This should be a nice size for the 200 when mounted on the Rock Warrior wheels. Specs are 33.5" tall w/ an 8.8" wide tread, 10.5" section width. Metric conversion is 265/80R17… a little bigger the KM2 Mud Terrain, with nicer road manners,
BFG KO2 34x10.5r17lt
- Thread starter bjowett
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I've had my eyes out on these but doubt I'll find that size when the ko2 finally hit the shores here.
The 17" TRD wheels also fit up fine on the LX570 correct? I was pretty sure the LC/LX brakes are essentially identical, possibly same part numbers? It looks to me like on lowest AHC LX setting, the vehicle could still negotiate a parking deck/garage with just enough room in the fender liners. Then out on a trail, "lift" up for any rougher sections creating more room for wheel articulation and turning clearances.
What I wonder is if the "normal" 2" or so lift on a LC200 ends up roughly to about the same max height provided by the LX AHC system ???
I realize there are other pros and cons comparing LX AHC to LC normal dampers, steel springs, and KDSS function. It also seems like splitting hairs really in the end picture of true capability. Issues of reliability or consequences aside, the AHC seems like the best of everything mixed together. Unlike my Land Rover air suspension, which will totally strand you if air system fails and tires are larger than 32", the LX (for north America) still has steel springs, so even in worst case scenario, how bad could it really be with the steel springs still holding you u? I realize vehicle load plays a major part in that last question and that building an LX too heavy, should also include sourcing the armored versions of the system. Thus, where it starts to become annoyingly complicated or investment.
I am drawn to the LX, probably because I've come to really enjoy the functions my LR3 air suspension provides (low for decent road handling, high when needed, quite high by way of my aftermarket electronic tools that allow on-demand max height or slammed height for getting into a garage). I've driven the LX and it's hard to not want the plush ride of the AHC suspension. Even in "comfort" setting for the dampers, it handles hard twisting mtn roads very well, much better than my LR (although, the trade off is my LR has a lot more wheel articulation)
What I wonder is if the "normal" 2" or so lift on a LC200 ends up roughly to about the same max height provided by the LX AHC system ???
I realize there are other pros and cons comparing LX AHC to LC normal dampers, steel springs, and KDSS function. It also seems like splitting hairs really in the end picture of true capability. Issues of reliability or consequences aside, the AHC seems like the best of everything mixed together. Unlike my Land Rover air suspension, which will totally strand you if air system fails and tires are larger than 32", the LX (for north America) still has steel springs, so even in worst case scenario, how bad could it really be with the steel springs still holding you u? I realize vehicle load plays a major part in that last question and that building an LX too heavy, should also include sourcing the armored versions of the system. Thus, where it starts to become annoyingly complicated or investment.
I am drawn to the LX, probably because I've come to really enjoy the functions my LR3 air suspension provides (low for decent road handling, high when needed, quite high by way of my aftermarket electronic tools that allow on-demand max height or slammed height for getting into a garage). I've driven the LX and it's hard to not want the plush ride of the AHC suspension. Even in "comfort" setting for the dampers, it handles hard twisting mtn roads very well, much better than my LR (although, the trade off is my LR has a lot more wheel articulation)
- Thread starter
- #4
Yes, they fit the 13.4" brakes on the 200 and LX570 just fine. In fact, they have enough room to run the 14" brakes.
I'd love to build some longer travel shocks for the LX… it might be possible to accomplish with the stock mono tubes.
I'd love to build some longer travel shocks for the LX… it might be possible to accomplish with the stock mono tubes.
But how would that mix with the dampers getting pressurized comfort to sport ? I am understanding it correctly right, these are not normal dampers with some other means of lower and lifting right? Looking into that area underneath all I see are steel springs and dampers, no other means of the doing the lowering/lifting.
I was starting to consider an LR4....but fully optioned LR4 2013 is $57,ooo and LX 570 2013 or LC 200 are close enough it's almost impossible to feel like the LR4 is right thing to do.
I was starting to consider an LR4....but fully optioned LR4 2013 is $57,ooo and LX 570 2013 or LC 200 are close enough it's almost impossible to feel like the LR4 is right thing to do.
- Thread starter
- #7
The dampers themselves are simple mono tubes with very large shafts. The large shafts are what allows the pressure in the system to support the vehicles variable height. All pressure and part of the damping are controlled in other parts of the system. Increasing the length of the shaft and tube to accommodate it is all that is required to get more droop travel. The real question is… does the system have enough hydraulic fluid in reserve to not only fill the extra volume in the dampers, but drain them on the full compression? To a point, it should, there won't be a ton added. If we can get our hands on a few of the hard parts, we can do the math.
Now, with that said, as arich mentions, would it be worth the price…. ?
Now, with that said, as arich mentions, would it be worth the price…. ?
- Thread starter
- #8
A set of the 34x10.5R17 is on the way. I was hoping to surpass arich's shock purchases, but this will only be the 4th set of tires for this rig. I may regret replacing the Cooper A/TW, it is an all around excellent tire, hopefully BFG has upped the K02s game.
Pics, pics and lots of pics!
Ill subscribe to see some of these on an LC. On the FJs they just dont ever look that much bigger than stock even though I know they are!
These are them on a lifted FJ. Pic stolen from FJCforums.
another:
The above guy took measurements and was pretty consistently 0.75" taller on each corner compared to stock 265/70/17s. I feel like real-life measurements are only around 33" tall at best if that is the case
These are them on a lifted FJ. Pic stolen from FJCforums.
another:
The above guy took measurements and was pretty consistently 0.75" taller on each corner compared to stock 265/70/17s. I feel like real-life measurements are only around 33" tall at best if that is the case
Oh, btw, not proud of that. Just haven't found the perfect setup.
The TRDs with the KO2s have definitely gotten the LC away from the Highlander look but they are heavy and affect the ride quality.
The TRDs with the KO2s have definitely gotten the LC away from the Highlander look but they are heavy and affect the ride quality.
That's funny, I currently have 4 sets of wheels and tires for my LR3
(20: summer general use, winter, bfg set small enough to allow snow chains, and now the new AT KO2 in a 32")
@arich , the first step is admitting you have a problem.
- Thread starter
- #18
Just had one mounted on the 17 x 8" RW wheel. Circumference measures 104", which gives it a diameter of 33.1". A little shy there BFG, a little shy.
Little mans disease - ha - jk