Shopping for wheels and tires and these could fit the bill but would love to see pics of them on a 200. TIA
SCS SR8 wheels 18x9
SCS SR8 wheels 18x9
Anyone running SCS SR8 wheels on their 200? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter sickspeed
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
gaijin
GOLD Star
Max Load for those wheels is listed as 2200 pounds - that's 312 pounds LESS than the recommended Load Limit for the stock P285/60R18 tires on a LC200. This would make the wheels the weak link in the suspension system - probably not a good idea.
HTH
Taco2Cruiser
Crazy American Off Road
Check out this thread that discusses that particular wheel.
Stealth Custom Series Wheels - Possible RW replacement?
@gaijin brings up some real safety concerns about that wheels load rating. He is our resident guru on that stuff, and I amongst some others rely on his knowledge to stay safe.
Edit: haha, I knew gaijin would feel a twitch in the universe and beat me to a response, good stuff.
Stealth Custom Series Wheels - Possible RW replacement?
@gaijin brings up some real safety concerns about that wheels load rating. He is our resident guru on that stuff, and I amongst some others rely on his knowledge to stay safe.
Edit: haha, I knew gaijin would feel a twitch in the universe and beat me to a response, good stuff.
- Thread starter
- #5
Thanks for the replies. I know that a ton of people are running SCS wheels on Tacomas and 4runners but there are also a few people running them on 100-series LCs and Tundras too, which are similar in mass.
I suspect there is a units issue in comparing max load ratings between wheels and tires though. The weight of a lighter wheel (unsprung weight) compared to the stock wheels can be a factor too.
The 200 is roughly 6k pounds. I had been considering Method wheels as well and their popular NV (Seen several on 200s) has a max load rating listed as 2500 lb. Oddly, I was leaning towards the Method Double Standard, which somehow has a listed rating of 3600 lb. I guess I will ping SCS as well and get their thoughts.
From SCS on another thread:
"Even if you take in account the GAWR, you'll exceed that load before maxing out the wheel's load rating. Even at 2200lbs, there's also a safety margin that's not accounted for in the rating.
This model was developed to cater towards the 2nd and 3rd gen Tundra hence the reason why we choose this specific load rating. Other wheel companies create one mold and uses that same mold to offer wheels in different bolt pattern to suit midsize and fullsize trucks. For instance, there are a lot of Tacoma trucks out there that run wheels with a load rating of 2500-3000lbs, this is overkill. You're just adding unnecessary unsprung weight. A lighter set of wheels/tires can help in braking and acceleration especially if you're going from super heavy steel wheels to alloy wheels."
I suspect there is a units issue in comparing max load ratings between wheels and tires though. The weight of a lighter wheel (unsprung weight) compared to the stock wheels can be a factor too.
The 200 is roughly 6k pounds. I had been considering Method wheels as well and their popular NV (Seen several on 200s) has a max load rating listed as 2500 lb. Oddly, I was leaning towards the Method Double Standard, which somehow has a listed rating of 3600 lb. I guess I will ping SCS as well and get their thoughts.
From SCS on another thread:
"Even if you take in account the GAWR, you'll exceed that load before maxing out the wheel's load rating. Even at 2200lbs, there's also a safety margin that's not accounted for in the rating.
This model was developed to cater towards the 2nd and 3rd gen Tundra hence the reason why we choose this specific load rating. Other wheel companies create one mold and uses that same mold to offer wheels in different bolt pattern to suit midsize and fullsize trucks. For instance, there are a lot of Tacoma trucks out there that run wheels with a load rating of 2500-3000lbs, this is overkill. You're just adding unnecessary unsprung weight. A lighter set of wheels/tires can help in braking and acceleration especially if you're going from super heavy steel wheels to alloy wheels."
gaijin
GOLD Star
There's a lot wrong with this quote.
Let's start with a quote from the Year Book of the Tire and Rim Association, Inc. (The Tire and Rim Association, Inc.) whose purposes include the establishment and promulgation of interchangeability standards for tires, rims and allied parts for the guidance of manufacturers of motor vehicles, aircraft and other wheeled vehicles and equipment, and governmental and other regulatory bodies:
RIM AND WHEEL LOAD AND INFLATION INFORMATION
IMPORTANT - Rim dimensions are standardized by The Tire and Rim Association for size and contour only, and particular tire and rim combinations are designated to assure proper mounting and fit of the tire to the rim. The load and cold inflation pressure imposed on the rim and wheel must not exceed the rim and wheel manufacturer's recommendations even though the tire may be approved for a higher load or inflation.
In the case of a LC200, the "load and cold inflation pressure imposed on the rim and wheel" is 2,512 pounds and 33psi for the stock P285/60R18 tires. This exceeds the 2,200 pound Max Load specified by SCS. This is not acceptable.
The rear GAWR on an LC200 is 4,300 pounds:
Generally, the GAWR should not exceed 87% of the combined Load Limit of the tire/wheel combination on that axle leaving a Safety Margin of 13%. In the case of our rear axles, this means that 4,300 pounds should not exceed 87% of 2,512 pounds times 2 = 5,024 pounds, and it does not (4300 / (2*2512) = 85.6%) which leaves a Safety Margin of 14.4%.
However, if the wheels are limited to 2,200 pounds, then the calculation becomes 4300/(2*2200) = 97.7% and results in an unsafe safety margin of only 2.3%.
To me, it is clear that the SCS wheels under discussion are not suitable for use on a LC200.
HTH
You can't argue with that! Thanks for the info. This forum continues toThere's a lot wrong with this quote.
Let's start with a quote from the Year Book of the Tire and Rim Association, Inc. (The Tire and Rim Association, Inc.) whose purposes include the establishment and promulgation of interchangeability standards for tires, rims and allied parts for the guidance of manufacturers of motor vehicles, aircraft and other wheeled vehicles and equipment, and governmental and other regulatory bodies:
RIM AND WHEEL LOAD AND INFLATION INFORMATION
IMPORTANT - Rim dimensions are standardized by The Tire and Rim Association for size and contour only, and particular tire and rim combinations are designated to assure proper mounting and fit of the tire to the rim. The load and cold inflation pressure imposed on the rim and wheel must not exceed the rim and wheel manufacturer's recommendations even though the tire may be approved for a higher load or inflation.
In the case of a LC200, the "load and cold inflation pressure imposed on the rim and wheel" is 2,512 pounds and 33psi for the stock P285/60R18 tires. This exceeds the 2,200 pound Max Load specified by SCS. This is not acceptable.
The rear GAWR on an LC200 is 4,300 pounds:
Generally, the GAWR should not exceed 87% of the combined Load Limit of the tire/wheel combination on that axle leaving a Safety Margin of 13%. In the case of our rear axles, this means that 4,300 pounds should not exceed 87% of 2,512 pounds times 2 = 5,024 pounds, and it does not (4300 / (2*2512) = 85.6%) which leaves a Safety Margin of 14.4%.
However, if the wheels are limited to 2,200 pounds, then the calculation becomes 4300/(2*2200) = 97.7% and results in an unsafe safety margin of only 2.3%.
To me, it is clear that the SCS wheels under discussion are not suitable for use on a LC200.
HTH
Impress
tl; dr - we should be using 2755# as the factory wheel rating, not 2512#.
The Lowell's Australian GVM upgrade increases the GVWR from 3300kg to 3800kg with only suspension upgrades (Update - Lovells GVM Upgrade for Landcruiser 200 Series - RVeeThereYet.com). That increases the per-axle capacity as shown below. Note that in their tire loading info it shows an increased maximum tire load of 1250kg (2755#). Since the GVM upgrade is approved by the Australian government, I would think that the factory wheels are good to at least 2755#, otherwise new wheels would have been included.
By the calculation that @gaijin shows above, that's 2000kg / (2*1250kg) = 80%, which is a 20% margin of safety.
The Lowell's Australian GVM upgrade increases the GVWR from 3300kg to 3800kg with only suspension upgrades (Update - Lovells GVM Upgrade for Landcruiser 200 Series - RVeeThereYet.com). That increases the per-axle capacity as shown below. Note that in their tire loading info it shows an increased maximum tire load of 1250kg (2755#). Since the GVM upgrade is approved by the Australian government, I would think that the factory wheels are good to at least 2755#, otherwise new wheels would have been included.
By the calculation that @gaijin shows above, that's 2000kg / (2*1250kg) = 80%, which is a 20% margin of safety.
gaijin
GOLD Star
OK, there's a lot of good info here, but it looks like we might have some confusion about the terms being used.
A "Maximum Load Rating" is not the same as a "Load Limit." My calcs (and the standards) are based on Load Limit which is the mass a tire can safely support at the specified Cold Tire Inflation Pressure.
Let's examine the elements of the table you posted.
The tire size specified is not an LT-metric tire. A good example of a tire that meets the specs in the table would be the Yokohama Geolander A/T-S (see it here: Yokohama Geolandar A/T-S) Click on the "Specs" tab in the link and note that this tire has a Maximum Load Rating of 2,756 pounds (1,250 kg) @51psi, a Load Index of 116, and a Speed Category of H - all of which meet the tire requirements in the table.
However, at the Cold Tire Inflation Pressure of 230kPa (33psi) specified in the table, the Load Limit for that tire is 2,598 pounds. This makes the calc 4409 pounds (2000 kg)/(2*2598) = 84.9% which is a safety margin of 15.1%.
If "Load Carrying Capacity Per Axle" in the table is the same as GAWR, then we can make some interesting observations.
From my door placard posted above, the stock Front GAWR is 1630kg, the Rear GAWR is 1950kg, and the GVWR is 3345kg. Note that the total of the Front GAWR and the Rear GAWR is 3580 kg which is 235kg MORE than the GVWR. However, in the table you posted the Front GAWR is 1800kg, the Rear GAWR is 2000kg, and the GVWR (GVM) is 3800kg. In that case, the total of the Front GAWR and Rear GAWR is 3800kg which is exactly the same as the GVWR. I'm not sure exactly how to interpret this difference, but the data imply that Toyota was allowing some "safety margin" in the GAWR such that the rear could be loaded up to a limit and the front could be loaded up to a limit, but one could not load both up to their limits. With the aftermarket upgrade, however, both front and rear axles could be loaded to their respective limits at the same time.
Bottom line (maybe I should have led with this ...) is that stock P285/60R18 tires @33psi have a Load Limit of 2512 pounds and the "upgrade" 285/65R17 tires @33psi (230kPa) have a Load Limit of 2598 pounds.
If you want to use 2598 pounds as a minimum Load Rating for a wheel instead of 2512 pounds, that's great ... as far as it goes. But (and this is a big "But") I think we should be using some number GREATER than the maximum expected tire Load Limit as an acceptable Load Rating for any wheel. I don't know what this number should be, but if we expect a tire Load Limit of 2598 pounds in practice, then I would expect that a wheel Load Rating should be 2598 plus some safety margin. What frustrates me is that I am unable to find a Load Rating for the stock Toyota wheels or the TRD 17" RW wheels. If I knew what the Toyota Load Ratings were, than the safety margin would become apparent and we could confidently use it as a selection criterion for aftermarket wheels. Since we can't do that, then we are kind of stuck using the expected MAXIMUM TIRE LOAD LIMIT as the MINIMUM WHEEL LOAD RATING. I emphasize, that this would be the MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE wheel Load Rating and I would prefer a wheel Load Rating somewhat higher.
I hope that's clear - I'm still on my first cup of coffee.
HTH
Ah ok, yes I used them interchangably. I guess I should google to understand the difference.
That was my assumption from the data as well.
Agreed. Just wanted to point out that the maximum weight the factory wheels can handle is apparently higher than the minimum we've been assuming. A lot of those in the forum armor up and many will exceed the GVWR at some point, so perhaps the extra info can help everyone better assess their rig's capabilities.
As always, thanks @gaijin!
What wheel rating do we need ideally? I'm in contact with American Eagle and told them what we're doing with our rigs and they requested an ideal weight rating.....
What is the 200 weight approx. with gear, bumpers etc?
What is the 200 weight approx. with gear, bumpers etc?
- Thread starter
- #13
My guess is between 6-8k lbs, stock-built.
It sounds like most of the concern is focused on maintaining safety margin over the listed values, which I'm assuming already contain some safety margin. If a wheel has a max load rating of 2,200 lbs and a stock 200 is roughly 6k lbs, the wheels should generally work, no? Or are we assuming no margin and a scenario where one wheel is loaded much more than the others? And why are so many people able to run wheels with similar ratings on their 4runners, Tundras, and 100s with no known defects?
The math is tellin me no but my eyes are tellin me yes...
Assuming no passengers or cargo, yes 5800#. Assuming your 200 requires an actual driver and you don't cruise around completely empty, much more than 6k. Cargo and big biological bags of water (humans) adds up very quickly.
So for me I want a wheel as strong or stronger than stock 200 series. So where does that put us? that eleminates much of the aftermarket, especially for the 200 bolt pattern and specs.....how do stock Tundra, Rock warrior etc.. compare strength wise?
gaijin
GOLD Star
No. Bone stock tires are required to support 2,512 pounds. Any wheel must be rated for AT LEAST that much. That's with absolutely ZERO "safety margin."
Honestly, if you have read my previous posts in this thread and still believe that a wheel with a Load Rating of 2200 pounds is good to go on a LC200 ... I don't know what more I can say.
It's your rig, of course. You are free to run whatever wheel/tire combination you desire.
HTH
- Thread starter
- #17
I read it and that's why I said that math makes me question certain wheels but i'm baffled as to why so many people are able to run the setups that they do without incident. A big part of your (reasonable) argument is based on the original equipment and other specs but I am wondering how conservative or specific those specs really are. Put differently, you're using the stock equipment as a baseline and comparing against those numbers. Meanwhile there's a few things that don't make sense. 1) how much does the weight of the wheel factor into the equation 2)why are some of the most common tire sizes run on the 200, e.g., 275-70-18 and 285-65-18 not listed as recommended 3)a new tundra weighs more than a 200 and yet many people are running wheels with sub 2400lbs ratings.
In any event, this is good dialogue and informative. it also seems to have been a topic of debate for a while.
2013 Land Cruiser on 20" Platinum Wheels
There are lots of wheels rated at 2500#. I'd personally be comfortable with those in lieu of stock wheels provided you're not putting more than 4300# on the rear axle. (Yes they're 12# less than the stock tires, but given the safety margin I'd be ok with that).
However, if you're more heavily armored, have 5 passengers, are towing, etc you may need to be able to handle more weight. In that case someone smarter than me (*cough*@gaijin*cough*) who also knows how much weight is on the front and rear axles of a stock LC could probably do a calculation to estimate the minimum weight rating required to handle bumpers, skids, winch, etc.
(my *guess* btw is 3k# would let you run ~5300# on the rear axle which is probably more than any LC is designed for, even after suspension upgrades, but WTF do I know)
edit: I'm not sure what the empty weight of each axle is but @damdifino posted this a few years back where he did a weight in while towing with an estimated 700-800# of tongue weight and had a rear axle weight of 3800#. "Went to a CAT scale close to home and got weights of: 3000 lb. steer axle, 3800 lb. drive axle and 5480 lb. trailer axle, for a GVW of 12,280 lbs". From Urgent: need advice on 200 series towing.
Last edited:
How many failures are too many? i.e. if you run a 2512# wheel you may see 0 failures. If you run a 2200# wheel you may see 5 or 10 failures in 10,000. (or maybe it's 500 failures in 10,000? I really don't know the rate). With relatively few failures you probably won't hear about them. And if you run them you might be fine because you might be one of the 9,990 who never experience a problem.
The question is what level of risk are you willing to accept? Since there are wheel options rated at 2500#+, why choose an inferior one rated at 1700 or 2200# and chance it? Do you really like that wheel style that much?
- Thread starter
- #20
Oh don't get me wrong; gaijin has made a pretty compelling case to not bother with a sub 2500 lbs wheel. I'm more just curious at this point.
It might be that there are no failures and that might be because the people running them simply don't manage to fail them with how they use their vehicle, mostly in road for instance. But the risk is still inherent at least in theory.
I do really like the SCS wheels though and would love to have them provide a counter case. However, I am also still liking the Method Double Standard but how is it possible that they are rated 1,000 lbs more than the Method NV in the same size, offset, and within a pound in mass?
Like I said, curious.
It might be that there are no failures and that might be because the people running them simply don't manage to fail them with how they use their vehicle, mostly in road for instance. But the risk is still inherent at least in theory.
I do really like the SCS wheels though and would love to have them provide a counter case. However, I am also still liking the Method Double Standard but how is it possible that they are rated 1,000 lbs more than the Method NV in the same size, offset, and within a pound in mass?
Like I said, curious.
