BFG KO2 in 34X12.50X18 on 200 with 2.5" lift

[HunterBoy9]

I know this question and or discussion has probably taken place 1000 times here, but a quick search didn't find it. I am about to buy some new tires for my wife's 2013 200. Recently put the OME 2.5" standard lift on it. Her original wheels are still in use. Currently the 285/60/18 street tires look puny in the gap. Is going to a 34X12.50X18 KO2 too much? Anybody with this setup?

 

[M1911]

Do you have a rear bumper on it? I doubt a 34” will fit in the spare location under the truck.

 

[Willy beamin]

those KO2's run small -
34X12.50R18LT
121R E BSW 33.5" 12.5" 8.5-11" 10" 15/32" E - 10 ply 3195 lbs 65 psi 106 mph 63.4 lbs Black 621

 

[619TOY]

I think the 12.5 will be a bigger rubbing issue than the 33.5. Especially with stock wheels and control arms.

But a 34 will definitely fit in the stock spare location.

 

[HunterBoy9]

I think the 12.5 will be a bigger rubbing issue than the 33.5. Especially with stock wheels and control arms.

But a 34 will definitely fit in the stock spare location.

OME 2.5 also has new UCA's

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

You will have to run wheel spacers. No doubt about it.

 

[TexAZ]

Check the wheel/tire size database. haven't looked at it in a while, but if someone's run that size or the metric equivalent it should be listed there.

That is a wide tire for the cruiser wheelwell/suspension components. with the stock rims at 60mm offset the tire will likely rub the KDSS bar.
Probably going to take some trimming/bending of the wheel well liner as well, mostly just plastic, no biggie there.

Are you getting the tires from a shop that will let you mount one and cycle through the range of motion of the steering?
if you really want the 12.50 width, I'd go into it with wheel spacers in hand or ready to buy aftermarket wheels with 20-30 mm of offset.

FWIW, 295/70/18 listed as 34.3 is about the biggest tire you can fit in the stock spare location.

 

[TeCKis300]

Readily doable! And most definitely will fit in the spare location. May hang down a tad below the bumper, but will be fine.

I run a 305/55/20 tire. Which is 33.2" x 12.3". Your proposed tire is only .3" larger and .2" wider.

You'll want a .75" or 1" spacer on stock wheels to achieve an offset of ~30 to ~40. Some trimming of the wheel well should do it.

Only unknown for me as I'm an LX570, is the KDSS bar. From larger 35" tire fitments that the LC guys run, you should be fine with clearance against that with those spacers/offset.

 

[HunterBoy9]

Looking more like going with the 275/70/18. Should have zero issues with this one.

 

[Volunteer]

Looking more like going with the 275/70/18. Should have zero issues with this one.

Thats what I run you won't have any issues there.

 

[M1911]

Looking more like going with the 275/70/18. Should have zero issues with this one.

I have 285/65-18 with no lift. Works fine.

 

[mcgaskins]

Another good size is 285/70/18 which is what I run on my 16. Very very slight rub on KDSS at full lock, but not bad enough to worry about. No idea what your goal is and if you wheel, but if you want to play safe just go 285/65/18 or 275/70/18.

 

[TimCFJ40]

Looking up the 34x12.50R18 BFGs, I'm not sure I'd spend an extra $125 over the 275/70 R18 to get a very slightly taller and wider tire...

 

[Markuson]

Width will be the challenge. Not height.

I run 35x12.5x17...and their actual height is barely over 34”. Running 0.75” Bora spacers now and not bad...but under full compression in turns I can still rub a bit. When my 35’s were worn...they fit well. -Then I swapped in new tires with 100% tread and rubs here and there returned.

Your tires should still be shorter than my worn 35’s were...so you’ll fare better. KDSS rub at full lock will most likely be a thing due to width.

If you are running stock wheels, they are 60mm offset. You’ll probably need a 1” spacer or so. Maybe 1.25. I’m on Riack Warriors which are 50mm offset...so .75” is ok for me.

 

[TeCKis300]

I see a bunch of smaller FJ's out there running meatier tires than we run. My wussy non-lifted LX runs meatier tires. Mark's rig is proof that bigger still is possible.

More BEEF is my vote.

I can get into all the practical reasons why it's useful for more flotation, especially when aired down.

All I got now is that it looks righteous.

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

I see a bunch of smaller FJ's out there running meatier tires than we run. My wussy non-lifted LX runs meatier tires. Mark's rig is proof that bigger still is possible.

More BEEF is my vote.

I can get into all the practical reasons why it's useful for more flotation, especially when aired down.

All I got now is that it looks righteous.

As a guy who ran an FJ for a decade, the 200 can take a slightly larger tire without rub.

Also, 12.5” wide is not providing any floatation. Tall and skinny win the day, everyday, when there is traction below the surface (which I promise no one is boggin’ a 200, just too much weight and too little power). When airing down, tire tread stretches long ways, not wide ways. Which is why wider tires are almost always worthless off road.

When I was in college, doing mud drag racing in Florida, we had to go to 16+” wide for a 2,500 lbs truck with over 800 HP to provide any floatation. Also look at arctic trucks, again, real flotation happens much, much wider than tiny little foot wide tire width.

 

[TeCKis300]

Sorry to the OP if we have some fun with this and take a tangent.

As a guy who ran an FJ for a decade, the 200 can take a slightly larger tire without rub.

Also, 12.5” wide is not providing any floatation. Tall and skinny win the day, everyday, when there is traction below the surface (which I promise no one is boggin’ a 200, just too much weight and too little power). When airing down, tire tread stretches long ways, not wide ways. Which is why wider tires are almost always worthless off road.

When I was in college, doing mud drag racing in Florida, we had to go to 16+” wide for a 2,500 lbs truck with over 800 HP to provide any floatation. Also look at arctic trucks, again, real flotation happens much, much wider than tiny little foot wide tire width.

The idea with tires has always been about maximizing footprint, I don't disagree. I don't even disagree with tall and skinny in certain contexts. I would think that most of us expect our cruisers to do everything, and do it well. Yet this off-road crawler tall/skinny meme is so misplaced that people forget our rigs can be great in everything!

Flotation is relative. Just because we can't float in mud bog mud, doesn't mean we can't float better in mud/sand/dirt/snow with taller AND wider tires that have the maximum footprint.

The real real interpretation of tall and skinny is to go taller first. If you can go taller still by giving up some width, okay. But if you can go as tall as you reasonably want while also gaining in width, even better! No need to constrain ourselves in one dimension.

Many of our cars live on asphalt a significant part of the time. I can guarantee you if you give up width, you'll lose cornering traction. Nevermind that one has already given up significant traction by going with an A/T tread, and lifting. Width helps cornering in dirt too.

Look at fat tire bikes. Tires there have gone as tall as they reasonably can. Yet now, the opportunity is WIDTH. And it makes for a bike that can comfortably tackle so much more varied terrains competently by, maximizing footprint.

 

[TimCFJ40]

Look at fat tire bikes. Tires there have gone as tall as they reasonably can. Yet now, the opportunity is WIDTH. And it makes for a bike that can comfortably tackle so much more varied terrains competently by, maximizing footprint.

Actually, while the rage with "Fat Tire Bikes" Started going wider with the true Fat bikes (4-5" Width Tires), for any use other than Sand or Snow, the trend has gradually reversed. After Fat Bikes, the new "Mid Fat" Standard emerged (2.8-3" Width) and caught on, now the whole scene is settling in on 2.3-2.6" tires on slightly wider than the old standard rims as being the best for everything other than Snow and Sand. And if you've ever ridden all of those different widths, there's more drawback in real world application to the heavy fat tires except for in very specific applications.

I think Truck Tires really experienced the same. Back in the early days of modifying trucks for offroad, wider was always assumed better (Think 14+" wide Swampers and Boggers), then the Overland crowd started experiencing the benefit of ligher taller narrow tires (255/85s, 235/85s, etc) and now most are running something in the middle.

For me the question would come down to whether these boutique sizes have any real benefit for the .2" of difference from more standard sized tires. For the price of the 34x12.50R18 KO2 you could likely find some used RWs and put on 285/75/17 K02s, and at least gain some sidewall height for deflection. Or, Put on a 275/70R18, and have 8 extra tanks of fuel (10 if you do the spare) to go have fun.

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

Flotation is relative. Just because we can't float in mud bog mud, doesn't mean we can't float better in mud/sand/dirt/snow with taller AND wider tires that have the maximum footprint.

Absolutely, it’s relative to the weight of the vehicle. What’s not relative is how tires work when aired down.

When aired down, tire thread surface area increased along the tread, not side to side. And a wider tire, will require more deflation, to get to the same surface area on the ground, as a taller and skinnier tire with more inflation.

Example, 18,000 pound armored HMMWVs, use a 37x12.5r16.5 tire at 21 psi in the road. The engineers could make any size tire they want, but facts prove that if you want more traction, taller with just enough width to match the weight makes the foot print much larger than. Just think that our vehicles with less than half the weight, and people put the same width tire on?

In other words, you’re loosing more load capacity, and stability because less force is applied to the ground from a wider tire when going strait. Which makes digging down the soft surface of whatever terrain you are on, and actually finding traction, much harder. And THAT is why not going wider than factory is the best.

Plus I’ve ran so many different tires on very different weight vehicles, climbing up crap that you couldn’t even walk up. Stock width, with as tall as you can go, just works the best, over and over again.

When cornering, I cannot disagree with you, what I can say is that Toyota engineers found the sweet spot, a 285mm tire works the best.

Then we get into the added stress and wear of wheel bearings with wide tires and low off set wheels that are required to run them.

But whatever, people will do what they like. @Rick Rodgers , being your wife’s car, I’m guessing it will never go off road, so rub under articulation isn’t a factor. The truck isn’t going fast around anything, so again not a factor.

All you are really looking at is harder to stay in final gear T/C locked when in the highway and more meat to spin, so fuel economy will go down around 2 mpg. But driving a Land Cruiser, I don’t think any of us care about fuel economy.

If you were looking at the 34x12.5r18 (33.5x12.5) consider the 305/65r18 (33.6x12.2). Little taller, little thinner, and 1.5 pounds lighter. All around better.

Plus around $55 CHEAPER per tire! (According to tire rack)

 

[linuxgod]

I see a bunch of smaller FJ's out there running meatier tires than we run. My wussy non-lifted LX runs meatier tires. Mark's rig is proof that bigger still is possible.

More BEEF is my vote.

I can get into all the practical reasons why it's useful for more flotation, especially when aired down.

All I got now is that it looks righteous.

I want your garage, @TeCKis300.