with 50k and already figured out my exhaust leak at start up is not an exhaust leak at all, but my cat shields rattling!

Anyway, I am in desperate need of new tires..... Anyone running 255/85's? should be pretty close to 33" x 10" - thought it would help a little on mpg and i like the 'pizza cutter' look of the 33x9.5 on my FJ. This truck will not see serious off -road for the forseeable future. Any comments / concerns with that tire size? Will they fit with no modification?

 

[hoser]

Welcome, Coastal! There has been a couple of recent threads on this size tire in the 80's section. Do a search and you'll see. That size tire should work fine as long as the load capacity is similiar or greater than stock. Yes, that size will fit w/o mods.

I hate to suggest it but if the vehicle isn't going off-road and you want better mileage, you might want to consider highway tires. Eek.

 

[Coastal]

Hoser

Hoser - thanks for the welcome... i will check out hte 80 board. in all honesty highway tires would get me thru 99% of where i am going to be taking this vehicle, but i just cannot get myself to run highway tires -

 

[calamaridog]

Those tires are very narrow and I believe they will be unsafe on a heavy UZJ100. For a smaller, lighter vehicle, say a Tacoma or a Jeep Wrangler, those are a good compromise between pavement and off road. The stock size had a larger tread width, I can't imagine going narrower.

We have several good tire threads around here so do a search. Many people go with 285 75r16's, which look good and handle fairly well too.

And btw, welcome.

 

[hoser]

Calamari, narrow tires can have a higher load capacity than wider tires. It really depends on the tire's construction and design. A narrow tire can also give better grip in the rain and snow with less road noise and less rolling resistance. The stock size is a compromise and while most of us "upgrade" and go wider and taller, one could "upgrade" and go narrower. Depends on our usage.

Here's the same specs I posted on the Revo's in another thread. Take a look comparing 265's to a 285's--both Revos. This particular 265 has better load capacity and a higher speed rating than the 285. I would guess it is also "safer."

265/75 RR16
123/120R E
3415 lbs.
80 psi
16/32"
54 lbs. 7-8"
7.5"
10.6"
8.1"
31.8"

285/75 RR16
122/119R D
3305 lbs.
65 psi
17/32"
54 lbs. 7.5-9"
8"
11.5"
8.7"
33"

 

[calamaridog]

I understand narrow tires can have a high weight rating, like the ones I ran on my 2, 3, and 5 ton trucks. They also had 12-14 plys

I also know the tread width that is narrower and the tire sidewall that is taller will affect the handling characteristics of the vehicle. These changes will be more severe on a heavy vehicle, such as the UZJ100, than they were on my Tacoma.

I ran the 255 85r16 tires on my Tacoma before. The handling was not as good as the wider and lower 265 70r16's. The difference was not severe but I suspect it would be on the heavier vehicle.

So in this case, I'm not at all concerned about weight capacity but more about handling characteristics. Just food for thought

 

[Pskhaat]

I would think the 255/85s would work great. They are generally work tires and I would personally have reservations (in fact an inclination) about running them on my future 100.

I've always been a fan of the tall and skinnies and think they perform fantastic in snow and dry.

 

[hoser]

So in this case, I'm not at all concerned about weight capacity but more about handling characteristics. Just food for thought

Got it. I didn't go with 37's either cuz I need my cruiser to hang some turns.

 

[Grouseman]

Hoser,

You seem to have the fact about the Revos. I have an 80 series Cruiser. I want to go with a tall and skinny tire. Which of the three 265's would you go with and why? I want a little more ground clearance and hopefully a little more mpg. 98% of my driving will be on the interstate. 2% off road Expedition style, logging roads mainly, no rocks.

Grouseman

 

[Greg B]

I think they will be fine too. A few years back, I ran them on a LR Disco Series 2 that was heavily laden with bumpers, sliders, etc. and thought they performed/handled just as well as the 265x75's MT's that they replaced. I plan on using this same tire for my spare on the 100. An 8" wheel is within the recommended range posted by BFG. They can handle the weight just fine and I don't think the handling will be any worse than a 285x75. I personally think they will track straighter than the wider tire. Just my .02.

 

[hoser]

Which of the three 265's would you go with and why? I want a little more ground clearance and hopefully a little more mpg. 98% of my driving will be on the interstate. 2% off road Expedition style, logging roads mainly, no rocks.

Grouseman, from what you've stated, I'm going to recommend the 285/75-16 and here's why. Pull up this post and follow what I'm saying: https://forum.ih8mud.com/showpost.php?p=695092&postcount=12

Out of the three 265's, you want to choose one that meets or exceeds OEM specs. The first 265 has a load index of 112 (2469) vs OEM 114 (2601lbs) so it's out of the runnings. So it's between the 2nd and 3rd 265. The second one is what they'd probably recommend at a tire shop since it has the same load index AND speed rating as OEM. Though you may never travel faster than 112mph, it is a good indication of the tires construction.

The 3rd 265 size tire is a load E tire which would be the choice if you were carrying very heavy loads, towing or expedition traveling. This tire should have better puncture resistance but the downside is ride quality and weight. This tire weighs 9lbs more per tire (54lbs vs 45lbs) and coincidentally weighs the same as the 285's. Now if you are 98% on the highway, then the harsher ride might not be what you want nor the lower gas mileage and harsher ride (not only because of tire construction but because of upsprung weight).

I am recommending the 285 because its load ratings fit a slot between the 2nd and 3rd 265. You also said you wanted more ground clearance. The 265's are only 0.5" taller than stock--0.25" increase in ride height. The 285's are 1.7" taller than stock.

I'm not an expert at this but you asked for my thoughts. In short, I've used the 285 Revo's on my 80 and I liked them.